摘要
在反补贴调查中,对补贴行为主体"政府"和"公共机构"的界定是确定补贴利益是否存在的前提。由于多边规则缺乏可操作的明确规定,两者的认定主要体现在WTO成员方各自的国内立法和判例中。本文对美国、加拿大和欧盟立法和判例、WTO争端解决机构相关实践的分析表明,尽管主要成员认定标准的内容和适用略有差异,但内核基本一致、可操作性强,且为争端解决机构所采纳。鉴于此,除非WTO争端解决机构对"公共机构"作出新的解释,除非银行、土地和重要投入品部门的中国国有企业在股权多元化改革方面迈出新的实质性步伐,此类企业在国际反补贴争端中被认定为"公共机构"、其行为被视作"政府"行为的局面很难改观。
In the course of the anti-subsidy investigations,the definition of ＂government＂ and ＂public body＂ is a precondition for determining the existence of subsidy.As there is no operative provision in multilateral rules,WTO members＇ domestic rules and cases,particularly those of such dominant members as the U.S,Canada and EU,play the role.The analysis of such rules and cases indicates that though there are slight differences in contents and application,the core criteria defining ＂government＂ and ＂public body＂ are the same among those members and have been adopted by WTO dispute settlement body.Under such circumstances,the Chinese state-owned enterprises,particularly those in the sectors like banking,land and importance input manufacturing,can not avoid being treated as ＂government＂ or ＂public body＂,unless their equity diversification reform makes further substantive progress.
基金
上海市社会科学基金项目"WTO框架下中国的补贴与反补贴问题及对上海产业发展的影响"(项目编号:2007EGJ002)
关键词
反补贴
政府
公共机构
anti-subsidy
government
public body
