泰和泰研析 | 浅析关贸总协定关于出口禁令的适用困境——以WTO为视角
编者按
涉外法律专业术语因翻译问题造成歧义的情况屡见不鲜，为减少不同语种之间的理解差异，最大程度还原问题本质，本文分别使用中文和英文进行同步论述，方便有需要的读者进行对照印证。
摘要Abstract
有分析认为，全球疫情更加凸显出关贸总协定第十一条的适用困境——第一款关于禁令的规定过于宽泛，第二款关于豁免的规定则过于狭窄。为探讨如何解决困境，本文将在新冠疫情肆虐全球的背景下，阐述第十一条在国际贸易制度中的具体体现；其次，本文还将讨论，如何适用第十一条才能在确保供应链完整的情况下，取得国家利益与国民福祉之间的微妙平衡。本文通过下述分析，查找解决困境的真正答案。
It is alleged that the pandemic has made one thing clear: the prohibition under Article XI:1 GATT is overly broad, and the exceptions under Article XI:2(a) overly narrow. This essay will discuss the topic in two parts. Firstly, it will examine how Article XI of the GATT is reflected in international trade regime in times of the COVID-19 pandemic. Secondly, it will try to explain how the scale is balanced between securing the international trade with supply chain intact in the face of national interests as well as the well-being of their citizens. By analyzing these two factors above, we shall see the reason that the provisions are drafted over-broadly in general and over-narrowly in exemptions.
引言
Introduction: problem prima facie
回望世贸组织的发展历程，我们可以肯定的是，1947年签订的关税贸易总协定仅是极少数缔约国希望降低贸易壁垒，使得本国商品能够畅销海外的一次努力。一方面，外贸公司通过大量的出口贸易赚取巨额利润，但另一方面，国内生产者却因为进口倾销而举步维艰。世界大战的血泪教训让全人类达成共识——寄希望于战争来解决国家困境只会继续向深渊滑落，因为战争中没有赢家。通过规则与谈判来解决问题已成为国家之间新的共识，而世贸组织则是国与国为了实现全球共同发展的贸易规则平台。
迄今为止，新冠疫情仍在肆虐，远未结束。这场疫情给世界带来的冲击前所未有，而这一点同样也在贸易领域当中有所体现。疫情危机下的各国为了自保，不谋而合地根据关贸总协定第十一条和第二十条（b）来限制医疗用品及食品的出口。越来越多的现状表明：扩张的全球化进程与较为成熟的全球产业链正岌岌可危。
To think of how the World Trade Organization (WTO) came into being, the General Agreement on Tariff and Trade 1947 (GATT) was merely an endeavor to keep tariffs low after WWII among very few countries. Countries would want to earn money from other parts of the world by selling their products, per se, exports, yet on the other hand put tariffs on foreign products to protect domestic markets. The bloodshed of two world wars in the dawn of 20th century made people to realize that they do not want to solve the dilemma by wars in which no one wins. So the WTO sets out the rules for its parties in international trade. Inspections of the very nature of the WTO comes with the conclusions that exports are good for companies who are making money overseas and imports are bad for it hurts domestic producers.
And now we have COVID-19 which is far from over yet. The world has never seen such pandemic as coronavirus hit the globe. Countries call upon measures under Article XI and Article XX(b) of the GATT to restrict exports of medical-related products as well as food due to national crisis. There is no more status quo. The well-established global supply chain is endangered.
