지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
The main issue in the Korea-EC dispute on subsidizing vessels can be divided into two big categories, The first issue is about the legal nature of the EU Commission' s Regulation constituting the legal basis of the Temporary Defensive Mechanism('I'DM) in relation to EC' s vessel industry, and the relationship between the roM Regulation and the state aid of the EC Members subsidizing their vessel industry based on the Regulation. The second issue is whether this TDM Regulation is in violation of the WTO Agreement(specifically, GATT' s Most Favoured Nation[MFN] and National Treatment principle, Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures[SCM], Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes[DSU]).
In regard to the first issue, the legal nature of the EU Commission' s Regulation constituting the legal basis of the Temporary Defensive Mechanism(TDM) regarding EC' s vessel industry, the panel found that although the TDM Regulation does not fall within the exact meaning of "authorization" of state aid since TDM Regulation itself allows for the introduction of aid schemes regarding the vessel industry, it is very close to being an authorization, In addition, regarding the relationship between TDM Regulation and EC Members' state aid for the vessel industry, the Panel found that individual measures adopted by each EC Member cannot be deemed to be the "implementing "measures of On the second issue of whether the TDM Regulation is in violation of the WTO Agreement, the panel' s finding is as following.
First, on whether the TDM Regulation is in violation of GATT III(National Treatment), state aid provided in accordance with the TDM Regulation is subject to GATT III:8(b) and as a result, the TDM Regulation is not a measure in violation of the National Treatment principle stipulated in GATT III:4.
Second, in regard to whether the TDM Regulation is in violation of GATT I(MFN), as subsidies granted to only intra-national producers are wholly exempted from GATT III, it cannot fall within the category of GATT 1:1' s "matters referred to in paragraphs 2 and 4 of Article III". In addition, because TDM Regulation is subject to GATT III:8(b), the panel found that the TDM Regulation is not a case in which GATT 1:1' s MFN may be applicable.
Third, in regard to whether the TDM Regulation in violation of article 32.1 of the SCM since it is an specific act "against" other Member's subsidies as stipulated in article 32.1 of the SCM, the panel found that the TDM Regulation is not in violation of article 32.1 of the SCM.
Lastly, in regard to whether the EC acted in violation of article 23.1 of the DSU by adopting the TDM Regulation, the panel found that the measure seeks unilateral redress violating article 23.1 of the DSU which states that all disputes shall have recourse to rules and procedures of DSU.
In regard to the first issue, the legal nature of the EU Commission' s Regulation constituting the legal basis of the Temporary Defensive Mechanism(TDM) regarding EC' s vessel industry, the panel found that although the TDM Regulation does not fall within the exact meaning of "authorization" of state aid since TDM Regulation itself allows for the introduction of aid schemes regarding the vessel industry, it is very close to being an authorization, In addition, regarding the relationship between TDM Regulation and EC Members' state aid for the vessel industry, the Panel found that individual measures adopted by each EC Member cannot be deemed to be the "implementing "measures of On the second issue of whether the TDM Regulation is in violation of the WTO Agreement, the panel' s finding is as following.
First, on whether the TDM Regulation is in violation of GATT III(National Treatment), state aid provided in accordance with the TDM Regulation is subject to GATT III:8(b) and as a result, the TDM Regulation is not a measure in violation of the National Treatment principle stipulated in GATT III:4.
Second, in regard to whether the TDM Regulation is in violation of GATT I(MFN), as subsidies granted to only intra-national producers are wholly exempted from GATT III, it cannot fall within the category of GATT 1:1' s "matters referred to in paragraphs 2 and 4 of Article III". In addition, because TDM Regulation is subject to GATT III:8(b), the panel found that the TDM Regulation is not a case in which GATT 1:1' s MFN may be applicable.
Third, in regard to whether the TDM Regulation in violation of article 32.1 of the SCM since it is an specific act "against" other Member's subsidies as stipulated in article 32.1 of the SCM, the panel found that the TDM Regulation is not in violation of article 32.1 of the SCM.
Lastly, in regard to whether the EC acted in violation of article 23.1 of the DSU by adopting the TDM Regulation, the panel found that the measure seeks unilateral redress violating article 23.1 of the DSU which states that all disputes shall have recourse to rules and procedures of DSU.
목차
Ⅰ. 조선 보조금 분쟁의 발생 배경
Ⅱ. 사건의 주요 법적 쟁점분석
Ⅲ. 패널의 판정 내용
Ⅳ. 주요 쟁점별 판정내용의 분석
參考文獻
Abstract
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
데이터마이닝 및 텍스트마이닝과저작재산권의 제한
홍익법학
2019 .01
-
WDM 수동 성형망에서의 TDM 스케쥴링 특성과 효율적 알고리즘 ( The Characteristics of TDM Scheduling and an Efficient Algorithm in WDM Passive Star Networks )
한국경영과학회 학술대회논문집
1998 .01
-
레이 장: 교통혼잡 완화를 위한 통행수요관리(Traffic Demand Management: TDM)
국토
2010 .08
-
WTO 분쟁해결제도(DSU) 개혁에 관한 연구
통상법률
2008 .02
-
美 通商法 301조의 DSU 規定과의 合致性에 관한 考察
통상법률
2000 .10
-
WTO EC-석면 사건과 첫 환경예외의 인정
국제법학회논총
2006 .12
-
분쟁해결사례로 본 WTO의 해석논리와 한계 : 미․EU간 민간 항공기 분쟁 사례를 중심으로
관세학회지
2011 .12
-
Interpretative and Legislative Approach to Climate Change Subsidies under the WTO Mechanism
통상법률
2014 .06
-
환경규제위반이 장기 경영성과에 미치는 영향
환경정책
2012 .03
-
WTO 보조금 협정상의 보조금과 농업협정상의 보조금의 상호관계 고찰 : 미국 면화보조금 사건에 대한 분석을 중심으로
국제경제법연구
2006 .12
-
신재생에너지 보조금 지급에 관한 법적쟁점 고찰
무역학회지
2018 .08
-
WTO 판정의 집행과 구제수단 : DSU 22.6 중재를 중심으로
통상법률
2016 .02
-
중국 보조금 제도에 관한 연구
통상법률
2007 .02
-
‘법률 또는 규정의 준수 확보를 위해 필요한 조치(GATT 1994 제20조(d)항)’의 적용 요건에 관한 연구
무역연구
2019 .01
-
전략물자수출통제에 대한 1994년 GATT 제21조의 적용성 : 개별요건 검토를 중심으로
국제법학회논총
2009 .04
-
WTO 분쟁해결절차상의 보복조치의 수준에 관한 연구
통상법률
2006 .08
-
SCM파트너십이 기업성과에 미치는 영향에 관한 연구
관리회계연구
2010 .06
-
법률문제에 대한 WTO상소의 한계
통상법률
2014 .04
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
WTO 다자간 무역규범체제에서의 환경보호의 규범적 실효성 : GATT 제20조 환경관련 무역분쟁 해결사례를 중심으로
심영규
국제경제법연구
2015
.07
지역무역협정의 세이프가드 조항에 관한 연구 : 한국과 일본의 비교분석
송준헌
관세학회지
2014
.08
WTO보조금협정 상 시장비교기준(market benchmark)법리의 내용 및 한계 : 관련시장(relevant market)의 획정문제를 중심으로
유광혁
국제법학회논총
2013
.06
보조금 상계조치에 대한 대응 방안
이환규
국제경제법연구
2012
.11
서비스무역의 세이프가드 제도의 타당성 검토
채은선
법학연구
2011
.05
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2010-361-002576357