从"专家组"一词误译说起——世界贸易组织争端解决程序中文简介

根据《争端解决谅解协议》规定,世贸组织成员之间若发生贸易纠纷,有关各方既可以自行协商解决,也可以通过世贸组织争端解决机构来解决.该机构的职能由世贸组织总理事会行使.从严格意义上讲,世贸组织争端解决机构只是一个准司法机构,因为上诉机构所作的裁决,最终还得由总理事会表决通过.尽管如此,争端解决机构在处理贸易纠纷时,具有一套严格的程序规定.中国在加入世贸组织之后遭遇的第一场贸易纠纷就是中国的钢铁产品在美国被征收高额关税.在双方协商未果的情况下,中国政府于2002年5月正式向世贸组织提出建立"评审团"的请求,希望通过世贸组织争端解决机构来解决双方的纠纷.但是,国内媒体在报道中美钢铁贸易纠纷时,将"评审团"误译成"专家组",这涉及一个概念错误.因为前者是世贸组织争端解决机制中一个不可缺少的程序,而后者只是评审团和上诉机构在审理案件时一个任意选择的程序.

A Brief Introduction to the WTO Dispute Settlement Mechanism

One of the fundamental differences between the GATT and the WTO is the dispute settlement mechanism. In the GATT scenario, the adoption of a decision made by the panels may be blocked by the losing party under the positive consensus mechanism. However, this situation has been reversed under the WTO dispute settlement mechanism, which uses the negative consensus mechanism. In other words, there is no possibility for the losing party to block the adoption of the decision made by WTO panels or the appellate body.There are two alternatives for the WTO members to resolve their trade disputes. They can do it either by consultation or through the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) which is the WTO General Council in its another capacity. The DSB, in a strict sense, is only a quasi judicial body as the decision made by the appellate body needs to be approved by the WTO members. Notwithstanding that, the DSB has a set of complete procedural requirements. The first trade dispute that China encountered after its accession to the World Trade Organization derives from the fact that a high import tax was levied on the Chinese steel products in the United States. After the two sides failed to resolve their dispute through consultation, China requested the WTO to establish a panel in May 2002, wishing to resolve its dispute with the United States through the WTO dispute settlement mechanism. However, the Chinese media, while reporting this case, misinterpreted the word "panel" with another expression "expert (review) group". To get the advice from experts is only a selective choice for the panelists and the appellate body members when they are drafting their recommendations or rulings. This practice is different from the panel review, which is an indispensable part of the WTO dispute settlement process.This incident of misinterpretation reflects the urgency on the part of China to familiarize itself with the WTO rules and dispute settle mechanism. To accede to the WTO is important for China, while what is more important is to use the WTO rules and dispute settlement mechanism correctly and efficiently. Otherwise, the Chinese enterprises will pay high cost in the severe competition of international trade.