تبیین معیار ارزیابی رکن حل‌وفصل اختلاف سازمان تجارت جهانی

دانشنامه حقوق اقتصادی

مقاله 6، دوره 25، شماره 13، اردیبهشت 1397، صفحه 69-100   

نوع مقاله: علمی پژوهشی

شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22067/le.v25i14.63434

نویسندگان

علی رضایی^* ؛ میلاد امیری

شیراز

چکیده

رسیدگی به اختلافات اعضای سازمان تجارت جهانی در صلاحیت انحصاری شورای عمومی سازمان به‌عنوان رکن حل‌وفصل اختلاف است. رکن حل‌وفصل برای حل اختلاف ناگزیر از بررسی و تحقیق پیرامون مسئله مورد اختلاف است. سؤال این است که این مرجع با چه معیاری به ارزیابی اقدامات اعضا مبادرت می‌ورزد؟ آیا بدانچه قبلاً در سطح ملی صورت پذیرفته، پایبند است یا بدون توجه به آن، مسئله را مجدداً و از نو مورد بررسی قرار می­دهد؟ بسته به امور حکمی و موضوعی و موافقت‌نامه تحت پوشش، معیار ارزیابی نیز متفاوت است. در امور حکمی و قانونی، رکن حل‌وفصل چون درصدد اعمال یکنواخت مقررات سازمان است، در جهت تحقق این مهم گام بر می­دارد؛ هرچند به کنار گذاردن تصمیم نهاد ملی بینجامد؛ اما در امور موضوعی از بررسی مجدد، خودداری و ارزیابی خود را به احراز معقول و منطقی بودن فرایند رسیدگی در سطح ملی محدود می‌نماید.

کلیدواژه‌ها

ارزیابی نوعی؛ ارزیابی مبتنی بر احترام؛ ارزیابی مداخله گرانه؛ امور حکمی و موضوع

مراجع

[1] Ansari, Azam & Hajian, Mohammad Mahdi. (2016). Principles of Law and Interpretation of WTO Regulations, JPLR, Volume 4, Issue 14. (in Persian)

[2] Canal-Forgues, Eric. (2008). Dispute Settlement in World Trade Organization. Translated by Behzad saaedi Bonaab. Tehran, Majd pub. (in Persian)

[3] Ghamami, Majid & Eshraghi Arani, Mojtaba. (2011). Distinction Between Question of Fact and Question of Law; Elaborating A Theoric Basis. JPLS. Volume 40, Issue 2. (in Persian)

[4] Kadkhodaei, Abbas. (1997). Review of the structure of the WTO dispute settlement authorities. ILR. Volume 15, Issue 21. (in Persian)

[5] Rezaee, M.Taghi. (2011). Legal System of World Trade Organization (WTO). Tehran, Mizan pub. (in Persian)

[6] Shams, Abdollah. (2014). Civil Procedure, Tome II, Tehran, Derak pub. (in Persian)

[7] Shiravi, Abdolhossein. (2012). International Trade Law. Tehran, Samt pub. (in Persian)

[8] Bourgeois, H.J. (1997). GATT/WTO Dispute Settlement Practice in the Field of Anti-Dumping Law, in E-U Petersmann (ed). International Trade Law and the GATT/WTO Dispute Settlement System, London; Boston : Kluwer Law International.

[9] Cottier, Thomas & Oesch, Matthias. (2003). The Paradox of Judicial Review in International Trade regulation: towards a comprehensive framework, Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 287-306.

[10] Croley, Steven P. & Jackson, John H. (1997). WTO Dispute Procedures, Standard of Review, and Deference to National Governments, American Journal of International Law, Vol. 90, 193-213.

[11] Desmedt, G. Axel. (1998). Hormones: ‘‘Objective Assessment’’ and (or as) Standard of Review, Journal of International Economic Law, Vol. 1, issue 4, 695-98.

[12] Document TN/RL/W/130, 20 June. (2003). Further Issues Identified Under the Anti-Dumping and Subsidies Agreements for Discussion by the Negotiating Group on Rules. Communication from the United States.

[13] Ehlermann, claus-Dieter. (2002). Some personal experiences as member of the appellate body of the WTO, policy paper RSC No.02/9, para. 64.

[14] Ehlermann, Claus-Dieter & Lockhart, Nicolas. (2004). Standard of review in WTO law, Journal of International Economic Law, Vol. 7, Isssue. 3, 491-521.

[15] Epps, Tracey. (2012). Recent Developments in WTO Jurisprudence: Has the Appellate Body Resolved the Issue of an Appropriate Standard of Review in SPS cases?, University Toronto Law Journal, Vol. 62, 201-227.

[16] Gillman, Eric. (2012). Making WTO SPS Dispute Settlement Work: Challenges and Practical Solutions, Northwestern Journal of International Law & Business, Vol. 31, Issue. 2, 439- 465.

[17] Gruszczynski, Lukasz & Werner, Wouter. (2014). Deference in International Courts and Tribunals - Standard of Review and Margin of Appreciation, Oxford University Press.

[18] Hamilton, Lee D.. (2003). US Antidumping Decisions and the WTO Standard of Review: Deference or Disregard?, Chicago Journal of International Law: Vol. 4: No. 1, 264-270.

