【锐评】图尔克：世界贸易体系为何要改革？怎么改？（中英双语）
全文约1800字，读完约需2分钟。
作者达尼洛•图尔克系斯洛文尼亚前总统，中国人民大学重阳金融研究院外籍高级研究员。本文刊于8月17日观察者网。
全球正面临关税上涨和贸易摩擦升级的双重威胁，要求对国际贸易体系进行改革的呼声也随之越来越高。过去几十年全球贸易体系相当一致的积极发展，这与目前现状相悖，不仅令人心生不安，也自相矛盾。
让我们回顾一下历史。1948年，美国拒绝签署以《哈瓦那宪章》（Havana Charter，即国际贸易组织宪章）为基础的建立世界贸易组织（WTO）的协议，认为这样一个组织会阻碍世界贸易的发展。取而代之的是关税和贸易总协定（GATT）作为一个谈判机制的建立，允许逐步减少和消除贸易壁垒。
数十年来，商品贸易关税大幅下降，数量限制也大大减少。20世纪70年代，在东京回合贸易谈判中通过的多项协议解决了非关税壁垒问题。随后，20世纪80年代，在乌拉圭数回合谈判中实现了一定程度的服务贸易自由化。最后，世界贸易组织于1994年正式成立。尽管十年前多哈回合贸易谈判的停滞给全球贸易体系带来了一些疑问，但世界贸易组织仍然是一个全球性的成功。
1994年，美国代表签署“乌拉圭回合最终文本”（the Final Act of the Uruguay Round）
世贸组织的成功主要体现在贸易争端解决程序。在过去的几十年里，无论是在规则上还是结果上，它们都已发展成一个既灵活又高效的系统。尽管偶尔还是有反对的声音，但得益于争端解决程序，美国与欧盟都在世贸组织启动此程序前普遍取得了成功。
鉴于这历史性的相当一致的发展进程，针对某些商品征收高关税，以及谈论全球贸易战听起来是那么的不合时宜又令人恐惧。现有的一套议定书是否足以应付所谓的不公平贸易行为？
然而，不难发现真正的威胁并不是来自贸易本身，而是来自于地缘政治局势紧张与贸易限制性措施的结合。美国商品贸易逆差并不能成为发动贸易战的理由。商品贸易的平衡是经济合作上更大蓝图的一个重要组成部分，它受到来自于服务贸易和作为全球货币储备的美元的严重影响。此外，服务贸易的未来似乎还有一定的余地来调整, 包括使用知识产权的许可费。包括服务贸易在内的贸易扩张是比商品贸易限制更好的选择，更不用说贸易战了。
如果世贸组织被认为过于僵化，无法有效地管理全球贸易体系, 那就确实应该加以改进。鉴于世贸组织的历史，这将是最自然的事，谈判无疑是最好的前进方式。
最近其实有一些积极的迹象。7月16日第二十届中欧首脑会议联合声明中, 提出成立了一个“副部长级”的世贸组织改革联合工作组。看起来中国和欧盟都将世贸组织改革作为首要共识。
十天后, 金砖国家元首和政府首脑在约翰内斯堡举行的第十次首脑会议上，承诺金砖国家都将积极参与“在世贸组织内进一步完善现行多边贸易体制的法律框架，并考虑所有世贸组织成员特别是发展中成员的关切和利益。”
改进和改革世贸组织的倡议不应被误解为一条简单的出路。因为他们必须为所有人的合法利益提供足够的空间。过去几十年的全球化给世界带来了巨大的利益。然而，这也带来了一些需要解决的严重问题。许多基本问题不仅仅是经济上的, 而主要是社会和政治问题。收入不平等和财富不平等的加剧，世界部分地区令人震惊的失业率和气候变化的影响是最明显的例子。
关于知识产权的指控将成为欧盟与中国在WTO争端解决机制框架内“磋商”的主题。然而，协商并不是诉讼，它们的价值仅在于提供了一个双方交换意见和最终达成妥协的时机，这种情况可理解为一个将技术转让的国际辩论推向了一个全新水平的时机。
那么，在欧盟和中国的纠纷中，走向平衡和妥协的路径到底是什么？首先，我们应该认识到，中国的发展是全球知识、科学和技术变革的一部分。虽然中国显然会从国际技术转让中获益，而这又将有助于其实现 “中国制造2025”计划，但与此同时，其他国家也会从中获益。
我们的目标应该是建立“双赢的结果”，要实现这一目标，有关各方必须采取开放的态度，更好地了解中国的创新体系和发展规划。而欧盟所倡导的世贸组织磋商机制应作为实现这一目标的工具。
另一个有趣的问题是，该如何利用中国在科研和教育领域的互利交流与合作提供知识机会的能力。让我们回顾一下，创新比保护知识产权更为重要，而创新又与教育、文化密切相关。因此，在牢记贸易体制本身和世贸组织中心地位的同时，把高等教育和科研合作的发展纳入这个框架是尤为重要的。
当然，并非所有问题都可以通过国际经济合作和贸易直接解决。但在一个全球化的世界里，国际贸易体系对社会有着重大的影响，必须帮助寻找解决方案。
这种认识并不新鲜，它意味着有必要将贸易谈判议程扩大到尚未涉及或未能成功解决的领域。除了国家补贴和知识产权等熟悉的问题外, 今后的谈判可能还必须重新讨论关于核心劳工标准与贸易联系起来的“社会条款”问题。
正如最近的金砖国家首脑会议所提议的那样，“进一步完善”WTO框架下的现行法律框架的想法势必需要一个雄心勃勃的议程来推动。
Reform of the world trading system: Why and how?
