论文部分内容阅读
本文从GATT争端解决条文和实践出发 ,分析认为争端解决报告具有必须执行的拘束力 ,并批驳了美国学者认为争端解决报告可以用补偿或接受报复代替执行的观点。在争端解决报告对继后案件的效力上 ,分析认为由于GATT的传统 ,报告不被认为具有先例作用。但在关于报告是否构成《维也纳条约法公约》第 31条所指后续实践上 ,本文在争端解决报告认定和学者观点基础上 ,分析认为报告应属于后续实践并应在解释条约时考虑。文章最后指出我国应加强对报告的研究工作 ,以从容应对争端 ,并提出若干建议措施。
Based on the GATT dispute resolution provisions and practice, this article analyzes that the dispute settlement report has the necessary binding force and refutes the view that American scholars think the dispute settlement report can be compensated or retaliation instead of execution. On the validity of the dispute resolution report on subsequent cases, the analysis considers that the report is not considered a precedent due to the GATT tradition. However, in the follow-up practice as to whether the report constitutes Article 31 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, this article analyzes the findings of the dispute settlement report and the scholars’ point of view that the report should be considered as a follow-up practice and should be considered when interpreting the treaty. Finally, the article points out that our country should strengthen its research work on the report so as to calmly deal with the dispute and put forward some suggestions and measures.