反倾销中的公共利益问题

WTO反倾销协议允许成员方在倾销造成国内产业实质损害时采取反倾销措施。反倾销在保护国内产业 同时，会损害进口国下游产业和消费的利益。在反倾销程序中引入公共利益评价，能够避免反倾销成为片面保护国内产业利益的手段，而使其服从于公共利益的需要。WTO和欧盟、加拿大等成员方的反倾销立法对公共利益问题作了不同规定，主要体现在公共利益条款和减幅征税条款中。我国现行反倾销条例未就公共利益问题做出明确规定，应予完善。     

反倾销措施对下游企业的产业关联和继发性保护影响--以邻苯二酚和呋喃酚案为例

一、引言 WTO《反倾销协议》赋予各成员国对非正常低价进口产品实施反倾销措施的权利,同时,各国反倾销立法中也规定了反倾销措施作为一种贸易救济措施的合法性,以上规定是源自反倾销措施对进口国同类产业的贸易保护效应.然而,根据经济学中关税的社会福利均衡分析得知,进口关税会降低进口国的整体社会福利水平.由于作为反倾销主要措施的反倾销税是进口关税的一种,所以反倾销税也会对社会福利产生负效应.可见,反倾销措施是以降低社会福利为代价来保护同类厂商的利益,所以说,反倾销措施不具有绝对的经济合理性.鉴于此,许多国家包括我国的反倾销立法中均规定了反倾销措施应该符合公共利益的原则,并且将之提升为判定倾销存在的主要条件之一.     

浅论公共利益之界定

公共利益的界定在财产征收中关系到公民自身的重大利益,如果没有严格的界定程序与方法将严重损害公民利益,因此对公共利益需要作出严格界定。本丈首先讨论了公共利益的存在,详述了当今国外关于公共利益的立法模式,在分析讨论外国公共利益立法模式的基础上对我国的公共利益立法模式,界定主体,界定程序与救济提出了建议。     

突破对华贸易保护的藩篱

国际金融危机发生以来，贸易保护主义倾向在世界范围内抬头，针对中国的贸易保护主义案件数量明显攀升，形式和手段也趋于多样化。有研究显示，全球56个国家和地区采取的99项保护主义措施中有包括损害中国商业利益的内容；134项尚未实施的措施中，77项影响中国利益，影响美国和德国的仅分别为19项和30项。2009年1月至8月，共有17个国家和地区对中国发起79起贸易救济调查，     

贸易救济措施及相关政策法规讲座第一讲贸易救济措施形成的历史背景

我国加入世界贸易组织后，随着对外贸易规模的不断扩大、经济实力的不断上升，贸易摩擦及贸易救济措施日渐增多。为使财政工作者了解和掌握贸易救济措施及相关政策法规，在财政管理工作中更好地适应国际相关规则的要求，我们安排了贸易救济措施及相关政策法规和有关案例分析系列讲座。本期重点介绍有关贸易救济措施形成的历史背景和对国际贸易的影响。     

中国反倾销公共利益原则的实践

2004年3月我国修订《反倾销条例》,增加了实施反倾销措施须符合公共利益的规定。此前我国反倾销机关已经在反倾销实践中对公共利益问题给予关注,但对于如何在反倾销中落实公共利益原则至今没有具体的规定和成熟的做法。本文分析我国目前在反倾销公共利益评价中存在的问题,提出完善我国反倾销公共利益评价的建议。     

浅谈中国企业应采取的反倾销策略

我国已经成为欧盟和美国反倾销的主要对象,是遭受反倾销最严重的国家之一.面对国际间的贸易纠纷和越来越多的反倾销诉讼,我国企业应积极采取各种应对措施,如建立、健全和完善贸易救济体系,相关行业和企业积极应诉、一致对外,建立反倾销会计保护机制,加快会计制度改革以尽早与国际会计制度接轨.     

欧盟“碳关税”对中欧贸易的影响及应对之策

2023年5月17日,欧盟“碳边境调节机制”（CBAM）法案正式实施。CBAM也被称之为“碳关税”,是欧盟拟对第三国别和地区出口到欧盟地区的高碳产品征收的二氧化碳排放特别关税。中国是欧盟重要贸易伙伴之一,欧盟“碳关税”的通过对中国与欧盟之间的贸易往来将产生广泛的影响。文章在梳理中欧贸易现状基础上,分析欧盟“碳关税”对中欧贸易的影响,发现虽然欧盟“碳关税”对中欧贸易整体格局影响效果有限,但对我国部分行业、企业冲击较大,短期内会导致相关企业出口贸易成本增加,企业竞争力或被削弱;长期将会倒逼企业优化生产结构,加速我国绿色转型的步伐。由此文章提出加快建设碳市场法律法规和政策体系、健全交易市场机制、加强企业碳管理能力等应对措施。     

