论文部分内容阅读
由于服务的特殊性,对服务贸易的监管无法采取适用于货物贸易的关税措施,这种监管主要体现为各种层面的国内法律、法规及行政规章等。因此,在服务贸易领域存在的一个关键问题是这种国内监管对贸易自由化造成的影响。服务贸易总协定(GATS)承认各成员对其服务业的国内监管自主权,但为了避免这种自主权对贸易自由化造成不必要的障碍,在第6条规定了成员实施国内监管应当符合的纪律,但具体要求仍需要进一步谈判。本文从分析第6条的基本纪律入手,对该条规定的“必要性检验标准”进行了细致的讨论,之后着重探讨了GATS第6条与第16条规定的市场准入纪律之间的关系,后者直接反映了成员在推进服务贸易自由化方面的义务。关于二者之间的界限并不明确,本文尤其结合了WTO争端解决机构对“美国博彩案”作出的专家组和上诉机构报告,剖析如何界定二者的范围能够既不损害成员的国内监管自主权,同时又能实现服务贸易自由化的目标。
Due to the particularity of the service, the regulation of trade in services can not adopt the tariff measures applicable to the trade of goods. Such regulation mainly embodies domestic laws, regulations and administrative regulations at various levels. Therefore, a key issue in the area of trade in services is the impact of such domestic regulation on trade liberalization. The General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) recognizes members’ domestic regulatory autonomy over their services but, in order to avoid unnecessary impediments to trade liberalization by such autonomy, Article 6 provides that Members should implement domestic controls Discipline, but the specific requirements still need further negotiations. This article begins with the analysis of the basic discipline of Article 6 and discusses in detail the “Necessity Test Criteria ” stipulated in this Article. Then, the article mainly discusses the market access disciplines stipulated in Articles 6 and 16 of GATS The latter directly reflects the members’ obligations in promoting the liberalization of trade in services. The boundary between the two is not clear. In particular, this article combines the report of the panel and appellate body made by the WTO Dispute Settlement Body on the “American Gaming Case” and analyzes how to define the scope of both without damaging domestic members’ Regulate autonomy while achieving the goal of liberalization of trade in services.