论文部分内容阅读
公力救济权是WTO成员在别的成员滥用私力救济权后向争端解决机构援引救济的权利。DSU第3条第7款规定争端解决机构向申诉方提供的救济包括:要求被诉方撤回有关措施;同意被诉方向申诉方提供临时补偿;如果被诉方既不愿意撤回有关措施,又不愿意补偿,申诉方在争端解决机构的授权下,并且在歧视的基础上,中止对被诉方作出的关税减让和其它义务的承诺。实践证明,上述几种救济方法都无法有效地保护受损一方的利益。公力救济与私力救济是一种对立、统一关系。私力救济权的行使是WTO成员维护自身利益的需要,援引公力救济权也是为了保护WTO成员的利益。权利的制衡需要建立在权利对等的基础之上。因此,重视成员私力救济权的同时,亦不能忽略与之相对应的公力救济权的构建与完善,唯有如此,WTO贸易救济权才能真正发挥维护多边贸易体制健康发展的作用。
The right of public relief is the right of WTO members to invoke remedies to dispute settlement agencies after other members abuse their right to personal relief. Section 3 of Article 3 of the DSU stipulates that the remedies provided by the Dispute Settlement Body to the claimant include: requiring the respondent to withdraw the relevant measures; agreeing that the respondent party provide temporary compensation to the claimant; and if the respondent is neither willing to withdraw the relevant measure nor to Willing to compensate, the complainant, under the authority of the Dispute Settlement Body and on the basis of discrimination, suspended its commitment to the tariff concessions and other obligations of the respondent. Practice has proved that none of the above remedies can effectively protect the interests of the injured party. Public relief and private relief is a kind of opposition and unity. The exercise of the power of personal relief is the need of WTO members to safeguard their own interests. The invocation of the right of public relief also aims to protect the interests of WTO members. The balance of power needs to be based on equal rights. Therefore, paying attention to the member’s right of personal relief can not neglect the construction and improvement of the corresponding right of relief. Only in this way, can the WTO’s right to trade remedy truly play the role of safeguarding the healthy development of the multilateral trade system.