贸易救济措施及相关政策法规讲座第五讲：我国贸易救济措施作用日益显现

2001年12月,我国正式成为世界贸易组织（WTO）的成员,开始加快融入多边贸易体制和国际经济秩序的进程。同年,根据WTO《反倾销协议》、《反补贴协议》和《保障措施协议》,我国制定并颁布实施了《反倾销条例》、《反补贴条例》和《保障措施条例》,建立起了严格意义上的WTO框架下的贸易救济制度。此后,随着我国对外贸易的蓬勃发展、国内产业维权意识的逐渐加强以及对WTO相关规则的探索学习．我国贸易救济措施的实践经验不断积累,对贸易救济措施的运用日益娴熟,贸易救济制度的积极作用被逐渐释放。     

第二十五届中欧经贸混委会在北京举行

<正>7月14日,第25届中国—欧盟经贸混委会在北京举行。中国商务部长陈德铭与欧盟委员会贸易委员德古赫特共同主持会议。会上,双方就中欧经贸关系的有关问题广泛、深入、坦诚地进行了交流,就中欧发展合作、完善1985年中欧经贸协定谈判、促进双向投资与高技术贸易、加快《中欧地理标志合作协定》谈判、尽早启动中欧投资协定谈判、促进农产品贸易、服务贸易、克制使用贸易救济措施、加强标准与合格     

Real interest parity: Evidence from trade partnerships

This study investigates real interest parity (RIP) in trade partnerships, and whether RIP depends on the type of trade partnership, using short term interest rates and the Consumer Price Index (CPI) obtained from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) database between 1975 and 2016. The investigation employs unit root and stationarity tests on interest rate differentials to study RIP between countries using Germany, United States, and Japan as base countries for selected countries in the European Union (EU), member countries of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and selected Asian countries respectively. The results show evidence in favor of RIP in the selected EU countries. The interest rate differentials of Belgium, France, Italy, Spain and the UK with respect to Germany confirms a long‐run relationship and real interest rate parity. There is also evidence to support the RIP in the other trade partnerships. With the exception of Mexico, the interest rate differentials for all the countries are stationary, and each quickly reverts to its mean.     

欧盟东扩对我国制造业影响的实证分析

欧盟东扩后产生了贸易创造和贸易转移效应,其中贸易转移效应将影响我国对欧盟出口。东扩的国家人均GDP显著低于西欧,但也显著高于我国,所以与中国相比对欧盟出口可能拥有不同比较优势,对我国不同技术含量的制造业商品出口欧盟会产生不同程度的影响,本文首先分析了中东欧主要国家和我国制造业的双边贸易以及中国和中东欧国家出口欧盟的制造业商品结构,然后基于制造业相对显示性指数实证分析得出：欧盟东扩后,制造业商品出口结构恶化,特别是中低技能技术的制造业产品在东盟东扩后受到的贸易转移效应影响尤为明显,而对我国劳动和资源密集型产品影响不大,还有最近几年的贸易摩擦使得高技能技术产品的出口欧盟受阻,进一步恶化了我国对欧盟制造业商品出口结构。     

美国对华贸易救济的新趋势及其对策

美国对华贸易救济呈现出一些新趋势,其主要表现在:对华反倾销救济数量开始回落;与此同时,对华反规避、反补贴、特殊保障措施、知识产权调查等模式逐渐兴盛,并对中国对美出口产生相当大的影响。本文立足于这一现实,探讨新趋势产生的原因及其对中国的启示。     

Insolvency proceedings from a sustainability perspective

Sustainability is a wide concept including environmental, economic, social/culture, and political dimensions. Currently, sustainability research is a rich scientific discipline producing a significant number of research papers. However, sustainability in the context of insolvency proceedings has attracted little research compared with, for example, how much attention corporate social responsibility has received in company law research. This article studies sustainability in the context of liquidation and restructuring proceedings and the preservation of different kinds of resources (natural, manufactured, human, and social capital) in insolvency procedures. The purpose of insolvency proceedings may prevent the full implementation of sustainability. In bankruptcy, the administrator must maximise the selling price for creditor satisfaction, and there are few possibilities to promote sustainability. When facing an acute environmental hazard, in the name of public interest, a bankruptcy estate with assets usually has to act unless the law stipulates that society is responsible for taking care of the problem. In restructuring proceedings, the main purpose is to continue the debtor's business. It depends on the markets how sustainable the debtor company must be to achieve profitability. If becoming a profitable company in a “green” or otherwise sustainable market requires costly efforts, creditors' interests may require the sale of the assets. The author views through sustainability lenses EU Restructuring and insolvency Directive (2019) and finds there is not much of a sustainability approach included.     

Valuation of cryptoassets in EU insolvency: Challenges and prospects

How and when to determine the value of cryptoassets in insolvency proceedings? This question becomes more topical with the increasing adoption of volatile cryptoassets such as Bitcoin. As many of these assets do not have an ‘apparent’ value that may be readily ascertainable, it is not always clear how their value may be established. This presents significant challenges to their proper valuation in the context of insolvency proceedings and requires certain attention to efficiently confront the implications on the assessment of claims, the calculation of their value and the determination of the recoverable amount. Accordingly, this Article exposes the arising challenges and implications from an EU insolvency perspective, with the aim to trigger considerations for legislative interventions at EU level.     

