美国贸易法301条款及特别301条款

1991年11月26日中国政府中美知识产权谈判代表团就中美双方谈判未能达成协议,美国将依据美国贸易法中的“特别301条款”,对中国采取报复措施一事发表声明。人们要问,什么是美国贸易法中的“301条款”及“特别301条款”? “301条款”及“特别301条款”都是美国贸易法中的条款。1962年,美国国会通过     

美国“特别301条款”与我国知识产权的国际保护

中国知识产权的国际保护必须置于TRIPs协议的背景下,认真遵守并履行WTO成员国的义务,才能在日益激烈的国际经济竞争中争取主动并切实维护我国的经济利益。TRIPs协议与美国“特别301条款”的密切关联,使得美国“特别301条款”在知识产权的国际保护问题上有着至关重要的意义。     

美国“特别301条款”与我国知识产权的国际保护

中国知识产权的国际保护必须置于TRIPs协议的背景下，认真遵守并履行WTO成员国的义务，才能在日益激烈的国际经济竞争中争取主动并切实维护我国的经济利益。TRIPs协议与美国“特别301条款”的密切关联，使得美国”特别301条款”在知识产权的国际保护问题上有着至关重要的意义。     

美国贸易法301条款的修订及其启示

美国贸易法301条款是一项可以单方启动调查并认定他国法律、政策、行为违反协定或者不公平继而实施报复制裁的对外贸易措施,分为普通301条款、特别301条款与超级301条款。301条款最初简明规定了总统的权力和国会的否认权,但其后的修订对301条款的内容进行了扩展并使其更具体化。特别是301条款根据《2015年贸易便捷和贸易促进法》做出重大修改,涵盖了WTO体系尚未涵盖但最近已纳入自贸协定的新领域。然而,这些针对外国贸易活动的单方决定和措施附加等至今备受争议,且已对强调多边贸易争端解决的WTO体系构成严重威胁。美国贸易法301条款的修订主要围绕着美国贸易代表办公室(USTR)的措施、决定、对外国政府相关政策的监督、确认贸易自由化的优先顺序以及知识产权不适当保护的应对等内容进行。针对美国不断启动的301条款调查,我国应与美国积极开展沟通与协商,加强与美国产业界的接触和交流,发挥全球化程度高的企业的作用,力争以谈话和谈判化解矛盾;促进产业转型升级,重新审视“走出去”战略;履行加入WTO时的承诺,完善全方位的开放体制;合理拓展中国企业的海外利益,完善风险防范机制。     

美国"特别301条款"与我国知识产权的国际保护

中国知识产权的国际保护必须置于TRI P s协议的背景下,认真遵守并履行WT0成员国的义务,才能在日益激烈的国际经济竞争中争取主动并切实维护我国的经济利益.TRIPs协议与美国"特别301条款"的密切关联,使得美国"特别301条款"在知识产权的国际保护问题上有着至关重要的意义.     

谈"301条款"与WTO争端解决机制的兼容性

美国贸易法“301条款”长期以来既是美国开拓海外市场和保护自身经济利益的最有力工具，又是美国应对国外贸易壁垒的重要国内法依据之一。虽然世界贸易组织早已确立了较为完善的争端解决机制，但美国始终不放弃“301条款”，继续使用该法律对其他国家的贸易措施进行调查、谈判。本文认为，“301条款”的单边主义与WTO确定的多边贸易体制是完全相悖的；但“301条款”与WTO争端解决机制又存在着某种暗合，能够适应这种环境并配合该机制而运作。     

美国“337”对我国贸易的影响及法律措施

“337条款”是美国外贸法律体系中调整外国产品的关键条款之一,随着中国企业对美国出口具有高级知识产权内容商品数量的增多,美国利用“337条款”对中国企业提出的投诉数量也越来越多,由于该条款对美国市场的保护,使得我国产品对美国出口极为不利。我国企业需要尽快增强对“337条款”的认识,以便在对美贸易中采取相应的法律措施。     

两种知识产权保护措施——美国“337条款”与“特别301条款”的若干比较

美国是我国最重要的贸易伙伴并且其贸易体制高度立法化,在中美知识产权争端中,很有必要对其经常援引的"特别301条款"和"337条款"有所了解。本文比较了这两项条款的内容、立案程序和危害性并进而得出与"特别301条款"相比,"337条款"的应诉难度更大,危害性更严重。最后分析了美国对华越来越多地由利用"特别301条款"转向"337条款"的原因,希望我国出口企业在今后应对过程中能够有的放矢。     