The world is threatened by tariff hikes and prospects of a trade war,accompanied by improvised suggestions for abrupt changes in the international trading system. This is not only frightening but also paradoxical in light of the fairly consistent and positive developments in the global trade system over the past decades.
Let us recall, in 1948 the United States of America rejected the Havana Charter for the establishment of the World Trade Organization with the argument that such an organization would impede free trade. Instead, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) was established as a negotiating mechanism that allowed a gradual reduction and removal of barriers to trade.
Over decades, tariffs on traded goods were reduced dramatically and quantitative restrictions were largely removed. Non-tariff barriers were addressed through a number of agreements adopted in the Tokyo Round of trade negotiations in the 1970s. Subsequently, a certain level of liberalization of trade in services was achieved during the Uruguay Round of trade negotiations in the 1980s. And finally, in 1994 the World Trade Organization was established. While stalling the Doha Round of trade negotiations a decade ago cast some doubt on the global trading system, the WTO is still a remarkable global success.
An important part of that success is reflected in the WTO’s dispute settlement procedures. Over the past decades they have developed into a system that is both flexible and effective, both rules-based and results-oriented. Despite occasional allegations to the contrary, the US and the EU have generally been successful in the dispute settlement processes they had initiated before the WTO.
In light of this historic and fairly consistent progression, the introduction of high tariffs on certain goods and the talk of a global trade war sound both anachronistic and frightening. Isn’t the existing set of agreed instruments adequate enough to address the allegedly unfair trade practices?
However, it is not hard to discover that the real threat comes not from the trade itself, but from a combination of geopolitical tensions and restrictive measures in trade. Deficits in the trade in goods of the US cannot be a sufficient reason for a trade war. The balance of trade in goods is part of the larger picture of economic cooperation that is heavily influenced by trade in services and by the continued domination of the US dollar as the global reserve currency. And there also seems to be some scope for future adjustments in trading in services to include licensing fees for the use of intellectual property. Expansion of trade, including trade in services, is a better option than restrictions to the trade in goods, to say nothing about trade wars.
If the WTO is considered too rigid for effective management of the global trading system, then it should be improved. Given the entire history of the WTO, this would be the most natural thing to do and negotiations are the best way forward.
There are some signs of hope. In the joint statement of the 20th EU-China Summit on July 16, a joint working group on WTO reform, “chaired at vice-ministerial level”, was established. It seems that China and the EU take WTO reform as the way forward.
Ten days later, the heads of state and government of the BRICS countries, meeting at their 10th Summit in Johannesburg, pledged constructive engagement of the BRICS countries “in further developing the current legal framework for multilateral trading within the WTO, taking into consideration the concerns of all WTO members, including in particular developing countries”.
Initiatives for the improvement and reform of the WTO should not be misunderstood as an easy way out. They would have to provide space for the legitimate interests of all. Globalization of the past decades has brought immense benefits to the world. However, it has also contributed to serious problems that need to be addressed. Many of the fundamental problems are not only economic, but largely social and political. Income inequality and growing inequality in wealth, the staggering unemployment in some parts of the world, and effects of climate change are among the most obvious examples.
Naturally, not all problems can be addressed directly by means of international economic cooperation and trade. However, in a globalized world the international trading system has a big impact on societies and has to help in the search for solutions.
This realization is not entirely new. It implies the need to expand the trade negotiations agenda into areas that have not been addressed yet or have not been addressed successfully. In addition to familiar questions such as state subsidies and intellectual property, future negotiations might have to revisit the question of the “social clause” linking core labor standards and trade. The idea of “further developing” the current legal framework within the WTO, as proposed by the recent BRICS Summit, will require an ambitious agenda.
Danilo Türk was president of the Republic of Slovenia from 2007 to 2012. He is currently a non-resident senior fellow of the Chongyang Institute for Financial Studies, Renmin University of China.
关 于 我 们
中国人民大学全球治理研究中心(Global Governance Research Center，RUC)成立于2017年3月9日，是北京巨丰金控科技有限公司董事长马琳女士向中国人民大学捐赠并由中国人民大学重阳金融研究院（人大重阳）负责运营管理的教育基金项目。中国人民大学全球治理研究中心由原外交部副部长、人大重阳高级研究员何亚非领衔，前中国银行副行长、国际商会执行董事、人大重阳高级研究员张燕玲担任学术委员会主任，旨在构建高层次、高水准的全球治理思想交流平台，并向社会发布高质量的全球治理研究报告，努力践行咨政、启民、伐谋、孕才的智库使命。
2018年1月，中国人民大学全球治理研究中心入围由美国宾州大学“智库研究项目”（TTSCP）推出的、国际公认度最高的《全球智库报告2017》的“亚洲大国智库90强”。
欢迎关注“全球治理研究中心”微信公众号
globalgovernance2017
长按二维码关注我们