论发展中国家在当前WTO反倾销程序中的不利地位（英文版）
宋政平
【全文】
（这篇论文是结合中国加入WTO同时有是世界反倾销的第一大受害者的现实，从发展中国家的角度解读WTO 中的反倾销措施对发展中国家的压迫，提出了一些反制措施。由于论文是用英文写的，且有8000字左右，是否适合，请考虑。如必要我可以删节并译成中文发表。很遗憾，在这个版面无法给出图表，也无法用WORD 文档的方式给出注解。前次发表的《论电子合同的合法与可靠性》没有显示出注脚，请谅解。本文不求稿酬。）
SONG, ZHENGPING
THE ADVERSE POSITION OF DEVELOPING COUNTRIES UNDER THE ANTI-DUMPING REIME
LL.M. RESEARCH PAPER
LAWS 564 INTERNATIONAL TRADE LAW
LAW FACULTY
VICTORIA UNIVERSITY OF WELLINGTON
2001
CONTENTS
ABSTRACT……………………………………………………………………1
MAIN TEXT…………………………………………………………………...3
I INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………..…...3
II PRESENT PRACTICES OF ANTI-DUMPING LAWS
IN THE WORLD TRADE………………………………………………..4
A Developed Countries Are Main Users of Anti-Dumping Measures...4
B Developing Countries Are Victims of Anti-Dumping Regime…..….6
III NON-MARKET ECONOMY (NME) REGIME MAKES
A LARGE NUMBER OF DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
TARGETS OF ANTI-DUMPING………………………………………7
A Margins of Dumping Are Exaggerated by Reference
to a Surrogate Country………………………………………………9
B Defendant’s Rights……………………………………………...…11
IV NO SPECIAL AND DIFFERENTIAL (S&D) TREATMENT
FOR DEVELOPING COUNTRIES COMPARED WITH
OTHER WTO REGIMES………………………………..…………...12
V CONSTAINTS OF THE ROLE OF PANELS HAVE
NEGATIVE EFFECTS ON THE MULTILATERAL
NEGOTIATION MECHANISM…………………….…………………14
VI COMPLEXITY OF ANTI-DUMPING REGIME
PROVENTS DEVELOPING COUNTRIES FROM POSITIVELY
PARTICIPATING IN ANTI-DUMPING ACTIVITIES……..…………17
VII IMPERFECT SUNSET REVIEW……………………………………...20
VIII SOME PROPOSALS FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF
DEVELOPING COUNTRIES FOR THE NEXT
ROUND OF MULTILATERAL NEGOTIATIONS
ON ANTI-DUMPING ISSUE………………………………………….22
IX CONCLUSION………………………………………………………...26
APPENDIX ONE-TABLE 1………………………………………………….29
APPENDIX TWO-TABLE 2…………………………………………………30
ABSTRACT
Developing countries are main targets of the anti-dumping regime and developed countries, along with a few large developing countries are main users of the regime. The nonmarket economy treatment results in the mojority of anti-dumping charges because the normal value of imports is determined on the basis of a surrogate country and therefore exaggerated. The lack of defendant’s rights is also attributed to this regime. There is no practical special and differential treatment for developing countries under the present anti-dumping regime. The constraints of the role of panels in the dispute settlement make developing countries more vulnerable than in other WTO regimes. Developing countries also suffer from the sharp shortages of financial and human resources which are essential no matter when they face anti-dumping charges or they set up their own anti-dumping institution. The complexity of anti-dumping procedure makes this situation more difficult for developing countries. The sunset review is ostensibly friendly for developing countries since it is intended to reduce the anti-dumping cases in force. The reality is that developed countries, which have a huge number of anti-dumping cases in force, are reluctant to fully fulfil their commitments and this regime is being abused. Based on the above deficiencies of anti-dumping regime, the possible solutions for developing countries are proposed. They are the abolishment of non-market economy regime, increase of the enforceable S&D treatment for developing countries, lifting the constraints of the role of panel in the procedure of dispute settlement, providing financial support and expertise assistance.
Word length: 7,757.
I INTRODUCTION
Dumping is a kind of unfair trade method by which the exporter sells its products to the importing country at prices which are obviously lower than the normal value (1). The authorities of the importing country can take anti-dumping measures against the exporter and its products if evidence of dumping, material injury to the domestic industry and the causal link between dumping and injury is established.(2)
The first anti-dumping law in the world was adopted by Canada in 1904 and was soon followed by New Zealand in 1905 and Australia in 1906. The United States formally introduced Anti-Dumping Act in 1916. In 1920s, European countries began to join the anti-dumping club. Till the eve of the establishment of world trading system, anti-dumping regime had already been popular in most economic powers. As a result, anti-dumping was explicitly specified in the Article VI of GATT 1949, but detailed provisions need refer to a variety of domestic anti-dumping laws instead of uniform code under the GATT. In the Kennedy Round of GATT, many countries were concerned about the abuse of anti-dumping regime and made the first detailed international regulations governing anti-dumping issue……Anti-Dumping Code 1967, which was further defined by 1979 code in the Tokyo Round. The most significant changes happened in the Uruguay Round. Agreement on Anti-dumping Measures 1994 (AAD) made the whole system more transparent and operational.(3)
Since the establishment of anti-dumping regime, the discussion on whether anti-dumping is necessary hasn’t been ceased. Some scholars like Greg Mastel firmly insist that anti-dumping regime is the protection of fair trade and thus it is the cornerstone of the world trading system.(4) However, the majority of scholars oppose the existing anti-dumping regime to different extent. J. Michael Finger found, by case study, that “[a]ntidumping, as practiced today, is a witches’ brew of the worst of policy-making: power politics, bad economics, and shameful public administration. Antidumping law is an oxymoron”(5) . Thomas J. Prusa concluded that anti-dumping doesn’t make any sense economically(6).
