从WTO争端解决程序看《多方临时上诉仲裁安排》的可执行性

欧盟与中国等部分世贸组织成员近期公布了之前达成的《根据DSU第25条的多方临时上诉仲裁安排》及其附件1和附件2。在WTO上诉机构结束停摆之前,这些成员若对专家组一审裁决不服,可以此作为再次审议的临时安排。WTO争端解决机制是一个有机整体,其制度设计有其独到之处和内在逻辑。用仲裁代替上诉,从程序上看,争端解决似乎也是经历两审程序,但是这与原先的"两审终审"有本质区别。这种区别不仅体现在上诉与仲裁制度本身的差异上,也体现在裁决的执行力方面。事实上,根据临时仲裁安排作出的裁决执行能否援引WTO争端解决机制是有争议的。临时仲裁安排既不是部分成员达成的诸边贸易协议,也不是对DSU的正式修改,其法律性质带有很大的不确定性,执行力自然也会遭到质疑。世贸组织目前面临的问题不单是争端解决的程序问题,其背后同时折射出许多实体问题。程序问题必须与实体问题一并解决,这才是迎接多边贸易体制挑战、改革WTO规则的正确方向。

Study on the Implementation of MPIA From the Perspective of WTO Dispute Settlement Procedure

EU, China and some other WTO members have recently made public their concluded MPIA together with its Annex I and II, taking it as a temporary arrangement to implement the arbitration award based on their dissatisfaction of the panel rulings before the Appellate Body resumes its operation. The WTO dispute settlement mechanism is an organic whole and its system design has its unique features and inherent logics. From the perspective of procedure, the dispute settlement still keeps the two-tier process with the arbitration to replace the appeal. Nevertheless, it has the fundamental difference from the original appealing system. This difference is not only reflected in the difference between the appeal and arbitration system itself, but also in the implementation of the award. The challenges which the WTO dispute settlement mechanism confronts are not only limited to the procedure,but also connected with those substantial issues like WTO rules and the treatment of WTO members. The procedural issues should be resolved together with those substantial issues.This is the correct way to meet the challenge of multilateral trade system and reform WTO rules.