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
Under DSU Article 6.2, the mere listing in a panel request of the WTO treaty articles under which claims are being raised is sufficient. [Reversed by Appellate Body.] The "unforeseen developments" clause in GAIT Article XIX:1(a) does not provide an independent basis for finding that a safeguard measure violates WTO rules. [Reversed by Appellate Body.] Korea's finding that serious injury had occurred was not consistent with the requirements of Safeguards Agreement Article 4.2(a), because it did not adequately examine all relevant serious injury factors. Members imposing a safeguard measure are required to explain how the particular measure chosen satisfies the criteria set out in Safeguards Agreement Article 5.1. As Korea had not done so, the Panel found that Korea acted inconsistently with that provision. [Reversed by Appellate Body.] The "all pertinent information" standard in Safeguards Agreement Article 12.2 does not mean that members must notify in summary form everything they are required to publish under Articles 3 and 4. Rather, the amount of information notified must be "sufficient to be useful to members with a substantial interest in the proposed safeguard measure." [Interpretation of "all pertinent information" reversed by Appellate Body]
Reversed Panel's conclusion that listing the WTO treaty articles challenged in a panel request is always sufficient to meet the requirements of DSU Article 6.2. Stated that 3 key factor to take into account is whether the ability of the responding party to defend itself was "prejudiced," Here, Appellate Body found that Korea did not prove that It suffered such prejudice. Reversed Panel's finding thar the "unforeseen developments" clause in GATT article XIX:l(a) does not impose obligations on WTO Members to demonstrate "unforeseen developments" before applying a safeguard measure. However, in this case, there were insufficient facts on the record for the Appellate Body to decide whether Korea violated this provision. Upheld Panel's finding that Safeguards Agreement Article 5.1, first sentence requires an authority "to ensure that the measure applied is commensurate with the goals of preventing or remedying serious injury and of facilitating adjustment," Reversed Panel's finding that Safeguards Agreement Article 5.1 imposes a general requirement that a member imposing a safeguard measure explain how that measure is necessary. Rather, it held that a requirement for a specific explanation applies only If the Member chooses to apply the specific type of quantitative restriction referred to in the second sentence of Article 5.1. Because the Panel made no factual findings regarding Korea's quantitative restriction, the Appellate Body was unable to complete the Panel's legal analysis and make findings on this issue.
Reversed Panel's conclusion that listing the WTO treaty articles challenged in a panel request is always sufficient to meet the requirements of DSU Article 6.2. Stated that 3 key factor to take into account is whether the ability of the responding party to defend itself was "prejudiced," Here, Appellate Body found that Korea did not prove that It suffered such prejudice. Reversed Panel's finding thar the "unforeseen developments" clause in GATT article XIX:l(a) does not impose obligations on WTO Members to demonstrate "unforeseen developments" before applying a safeguard measure. However, in this case, there were insufficient facts on the record for the Appellate Body to decide whether Korea violated this provision. Upheld Panel's finding that Safeguards Agreement Article 5.1, first sentence requires an authority "to ensure that the measure applied is commensurate with the goals of preventing or remedying serious injury and of facilitating adjustment," Reversed Panel's finding that Safeguards Agreement Article 5.1 imposes a general requirement that a member imposing a safeguard measure explain how that measure is necessary. Rather, it held that a requirement for a specific explanation applies only If the Member chooses to apply the specific type of quantitative restriction referred to in the second sentence of Article 5.1. Because the Panel made no factual findings regarding Korea's quantitative restriction, the Appellate Body was unable to complete the Panel's legal analysis and make findings on this issue.
목차
Ⅰ. 사건의 배경과 사실관계 및 전개과정
Ⅱ. 패널 및 상소기구 보고서의 판정내용
Ⅲ. 평석
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!
-
Revitalization of GATT Article XIX Unforeseen Developments Clause
국제경제법연구
2010 .05
-
세이프가드조치의 적법성 평가를 위한 심사기준의 적용에 관한 연구
통상정보연구
2007 .06
-
탄소강관 수입에 대한 미국의 세이프가드 조치 분쟁사건
국제경제법연구
2004 .12
-
인도네시아 Safeguard규정에 관한 고찰
관세학회지
2003 .12
-
중국 세이프가드제도에 관한 고찰
한국관세학회 학술대회
2007 .11
-
중국 셰이프가드제도에 관한 고찰
관세학회지
2007 .12
-
인도네시아 세이프가드 제도에 관한 연구 - 갈바륨 세이프가드 조치 사건을 중심으로 -
한양법학
2020 .08
-
한국의 Service Safeguard의 개선방안에 관한 연구
관세학회지
2005 .05
-
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
-
Korea's Safeguard System under Uruguay Round Agreement on Safeguards
법학연구
2000 .12
-
미국의 철강 세이프가드 조치에 대한 WTO 분쟁 해결 사건
국제경제법연구
2005 .12
-
세이프가드의 파편화와 WTO의 역할
강원법학
2008 .06
-
WTO 세이프가드협정의 “예측하지 못한 사태의 발전”요건의 의미 연구
성신법학
2011 .12
-
韓 · 中間의 세이프가드 關聯紛爭과 對應에 關한 硏究
통상법률
2002 .08
-
韓·中間 세이프가드 關聯紛爭의 展開에 따른 우리나라의 對應
무역상무연구
2004 .02
-
WTO 세이프가드 협정의 해석과 국내법에의 적용방안
통상정보연구
2011 .03
-
세이프가드협정상의 국내산업 범위에 대한 해석
통상정보연구
2006 .06
-
WTO세이프가드의 問題點
산업경제연구
1998 .11
-
FTA 세이프가드 규정의 WTO 세이프가드 규정 합치성 검토
국제경제법연구
2011 .05
-
Interpretation of Specific Safeguard Provisions in China’s Accession Protocol to the World Trade Organization
국제경제법연구
2010 .05
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2010-361-002620763