지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
논문 기본 정보
- 자료유형
- 학술저널
- 저자정보
- 발행연도
- 2018.5
- 수록면
- 93 - 111 (19page)
- DOI
- 10.35227/HYLR.2018.05.29.2.93
이용수
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
WTO Dispute Settlement Body, having the purpose in pursuit of peaceful settlement of disputes with respect to the trade, makes an effort to find positive and acceptable resolutions. This means that one of the major purposes of the Body is abolishing or moderating the measure at issue. For example, discriminatory measures might be the violation of the WTO agreements so that a relevant dispute party may take measures in the way of indiscrimination, in spite of the measure at issue having been taken by means of the exceptions of GATT article 20. Recent cases such as EC – Seal Products (2014), US – Tuna II (2012) as well as Brazil – Retreaded Tyres (2007) are applicable.
In each case, the discriminatory measures were available since they were justified by GATT article 20, but the panel and appellate body of WTO DSB did not allow those measures. The main issue was the next step as the implementation. Although those measures were supposed to be abolished, the practical implementation was quite different. Those measures were reinforced forward to the non-discriminatory strengthen ones. This resulted in the distorted implementation of the rulings by WTO DSB. Consequently, this was away from the cause of WTO.
As one of the main issues in this cases, WTO Dispute Settlement Body has just automatically applied the rationality test as the standard for assessing arbitrary and discriminatory measures. In Brazil – Tyres (2007) case as well as the other two cases, the measures at issue were not only fortified further but also enhanced non-discriminatorily. The panel and appellate body have surprising roles in changing public policies on each member state, connecting the rationality test to the consistency test. Specifically, when assessing the discriminatory measures, the Body did not consider any other particular circumstances and did disregard the principle of proportionality.
In these circumstances, practical implementations by relevant states would not appropriate for the purposes in WTO. Furthermore, this causes useless legal expenses as well as time wasting. Therefore, in case of that the measures at issue are justified by exceptions of GATT article 20, the measures should be allowed to some extent unless those measures would be abused. Therefore, WTO Dispute Settlement Body should take positive attitude and make persuasive and reasonable decisions. Ultimately, WTO member states and the other relevant states should negotiate the rules as well as might amend some of the rules.
In each case, the discriminatory measures were available since they were justified by GATT article 20, but the panel and appellate body of WTO DSB did not allow those measures. The main issue was the next step as the implementation. Although those measures were supposed to be abolished, the practical implementation was quite different. Those measures were reinforced forward to the non-discriminatory strengthen ones. This resulted in the distorted implementation of the rulings by WTO DSB. Consequently, this was away from the cause of WTO.
As one of the main issues in this cases, WTO Dispute Settlement Body has just automatically applied the rationality test as the standard for assessing arbitrary and discriminatory measures. In Brazil – Tyres (2007) case as well as the other two cases, the measures at issue were not only fortified further but also enhanced non-discriminatorily. The panel and appellate body have surprising roles in changing public policies on each member state, connecting the rationality test to the consistency test. Specifically, when assessing the discriminatory measures, the Body did not consider any other particular circumstances and did disregard the principle of proportionality.
In these circumstances, practical implementations by relevant states would not appropriate for the purposes in WTO. Furthermore, this causes useless legal expenses as well as time wasting. Therefore, in case of that the measures at issue are justified by exceptions of GATT article 20, the measures should be allowed to some extent unless those measures would be abused. Therefore, WTO Dispute Settlement Body should take positive attitude and make persuasive and reasonable decisions. Ultimately, WTO member states and the other relevant states should negotiate the rules as well as might amend some of the rules.
