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
When a trade conflict arises related to an officially supported export credit programme, The World Trade Organization(WTO), decides on whether the programme is a forbidden subsidy stipulated in the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures(the ASCM Agreement). Korea was taken to the WTO panel two times for the export credit programme. One is the semiconductor case in 2002 and the other was the shipbuilding disputes in 2004. And, In 2012, the U.S. Commerce Department ruled K-SURE's export insurance for Korean refrigerator manufacturers as a forbidden subsidy even if the case was not taken to the WTO.This paper examines the significance of export credit programmes on the WTO ASCM Agreement and discusses how to operate these programmes so they would not infringe upon the Agreement by analyzing the actual cases of WTO subsidy conflicts that involved Korean enterprises in relation to export credit programmes for the purpose of determining the related issues and impacts.From this research the results were as follows: First, on whether export credit is a prohibited subsidy, the deciding factor was whether a benefit has been conferred to the beneficiary. On the presence of a benefit, the WTO panel used market benchmarks as the main criteria. Thus, official export credit agencies(ECAs) should be careful not to provide export credit support which had been granted to the beneficiary at better than market terms.Second, in the case of export credit, the special status of ECA as a public body receiving government support itself does not constitute a subsidy. However, caution must be taken not to provide export credit that may lead to WTO ASCM subsidy conflicts involving a certain exporter or industry by setting up clear and valid regulations and fair work processes in the operation of export credit programmes.Third, item (j) of Annex I cannot be interpreted reversely as this item is for interpreting the presence of a prohibited subsidy, not the presence of a benefit. Thus, an export credit program that confers a financial contribution, a benefit and specificity, could qualify as a prohibited subsidy.Fourth, ECAs not only have to maintain long-term account balance but also introduce additional measures to meet this long-term balance such as a clear and systematic premium system.Finally, export credit programmes that are not defined in item (j) of Annex I of the ASCM Agreement would not deemed as an prohibited export subsidy as long as the continued support of the programmes are not being forced.
목차
등록된 정보가 없습니다.
참고문헌 (16)
참고문헌 신청
김규태 / 2005 / 한-EU간 조선분쟁 결과와 그 대응전략 -수출보조금 분야에서의 주요 쟁점을 중심으로- / 월간 KIET 산업경제
김상만 / 2012 / 선박수출계약의 주요 조항 및 주요 분쟁사항에 대한 대처방안의 연구 / 무역상무연구 54:3~29
김은영 / 2011 / 분쟁해결사례로 본 WTO의 해석논리와 한계 - 미·EU간 민간 항공기 분쟁 사례를 중심으로 - / 관세학회지 12(4):349~370
김승호 / 2007 / WTO통상분쟁 판례해설(2) / 법영사
박광서 / 2002 / 한국과 EU의 조선산업 통상마찰 배경과 협상에 관한 연구 / 무역학회지 27(2):405~426
김상만 / 2012 / 선박수출계약의 주요 조항 및 주요 분쟁사항에 대한 대처방안의 연구 / 무역상무연구 54:3~29
김은영 / 2011 / 분쟁해결사례로 본 WTO의 해석논리와 한계 - 미·EU간 민간 항공기 분쟁 사례를 중심으로 - / 관세학회지 12(4):349~370
김승호 / 2007 / WTO통상분쟁 판례해설(2) / 법영사
박광서 / 2002 / 한국과 EU의 조선산업 통상마찰 배경과 협상에 관한 연구 / 무역학회지 27(2):405~426
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2019-320-000234673