论美国贸易法“301条款”与关贸总协定多边贸易体制的比较

<正> 鉴于国内对美国贸易法“301条款”的介绍不甚详尽,甚至有误,为此,笔者拟从四个方面对“301条款”作较深入的研究。 一、“301条款”的立法背景 及演变 (一)1974年以前贸易法对美国贸易利益的维护 根据美国宪法第1条第8款第3项规定:“国会有权规定合众国与外国、各州间及     

美国关税法337条款对厂商的制裁力

美国《关税法》第337条(简称337条款),又称不公平贸易做法条款,是美国对不公平进口做法提供法律救济的主要工具。337条款与国内所熟知的美国《1988年综合贸易与竞争法》301条款的作用机制不同,301条款主要针对美国贸易伙伴的不公平贸易做法,由政府授权贸易代表署(USTR)与有关政府谈判,促使对方政府加强对知识产权的保护,在谈判无法达成协议时,采取报复性措施。而337条款,则针对侵犯与贸易有关的知识产权     

知识产权保护与自由贸易的冲突与协调

知识产权保护与自由贸易的冲突由来已久,TRIPS协议实施后,更引发了国家之间尤其是发达国家和发展中国家之间在贸易及其他利益方面的多种冲突,因此发达国家和发展中国家应加强在知识产权保护方面的协调,我国也应采取相应对策以减少知识产权冲突,充分发挥知识产权保护机制的积极作用。     

美国贸易法“301条款”与中美贸易争端

自2017年8月美国贸易代表办公室(United States Trade Representative,简称USTR)宣布对中国展开"301调查"至今,中美贸易争端历经缓和又走向极端,反反复复,摩擦持续升温。此次调查成为2010年之后美国依据"301条款"对中国展开的第六次调查,势必会对中美贸易产生重大影响。虽然"301条款"被国际社会诟病,但美国依然热衷于此,是"美国优先"以及逐渐凸显的单边主义思想所致。因此,为了保护我国国民利益,同时维护现有的良好国际经济秩序,对美国"301调查"制裁措施我国不能妥协也不能让步。中美贸易冲突不断升级,中国在采取反制措施的同时更要密切关注国内的人民币汇率等金融领域,企业更要有所准备,做好全面的应对措施。     

North-South trade and directed technical change

In a world where poor countries provide weak protection for intellectual property rights (IPRs), market integration shifts technical change in favor of rich nations. Through this channel, free-trade may amplify international wage differences. At the same time, integration with countries where IPRs are weakly protected can slow down the world growth rate. An important implication of these results is that protection of intellectual property is most beneficial in open countries. This prediction, which is novel in the literature, is consistent with evidence from a panel of 53 countries observed in the years 1965-1990. The paper also provides empirical support for the mechanism linking North-South trade to the direction of technical change: an increase in import penetration from low-wage, low-IPRs countries is followed by a sharp fall in R&D investment in a panel of US manufacturing sectors.     

When an Importer's Protection of IPR Interacts with an Exporter's Level of Technology: Comparing the Impacts on the Exports of the North and South

Using bilateral trade data of countries from 2000 to 2007, this paper contributes to the empirical literature on the role of intellectual property rights (IPRs) in global trade. The existing literature has focused on how IPRs in the destination country affect exports from a source country. In this paper, we add an additional dimension: the level of technology of the exporting country (LT). This is quite important for distinguishing the impact of IPRs on the exports of developed and developing countries, since the technology levels vary across countries at different stages of development and intellectual property rights better protect exports that are technologically advanced than exports that are imitative and potentially infringing. By factoring in the level of technology (LT), our empirical analysis makes the case that IPRs can act as a barrier to the exports from the South, especially the rapidly catching‐up economies, and thus be a source for the middle‐income trap phenomenon.     

