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 safeguard measures taken on February 11, 2000 by the U.S. against the imports of circular welded carbon quality line pipe ("line pipe") from Korea were found to be violation of the Article XIII and XIX of GATT 1994 and several provisions of the Agreement on Safeguards. Korea had brought a complaint respectively to these measures before WTO Dispute Settlement Body (DSB). The panel was established on October 23, 2000 and the DSB adopted the Appellate Body Report (ABR) and the Panel Report modified by the ABR on March 8, 2002.
This case raised a number of significant issues related to the interpretation and application of provisions of safeguard measures, The main legal issues are as follows: (ⅰ) determination of serious injury or threat of serious injury; (ⅱ) parallelism; (ⅲ) non-Attribution of the injurious effect of other factors; (ⅳ) GATT Article XXIV defense.
Regarding determination of serious injury or threat of serious injury issue, the Panel found that an investigating authority must make a discrete determination of either serious injury or threat of serious injury, and USITC violated Article 4 of Agreement on Safeguards, The Appellate Body reversed the Panel's finding, concluding that determinations by investigating authorities may take either approach: they may either combine the two standards as done by the ITC, or they may make separate findings of either serious injury or of threat of serious injury. Under the Appellate Body's ruling, a majority may be formed based on the support of those who find serious injury and those who find threat of serious injury.
Regarding the requirement of parallelism, the Appellate Body reversed the Panel' s finding and concluded that line pipe safeguard measure violated the parallelism requirement because there was a gap between imports covered under the investigation and imports falling within the scope of the measure. With the recognition that Korea made a prima facie case of the absence of parallelism, the Appellate Body considered whether the ITC provided a reasoned and adequate explanation that imports from non- NAFTA countries satisfied the condition for application of a safeguard measure and concluded that the parallelism requirement was not met since ITC did not provide that explanation expressly.
Regarding the requirement of non-Attribution of the injurious effect of other factors, the Appellate Body reversed the Panel's finding and provided some guidance on how to determine whether this requirement has been met. It observed that Article 4.2(b) of Agreement on Safeguards established two legal requirements for the application of a safeguard measure: (ⅰ) there must be a demonstration of the existence of the causal link between increased imports of the product and concerned serious injury or threat there of: (ⅱ) the injury caused by factors other than the increased imports must not be attributed to increased imports. In this regard, it stated that investigation authorities must establish explicitly, through a reasoned and adequate explanation that injury caused by factors other than increased imports is not attributed to increased imports and found that the ITC has not met this requirement.
Regarding GATT Article XXIV as a defense in the application of safeguard measures, Korea argued that the U.S. violated the MFN principle by excluding Canada and Mexico from the safeguard measures. The U.S. responded that the exclusion of Canada and Mexico was permitted under GATT Article XXIV since they were partners in the NAFTA. The Panel concluded that the U.S. is entitled to rely on Article XXIV as a defense to Korea's claims under Articles I, XIII and XIX of GATT 1994, and Article 2.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards. The Appellate Body, however, stated this issue briefly at the end of the parallelism section and concluded that there was no need to address the Article XXIV defense because this question would become relevant only where the parallelism requirement was met. In this case, because the ITC failed to comply with the parallelism requirement in the investigation, the Appellate Body said that it need not rule on the question of Article XXIV defense.
This case raised a number of significant issues related to the interpretation and application of provisions of safeguard measures, The main legal issues are as follows: (ⅰ) determination of serious injury or threat of serious injury; (ⅱ) parallelism; (ⅲ) non-Attribution of the injurious effect of other factors; (ⅳ) GATT Article XXIV defense.
Regarding determination of serious injury or threat of serious injury issue, the Panel found that an investigating authority must make a discrete determination of either serious injury or threat of serious injury, and USITC violated Article 4 of Agreement on Safeguards, The Appellate Body reversed the Panel's finding, concluding that determinations by investigating authorities may take either approach: they may either combine the two standards as done by the ITC, or they may make separate findings of either serious injury or of threat of serious injury. Under the Appellate Body's ruling, a majority may be formed based on the support of those who find serious injury and those who find threat of serious injury.
Regarding the requirement of parallelism, the Appellate Body reversed the Panel' s finding and concluded that line pipe safeguard measure violated the parallelism requirement because there was a gap between imports covered under the investigation and imports falling within the scope of the measure. With the recognition that Korea made a prima facie case of the absence of parallelism, the Appellate Body considered whether the ITC provided a reasoned and adequate explanation that imports from non- NAFTA countries satisfied the condition for application of a safeguard measure and concluded that the parallelism requirement was not met since ITC did not provide that explanation expressly.