Set‐off under the European insolvency regulation (and English law)

This paper addresses critically the meaning and effect of the set‐off provisions in the European Insolvency Regulation. The Regulation sets out the authority of EU Member States to open insolvency proceedings and provides that, subject to exceptions, the law of the State that opens insolvency proceedings shall apply to those proceedings. Setoff is one such exception for the opening of insolvency proceedings does not affect the rights of creditors to demand the set‐off of their claims against the insolvent debtor. Set‐off is intended to perform a guarantee type function for creditor claims. Nevertheless, the Regulation does not define what is meant by set‐off nor clarify whether set‐off rights under the law of a third country (such as English law) may be relied upon. The paper provides valuable clarification and critical analysis.     

Corporate Restructuring,the Evolution of Corporate Assets and the Public Interest

In Canada, the public interest has always been a significant consideration in the restructuring of insolvent corporations. And with the introduction of new proceedings under Canada's restructuring statute, liquidating proceedings, an important consideration is whether these proceedings are in the public interest. Unfortunately, although the Supreme Court in Century Services traced the history of the CCAA and spoke of its remedial purpose, it did not discuss liquidating CCAAs or how they can be reconciled with the public interest purpose of the legislation, which leaves unanswered questions about the seemingly contradictory purpose of the CCAA and the nature of these liquidating plans of arrangement, and their impact on the public interest. Given the importance of achieving a public interest goal in CCAA proceedings, it is important to determine how to conceptualize liquidating CCAA proceedings as working towards that goal. Eight decades ago, when the CCAA was enacted, the types of proceedings taking place under the legislation were different because the asset bases of corporations were different. Reconciling these changing proceedings with the public interest goal of the legislation is necessary if proceedings are going to continue evolving under the CCAA. The argument in this paper took a broad, value‐based approach. I maintain that so long as the ‘public interest’ can be defined to include the continuance of value in the economy, in any form, then any proceedings, regardless of form or outcome, that add value or serves to maintain the value already there, would fulfill that purpose of the CCAA. Put another way, so long as the proceeding causes value to be retained that is more than the sum of its parts, I argue that it is in the public interest. Conversely, if value is lost in liquidation because certain assets cannot be valued and sold, then these proceedings (or any proceedings) are not achieving the goal of the legislation. But the answer is not to cease taking these proceedings; it is to find a way to acknowledge and account for the value of intangible assets. Once that happens, a more accurate determination can be made as to how to proceed in any restructuring. I drew three conclusions in this paper. First, the public interest in the context of the CCAA should be considered in the context of value maximization rather than the welfare of the different constituencies. This should take into account the changing nature of corporate assets, and the public interest in this paper refers to the interests of directly and indirectly affected stakeholders of the corporation. Second, corporations have changed since the enactment of the CCAA. Their assets have evolved to become less firm or industry specific, and they have also become less tangible. Third, the consideration of value added in a restructuring of a corporation containing intangible assets is difficult because these assets have value not easily quantified. In addition, although tangible assets have evolved to become less firm specific, intangibles remain firm specific, and unless they can be transferred to another company as a whole, much of their value is lost. Once those premises are accepted, then a liquidation of a modern corporation leads to a potential loss of value, which means the public interest, one of the underlying considerations of the CCAA, may well not be served unless a way can be devised to value these evolving intangible assets. Copyright © 2013 INSOL International and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Reconsidering Procedural Consolidation for Multinational Corporate Groups in the Context of the Recast European Insolvency Regulation

Procedural consolidation, as a solution to the rescue of insolvent multinational corporate groups (‘MCGs’), is said to be able to preserve group value for creditors. This article explores the desirability of procedural consolidation in the EU in the light of theories of corporate rescue law, cross‐border insolvency law, multinational enterprises and relevant EU cases with reference to the European Insolvency Regulation. It argues that, based on current cross‐border insolvency rules in the EU, there is an inherent difficulty for procedural consolidation in balancing the goal of preservation of group value and the goal of certainty. The article also considers the new ‘group procedural coordination proceedings’ offered by the Recast European Insolvency Regulation and argues that it may help to supplement the gap left by the procedural consolidation in the EU. Copyright © 2017 INSOL International and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Southeastern European Trade Analysis: A Role for Endogenous CEFTA-2006?

The objective of this paper is to analyze the impact the Central European Free Trade Agreement of 2006 (CEFTA-2006) has had on trade and provide quantitative comparison with the original CEFTA and with trade liberalization under the EU integration process. The paper belongs to the strand of literature analyzing a free trade agreement in a gravity framework but treating the agreement as being potentially endogenous. The empirical evidence suggests that CEFTA-2006 exerted a positive, significant, and large effect on trade in Southeast Europe. This finding can be largely attributed to the distracted trade flows in the region over the 1990s. The effect of CEFTA-2006 has been estimated to be larger than the effect of the stabilization and association agreements. This counteracts the concern that the EU and the Southeastern European countries formed a "hub-and-spoke" structure in terms of trade.