Intellectual Property Rights,FDI, R&D and Economic Growth: A Cross‐country Empirical Analysis

This paper aims to empirically examine how intellectual property rights (IPRs) protection, foreign direct investment (FDI) and research and development (R&D), along with other possible variables, may affect the economic growth of the host country. Using the panel data of 92 countries during 1970–2007, I conclude from the system generalised method of moments estimation that domestic investment share, FDI, R&D capacity, openness to trade, human capital and IPRs protection all have statistically significant and positive impacts on economic growth. A further investigation of countries at different levels of development suggests two striking findings. First, besides the domestic investment, openness, human capital and IPRs protection, R&D is the key to drive economic growth in the higher‐income countries, while FDI is the engine of growth in both higher‐income and middle‐income countries. Second, a positive and significant impact of IPRs protection on economic growth is found in both higher‐income and lower‐income countries. However, such an impact is not detected in the middle‐income countries.     

驰名商标权人责任承担的法经济学思考

驰名商标的保护源于《保护工业产权巴黎公约》,之后各国对驰名商标进行专门保护,《与贸易有关的知识产权协议》更是为驰名商标提供了全面、广泛的保护,并要求各国法律对驰名商标提供特殊保护。很显然,按照权利与义务对等的法律原则,享受特殊保护的驰名商标权利人,是否应当承担较普通商标权人更多的义务。     

实施知识产权战略——我国企业应对美国337条款的有效途径

我国加入世贸组织之后,中美之间的贸易战逐渐出现一些新的变化,在反倾销措施不断加强的同时,美国正在越来越多地使用对贸易和知识产权限制更为严格的337条款作为保护其贸易的手段,使中国企业蒙受了巨大的损失。因此,实施知识产权战略,是我国企业维护自身利益,跨越美国337条款这道贸易壁垒最有效的途径。     

迈克尔·波特"权衡"论的竞争演化诠释

本文认为对迈克尔.波特竞争战略理论中"两种战略优势同时兼得"和"必须在两种基本战略之中权衡和抉择"存在误解,从产业动态演化视角分析了波特所持观点及其演变,提出了产业演化的三阶段背景和二维战略空间中的产业模式演化曲线,以及"权衡点"概念,认为波特的两种论断是在不同情形下作出的,互不矛盾;波特实际上认为经过"权衡"选取一种基本战略是特定产业模式成熟而又缺乏重大创新的特定时期不得不采取的战略措施;在"权衡点"前后,企业可以按照波特第一、第三两个"经典条件"实现两种优势同时兼得;避免或打破"权衡"最重要的途径是首创一项有战略意义的重大创新。     

美国农产品贸易政策的全面审视

美国农业政策可追溯到20世纪30年代的"新政"。2002年5月产生的"2002年农业法案",是美国国会根据形势变化做出的调整而产生的新法案。美国农业政策影响了美国农产品生产和贸易。了解美国的农产品贸易政策应该从市场准入、国内支持和出口竞争入手。     

The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act's Consquences for U.S. Trade: The Nigerian Example

A by-product of the Watergate investigations into illegal political contributions and money-laundering was the revelation that American corporations had been making questionable payments to foreign officials to gain business advantages. That discovery was the driving force behind passage of the FCPA in 1977. Many since have complained that the law put American firms at a disadvantage in international trade. This paper assesses the credibility of that claim, as well as exploring the socioeconomic implications of corruption in a world of intensifying international competition. Based on the literature review, examination of international trade data and intensive interviews with foreign firms doing business in Nigeria, the paper reaches the following conclusions:1. Enforcement of FCPA has waxed and waned, but there is no evidence that its enforcement has impeded the growth of U.S. trade. In fact, trade with countries previously considered "bribe prone" has out-paced the growth of trade with non-bribe-prone countries, despite FCPA.2. Those American corporations which, in the past, were guilty of international bribery did so as a short-cut when adherence to time-honored ethics could have accomplished the same or better results.3. The "Storehouse of Knowledge" maintained by successful firms has been far more influential in promoting exports than any questionable payments they might be tempted to make.4. In most of the questionable payments investigated, American corporations had indulged in bribery to gain a competitive edge over other U.S. firms rather than foreign ones.5. Whatever the result, international bribery is inherently wrong for the same reason that domestic bribery is wrong.Despite criticism of it, FCPA has benefitted honest U.S. firms by reducing unfair competition among other American firms which comprise about 80 percent of the world's true multinationals. For multinationals to function in anything other than a transparent manner would be to impede the spread of democratic governments and market economies worldwide.