Regarding the requirement of non-Attribution of the injurious effect of other factors, the Appellate Body reversed the Panel's finding and provided some guidance on how to determine whether this requirement has been met. It observed that Article 4.2(b) of Agreement on Safeguards established two legal requirements for the application of a safeguard measure: (ⅰ) there must be a demonstration of the existence of the causal link between increased imports of the product and concerned serious injury or threat there of: (ⅱ) the injury caused by factors other than the increased imports must not be attributed to increased imports. In this regard, it stated that investigation authorities must establish explicitly, through a reasoned and adequate explanation that injury caused by factors other than increased imports is not attributed to increased imports and found that the ITC has not met this requirement.
Regarding GATT Article XXIV as a defense in the application of safeguard measures, Korea argued that the U.S. violated the MFN principle by excluding Canada and Mexico from the safeguard measures. The U.S. responded that the exclusion of Canada and Mexico was permitted under GATT Article XXIV since they were partners in the NAFTA. The Panel concluded that the U.S. is entitled to rely on Article XXIV as a defense to Korea's claims under Articles I, XIII and XIX of GATT 1994, and Article 2.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards. The Appellate Body, however, stated this issue briefly at the end of the parallelism section and concluded that there was no need to address the Article XXIV defense because this question would become relevant only where the parallelism requirement was met. In this case, because the ITC failed to comply with the parallelism requirement in the investigation, the Appellate Body said that it need not rule on the question of Article XXIV defense.
목차
Ⅰ. 서론
Ⅱ. 사건의 개요
Ⅲ. 세이프가드제도 개관
Ⅳ. 실체법적 쟁점
Ⅴ. 결론
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!
-
특정 유제품의 수입에 대한 한정적 세이프가드 조치
국제경제법연구
2004 .12
-
세이프가드협정하의 인과관계의 해석원칙에 관한 연구
통상정보연구
2006 .12
-
세이프가드조치의 적법성 평가를 위한 심사기준의 적용에 관한 연구
통상정보연구
2007 .06
-
Revitalization of GATT Article XIX Unforeseen Developments Clause
국제경제법연구
2010 .05
-
인도네시아 Safeguard규정에 관한 고찰
관세학회지
2003 .12
-
한국의 Service Safeguard의 개선방안에 관한 연구
관세학회지
2005 .05
-
미국의 철강 세이프가드 조치에 대한 WTO 분쟁 해결 사건
국제경제법연구
2005 .12
-
지역무역협정 당사국에 의한 긴급수입제한 조치 : WTO 판례의 비판적 분석
국제법학회논총
2006 .04
-
AN ANALYSIS OF THE KEY PROVISIONS OF THE AGREEMENT ON SAFEGUARDS : STRATEGIC APPROACH TO FOREIGN SAFEGUARD MEASURES ON KOREAN IMPORTS
무역학자 전국대회 발표논문집
2002 .08
-
FTA 세이프가드 규정의 WTO 세이프가드 규정 합치성 검토
국제경제법연구
2011 .05
-
세이프가드의 파편화와 WTO의 역할
강원법학
2008 .06
-
중국 세이프가드제도에 관한 고찰
한국관세학회 학술대회
2007 .11
-
WTO 세이프가드 인과관계 기준 및 수준에 관한 연구
통상법률
2016 .02
-
중국 셰이프가드제도에 관한 고찰
관세학회지
2007 .12
-
지역무역협정의 세이프가드 조항에 관한 연구 : 한국과 일본의 비교분석
관세학회지
2014 .08
-
인도네시아 세이프가드 제도에 관한 연구 - 갈바륨 세이프가드 조치 사건을 중심으로 -
한양법학
2020 .08
-
Korea's Safeguard System under Uruguay Round Agreement on Safeguards
법학연구
2000 .12
-
WTO 세이프가드 협정의 해석과 국내법에의 적용방안
통상정보연구
2011 .03
-
세이프가드협정상의 국내산업 범위에 대한 해석
통상정보연구
2006 .06
-
韓·中間 세이프가드 關聯紛爭의 展開에 따른 우리나라의 對應
무역상무연구
2004 .02
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2010-361-002620778