메뉴 건너뛰기
.. 내서재 .. 알림
소속 기관/학교 인증
인증하면 논문, 학술자료 등을  무료로 열람할 수 있어요.
한국대학교, 누리자동차, 시립도서관 등 나의 기관을 확인해보세요
(국내 대학 90% 이상 구독 중)
로그인 회원가입 고객센터 ENG
주제분류
인문학
인문학 일반 역사학 철학 종교학 어문학 기타 인문학
사회과학
사회과학 일반 경영학 관광학 교육학 군사학 문헌정보학 법학 사회학 신문방송학 심리과학 정치외교학 지리학 행정학 경제학 무역학 인류학 기타 사회과학
자연과학
자연과학 일반 물리학 생물학 생활과학 수학·통계학 천문학 지구과학 화학 기타 자연과학
공학
공학 일반 건축공학 기계공학 산업공학 재료·에너지공학 전기전자공학 조선해양공학 화학공학 컴퓨터학 기타공학
의약학
의학 일반 간호학 수의학 약학 한의학 기초의학 임상의학 기타 의약학
농수해양학
농수해양학 일반 농학 수산학 식품과학 임학 축산학 해상운송학 기타 농수해양학
예술체육학
예술 일반 디자인 미술 미용 사진 음악학 의상 체육 공연매체예술 기타 예술체육학
복합학
학제간연구 과학기술학 뇌인지과학 기술정책 기타 복합학

ENG

추천
검색
질문

논문 기본 정보

자료유형
학술저널
저자정보
저널정보
법무부 국제법무정책과 통상법률 통상법률 제55호
발행연도
2004.2
수록면
157 - 189 (33page)

이용수

표지
📌
연구주제
📖
연구배경
🔬
연구방법
🏆
연구결과
AI에게 요청하기
추천
검색
질문

초록· 키워드

오류제보하기
The safeguard measures taken on 3 March 2002 by the United States were found to be violations of the GATT1994 XIX and several provisions of the Agreement on Safeguards. 8 Member countries including Korea had brought a complaint respectively to these measures in 2002. The single panel was established on 25 July 2003. The DSB adopted the Appellate Body Report (ABR) and the Panel Report modified by the ABR on 10 December 2003. Before the adoption of the PR/ABR, the United States announced the termination of the measures on 4 December. The main legal issues of this case were as follows：(i) unforeseen development； (ii) increased imports, (iii) causation and (iv) parallelism in the GATT 1994 Article XIX and the Agreement on Safeguards. As to unforeseen development issue, the Appellate Body upheld the panel's violation finding of the GATT1994 Article XIX and the Agreement on Safeguards Article 3.1 because the ITC failed to demonstrate through a reasoned and adequate explanation that unforeseen developments had resulted in increased imports of each of the products on which the United States imposed safeguard measures. This demonstration has to be appeared in the published report of the competent authorities before applying safeguard measures. Regarding increased imports issue, the Appellate Body upheld the panel's violation finding of the Agreement on Safeguards Articles 2.1 and 3.1 for CCFRS, stainless steel rod and hot-rolled bar products because the U.S. failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation of how the facts support of the determination with respect to increased imports which are one of the precondition of applying safeguard measures. However the Appellate Body reversed the panel's violation finding of the same provisions for tin mill products and stainless steel wire products. With respect to these products, the panel found that the ITC had failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation for the determination. In particular, the ITC's determination for each of these products was based on the affirmative findings of three Commissioners, even though the three Commissioners did not perform their analysis on the basis of the same like product definitions. In this light, the panel considered that the Commissioners' finding could not be reconciled as a matter of their substance. However the Appellate Body said that an affirmative findings with respect to one of the products contained in that broad product grouping, on the other hand, were necessarily, mutually exclusive. The Appellate Body found that the panel did not inquire into the details of the findings as they related to increased imports and therefore the panel was not adequately informed as to whether the three findings were reconcilable or not. The Appellate Body stated, the Agreement on Safeguards does not necessarily prelude the possibility of providing multiple findings instead of a single finding in order to support a determination under Articles 2.1 and 4 and the Agreement does not interfere with the discretion of a WTO member to choose whether to support the determination of its competent authority by a single explanation or, alternatively, by multiple explanations by members of the competent authority. According to the Appellate Body, a panel must ascertain whether a reasoned and adequate explanation for the ITC's determination is contained in the report, even if only in one of the Commissioner's individual findings. The panel should have continued its enquiry by examining the views of the three Commissioners separately, in order to ascertain whether one of these sets of findings contained a reasoned and adequate explanation for the ITC's single institutional determination on these products. Regarding parallelism issue, the Appellate Body upheld the panel's finding that the parallelism requirement had not been satisfied with respect to nine products (CCFRS, tin mill products, hot-rolled bar, cold-finished bar, rebar, FFTJ, welded pipe, stainless steel bar and stainless steel wire). And also it upheld the panel's finding with respect to stainless steel rod that the U.S. acted inconsistently with the Agreement on Safeguards Articles 2.1 and 4.2 because it failed to establish explicitly, with a reasoned and adequate explanation, imports included in the safeguard measure satisfy, alone, the requirements for the imposition of a safeguard measure.

목차

등록된 정보가 없습니다.

참고문헌 (0)

참고문헌 신청
참고문헌이 DBpia에서 서비스 중이라면, [참고문헌 신청]을 통해 등록해보세요

함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문

논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!

이 논문의 저자 정보

최근 본 자료

전체보기

댓글(0)

0

UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2017-360-002328716