PART 1
理论基础：基于结构现实主义的视角
Theory: a structural realism approach
1947年关贸总协定的谈判过程清晰的展现了其作为贸易条约的政治属性。它为降低关税和消除贸易壁垒做出贡献的同时，也已成为主要的——至少有时是主要的，国际政治手段的载体。由它产生的世贸组织同样是国际政治的舞台，但在这个体系中并没有最高权力机构。该体系在一定程度上造就了各成员必然会在灾难来临的时候，选择强化自身以实现自保。这也正是疫情爆发之后各国的做法——通过限制本国关键物资的出口以保证本国医疗防护能力。本文在结构现实主义视角下，对各成员国在关贸总协定的范围内保护其利益进行探讨得出的结论是：破局的关键并不是对关贸总协定第十一条及第二十条作文章，而是如何在当前规则下实现保护各国利益和稳固世界贸易格局的平衡。
Nothing demonstrates more clearly the political concessions than the GATT 1947 conducted after World War II. While making its contribution to lower tariffs and drop down trade barriers, it have been a main – sometimes the main – vehicle of international political instrument. Being a structural realist, I believe WTO is also a reflection of international politics where there is no higher authority to turn to when an individual is in trouble, so the best way to protect oneself is to be as powerful as possible. This is exactly what happened when Covid-19 happened. Setting aside conspiracies, think tanks of Governments reacted just in the way that structural realist would predict. Furthermore, what a structural realist does is basically to create answers in large problems. In this case, I would proceed with the approach that countries under Article XI:2 of GATT have every reason to protect themselves with exportation curbs and try to produce enough of the essential products to survive the pandemic. The major problem here to be solved is how to balance the scale between securing the international trade with supply chain intact and the protection of national interests as well as the well-being of their citizens.
PART 2
疫情下的出口限制
Facts on export restrictions since the pandemic
出口限制有关政策概述
Overview of export restrictions-
新冠疫情爆发后，2020年1月起，世贸组织陆续收到了各国对出口限制的报告。WTO的数据显示，最初几个月近90个国家都针对新冠疫情出台了出口限制措施。从2020年1月至7月，这些国家实施了总计197项针对重要物资的出口禁令或限制令。[1] 时至今日（截止2022年10月），仍有近56个国家或地区限制了医疗物资的出口，65个国家或地区限制了食品的出口。整体来看，各个国家的出口禁令虽然对限制的范围有所区别，但基本可以划分为医疗物资与食品这两类。以世界上的主要经济体美欧中三家为例，美欧各有5项食品出口限制令，中国有3项；而医疗物资出口限制令方面，美国有21项，欧洲有25项，中国则有2项（数据采集截至2022年9月22日）。有分析称，全面了解所有的禁令/限制令可能不太现实，包括中国在内的一些WTO成员并未将采取的出口限制及数量通知给秘书处，也有部分文章称，中国正在有选择的逐步放开个人防护设备的出口限制，但其目的似乎是基于政治的考量。
表一：针对疫情施加贸易限制政策的国家数量（粮食版块）
表二：针对疫情施加贸易限制政策的国家数量（医疗资源版块）
数据来源：Global Trade Alert, 有关举措统计 2020年1月1日至 2022年9月22日
通过大量检索发现，我们可以肯定的是，关贸总协定第十一条第一款规定的确实较为宽泛，它不仅包括出口限制，配额和出口许可证，还包括“其他措施”。疫情爆发后，大量贸易政策都可以为关贸总协定第十一条第一款所涵盖，然而确定这些“措施”违反条款之规定却并非易事。
Let us first take a look at what countries responded in terms of export curbs since 2020. Early in first few months, nearly 90 countries had introduced export restrictions as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, according to the WTO. Since January 2020, countries have taken more than 197 actions banning or limiting the export of certain products. By October 2022, there are currently 56 countries/regions who have restrictive exportation policies implementing regarding medical goods and 65 countries/regions regarding food sectors. The product covered by exportation curbs vary but it generally falls into two categories: medical goods and foodstuffs. Take major regions as examples and we can see that currently (data collected by 2022/09/22) EU has 25 export restrictions in medical sector and 5 in food sector. USA has 21 export restrictions in medical sector and 5 in food sector. China has 2 export restrictions in medical sector and 3 in food sector respectively. Getting a full picture of all the bans is hard as some analysts have argued that many WTO members like China have not yet notified the Secretariat of all the export restrictions and quantitative restrictions and that China is selectively releasing personal protective equipment for export, with destinations seemingly chosen according to political calculations.
After hours of data-searching, we can agree on one thing that it is true to say Article XI:(1) is worded broadly and includes not only export bans, quotas and export licenses but also ‘other measures’. Any moves regarding trade policies that implemented after the virus broke out can fall into the scope of the first provision. However, to find those ‘measures’ to be in violations is not a simple task.