[19] Jane, Tarun. (2006). Standard of Review of DSB in Anti-Dumping Disputes, Supreme Court of India; London School of Economics & Political Science. (LSE); National Law University Jodhpur. (NLUJ).

[20] Joanne, Scott. (2009). The WTO Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures: A Commentary, Oxford University Press, 1st edition.

[21] Oesch, Matthias. (2003). Standards of Review in WTO Dispute Resolution, Journal of International Economic Law, 6. (3). 635-659.

[22] Pauwelyn, Joost. (2002). The Use of Experts in WTO Dispute Settlement, The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 51, No. 2, pp. 325-364.

[23] Peel, Jacqueline. (2012). Of Apples and Oranges. (and Hormones in Beef): Science and the Standard of Review in WTO Disputes under the SPS Agreement, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 61, Issue. 2, 427-58.

[24] Petersmann, Ernst- Ulrich. (1997). The Gatt/Wto Dispute Settlement System: International Law, International Organizations and Dispute Settlement, London; Boston : Kluwer Law International.

[25] Vermulst, Edwin & Graafsma, Folkert. (2001). WTO Dispute Settlement with Respect to Trade Contingency Measures, Journal of World Trade 35. (2):,209–228.

[26] Wagner, Markus. (2011). Law Talk v. Science Talk: The Languages of Law and Science in WTO Proceedings, Fordham International Law Journal, Vol. 35, 150-200.

[27] Zlepting, Stefan. (2002). The Standard of Review in WTO Law – An Analysis of Law, Legitimacy and the Distribution of Legal and Political Authority, European Integration Online Papers, Issue. 5, 427-457.

Reports:

[28] Appellate Body Report, Argentina - Measures Affecting Imports of Footwear, Textiles, Apparel and Other Items. (Argentina – Footwear (EC). WT/DS56/R, adopted 25 November 1997.

[29] Appellate Body Report, Australia - Measures Affecting Importation of Salmon (Australia – Salmon). WT/DS18/AB/R, adopted 6 November 1998.

[30] Appellate Body Report, European Communities - Measures Affecting Asbestos and Asbestos-Containing Products, WT/DS135/AB/R, adopted 5 April 2001.

[31] Appellate Body Report, European Communities - Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products (EC- Hormones). WT/DS26/AB/R, WT/DS48/AB/R, adopted 13 February 1998.

[32] Appellate Body Report, European Communities - Trade Description of Sardines (‘EC – Sardines’). WT/DS231/AB/R, adopted 23 October 2002.

[33] Appellate Body Report, Japan - Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages, WT/DS8/AB/R, WT/DS10/AB/R, WT/DS11/AB/R, adopted 1 November 1996.

[34] Appellate Body Report,Philippines - Taxes on Distilled Spirits, WT/DS396/ AB/R, WT/DS403/AB/R, adopted 20 January 2012.

[35] Appellate Body Report, Thailand - Anti-Dumping Duties on Angles, Shapes and Sections of Iron or Non-Alloy Steel H-Beams from Poland (Thailand – h-Beams). WT/DS122/AB/R, adopted 5 April 2001.

[36] Appellate Body Report, Unites States - Transitional Safeguard Measure on Combed Cotton Yarn from Pakistan (US – Cotton Yarn). WT/DS192/AB/R, adopted 5 November 2001.

[37] Appellate Body Report, Unites States - Anti-Dumping Measure on Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Products from Japan (US – Hot-Rolled Steel). WT/DS184/AB/R, adopted 23 August 2001.

[38] Appellate Body Report, Unites States - Safeguard Measure on Import of Fresh, Chilled or Frozen Lamb Meat from New Zealand and Australia (US – Lamb). WT/DS177/AB/R, WT/DS178/AB/R, adopted 16 May 2001.

[39] Panel Report, Chile – Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages (‘Chile – Alcoholic Beverages’). WT/DS87/R, WT/ DS110/R, adopted 12 January 2000.

[40] Panel Report, European Communities – Anti-Dumping Duties on Malleable Cast Iron Tube or Pipe Fittings from Brazil (‘EC – Tube and Pipe Fittings’). WT, DS219/R, adopted as modified by the Appellate Body Report (WT/DS219/AB/R) on 18 August 2003.

[41] Panel Report, European Communities – Measures Affecting Asbestos and Asbestos-Containing Products (‘EC – Asbestos’). WT/DS135/R and Add.1, adopted 5 April 2001.

[42] Panel Report, Guatemala – Definitive Anti-Dumping Measures on Grey Portland Cement from Mexico (Guatemala – Cement II). WT/DS156/R, adopted 17 November 2000, DSR 2000: XL, 5295.

[43] Panel Report, Philippines—Taxes on Distilled Spirits, WT/DS396/R, WT/DS403/R, adopted 20 January 2012.

[44] Panel Report, Thailand—Customs and Fiscal Measures on Cigarettes from the Philippines, WT/DS371/R, adopted 15 July 2011.

[45] Panel Report, United States – Anti –Dumping duty on Dynamic Random Access Memory Semiconductors (DRAMS) of One Megabit or Above from Korea (US-DRAMS). WT/DS99/R, adopted 19 March 1999.