#WTO분쟁해결기구
#합리성 기준
#실제이행사례
#차별적 조치
#GATT 제20조
#EC – Seal Products (2014) 사건
#Brazil – Retreaded Tyres (2007) 사건
#US – Tuna II (2012) 사건
#WTO Dispute Settlement Body
#rationality test
#practical implementation of the ruling
#discriminatory measure
#GATT Article 20
#EC – Seal Products (2014) case
#Brazil – Retreaded Tyres (2007) case
#US – Tuna II (2012) case
목차
Ⅰ. 서론
Ⅱ. 문제된 WTO분쟁사건
Ⅲ. 판정 후 실제이행사례
Ⅳ. 결론
【참고문헌】
【Abstract】
참고문헌 (18)
참고문헌 신청
[단행본] - 최승환 / 2014 / 국제경제법 / 법영사
[학술지(정기간행물)] - 김민주 / 2014 / WTO 협정상 비례성원칙의 적용근거 / 국제법학회논총 59 (2) : 11 ~ 33
[학술지(정기간행물)] - 이길원 / 2014 / EU의 바다표범 제품의 수입금지에 관한 WTO 판례 연구 / 국제경제법연구 12 (1) : 57 ~ 87
[학술지(정기간행물)] - Alessandra Arcuri / 2012 / Back to the Future : US-Tuna II and the New Environment-Trade Debate / European Journal of Risk Regulation 3
[학술지(정기간행물)] - Chad P. Bown / 2009 / Brazil–Measures affecting imports of retreaded tyres: A balancing act / World Trade Review 8
[학술지(정기간행물)] - 김민주 / 2014 / WTO 협정상 비례성원칙의 적용근거 / 국제법학회논총 59 (2) : 11 ~ 33
[학술지(정기간행물)] - 이길원 / 2014 / EU의 바다표범 제품의 수입금지에 관한 WTO 판례 연구 / 국제경제법연구 12 (1) : 57 ~ 87
[학술지(정기간행물)] - Alessandra Arcuri / 2012 / Back to the Future : US-Tuna II and the New Environment-Trade Debate / European Journal of Risk Regulation 3
[학술지(정기간행물)] - Chad P. Bown / 2009 / Brazil–Measures affecting imports of retreaded tyres: A balancing act / World Trade Review 8
함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
WTO 분쟁해결기구(Dispute Settlement Body) 최신 동향
통상법률
2019 .08
-
WTO 분쟁해결 동향 : 2016년
통상법률
2016 .12
-
WTO 분쟁해결 동향: 2015년
통상법률
2015 .12
-
WTO 상소기구 제도의 성과와 한계
통상법률
2020 .02
-
WTO 분쟁해결의 효율성과 형평성 - 강대국의 성과에 대한 비교 검증 -
국제통상연구
2015 .01
-
Free Trade and the Environment under the GATT/WTO: Negative or Compatible Relationship?
JIAS
2021 .01
-
WTO 분쟁해결기구 판정의 효력에 관한 연구
미국헌법연구
2021 .08
-
미·중 전략경쟁하 WTO 다자체제의 전망과 정책 시사점
[KIEP] 중장기통상전략연구
2021 .12
-
WTO 분쟁해결절차상 “정부조치” 개념의 재조명 : 사인의 행위와 WTO 피제소 적격
통상법률
2017 .10
-
WTO ADJUDICATION@ me.too: Are Global Public Goods like the World Trade Organization Owned by Governments or by Peoples and Citizens?
JOURNAL OF EAST ASIA AND INTERNATIONAL LAW
2020 .05
-
국제통상법적 관점에서 미국의 일방적 대중(對中)통상압력에 대한 연구 : WTO 부속서 2 분쟁해결규칙 및 절차에 관한 양해를 중심으로
통상정보연구
2019 .03
-
WTO 다자간 무역규범체제에서의 환경보호의 규범적 실효성 : GATT 제20조 환경관련 무역분쟁 해결사례를 중심으로
국제경제법연구
2015 .07
-
인도의 미국산 태양전지ㆍ모듈 제품의 차별에 관한 WTO 판례 연구
미국헌법연구
2017 .12
-
WTO DSB의 운영 현황 분석을 통한 문제점 및 개선방안 연구
중재연구
2017 .01
-
중국이 제소한 WTO 분쟁사례에 대한 분석적 연구 : 미국 가금류 사건을 중심으로
무역학회지
2015 .08
-
GATT XX조 일반적 예외의 WTO 부속협정 적용 여부에 대한 고찰
국제경제법연구
2015 .03
-
WTO 분쟁해결제도의 이행절차 평가
통상법률
2020 .02
-
개발도상국에 있어서 WTO 분쟁해결시스템의 유용성
통상정보연구
2021 .06
-
국제통상분쟁의 사법적해결과 입증책임
아주법학
2021 .01
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2018-360-002233378