有关措施与关贸总协定之规定的合规分析
Consistency with the provisions of GATT
意外的是，几乎所有的主要国家或区域都以某种方式采取了出口限制，看起来并没有国家会担忧协定条款这一“达摩克里斯之剑”。为了全面把握违反的条款含义，首先要勾勒出它的构成要素。
参考哥伦比亚纺织品一案[2] ，评审团报告中提到认定哥伦比亚违反了关贸总协定第十一条第一款的理由。申请国巴拿马认为，哥伦比亚限制了纺织品和鞋类的竞争机会，且所采取的措施成本高昂、花费巨大并人为的创造了不确定性。因此，他将进口所需缴纳的保证金定义为是对进口的一种“限制”，有违关贸总协定第十一条第一款[3]。评审团通过大量的分析论证认为，本案中构成违反条款的三要素分别是：
1
负担与成本，
2
是否会给进出口过程中创造不确定性，
3
限制范围的随意性。但最终，评审团认为巴拿马并未证明保证金给进口施加了限制作用。
由此可知，要想证明一国政策违反条约约定，相应的举证责任就在主张的一方。而证明的关键是这项政策是否对争诉方的出口造成了“限制性影响”。[4]
在该标准下，若一项措施被定义为限制性措施，那么哪些限制措施可以被认为是该条款第二项所述的豁免情形？需要注意的是第十一条第二款规定了豁免的所有情形。这三种情形下的出口限制并不在一般禁令的范围内：
1
暂时适用，
2
防止或缓解“严重短缺”，
3
食品或其他必需品的严重短缺。[5]
在世贸组织争端解决机构处理的与限制出口有关的争端案件中，仅在中国炼制钢铁的金属原材料一案中否定了豁免情形的存在。评审团的结论是中国违反条款第一项的限制出口措施并非临时性的（16年）。[6]当然，认定16年不是临时举措也许很简单，但又如何去确认疫情相关措施的时限？
此外，在什么情况下可以将物资定义为严重短缺？必需物资又有哪些？口罩和其他个人防护用品也许属于这一类，而制作它们的原材料是否也在这一范围之内？这些原材料也可能用于一系列其他产品的生产。从条约的字面意思来看并没有涵盖这些基本的要素，这只会让人们更难透过迷雾来辨别：一项措施究竟是为了克服困境还是第十一条第一款禁止情形的变相举措。从这个意义来讲，豁免情形的定义由于缺乏明显的边界和而显得过分狭隘，这导致实践中的大多数情形都需要通过条款的解释来实现。
Curious as it was, almost all the major jurisdictions put on export restriction in some way. No one seemed to be afraid of the ‘Sword of Damocles’. To fully understand, I first need to draw a picture of the elements of what comprises a violation of Article XI.
With reference to the report of panel in the case of Colombia —Textiles, here is how the Dispute Settlement Body thinks on this matter.
In Panama’s argument, they concluded that Colombia limits competitive opportunities for textiles and footwear by imposing a requirement that has a significant cost, is burdensome and creates uncertainty. Accordingly, Panama claims that posting a specific bond is a "restriction" on importation inconsistent with Article XI:1 of the GATT.
In the analysis of the panel, the panel examined the measure’s (1) cost and burdensomeness, (2) the uncertainty which it creates in the import/export process, and (3) the arbitrariness of its coverage. However, the panel thinks that what Panama have demonstrated fail to prove the specific bond had a ‘limiting effect’ on imports.
Using these criteria, what happens if a measure is rendered to be a restrictive one? Note that the Article XI:(2) has set the exemption of the whole contexts. An export restriction falls outside the scope of the general prohibition if it is (1) ‘temporarily applied’, (2) to prevent or relieve ‘critical shortages’, of (3) foodstuffs or other ‘essential’ products.(735) China- Raw material is the one case I can refer to that violations were found under Article XI and the main reason for that is that China had been put a restriction on a raw material used to be produce steel for more than ten years. The panel concluded that the measure was not temporary in nature which was in violation of the provision. Though it is parsimonious to declare a decade is nothing of a temporary period of time, where is the time limit for Covid-relating ‘measures’?
Furthermore, in what state is something considered to be in critical shortage? And what is essential products? Facemasks and other PPE may be one of this category. But what about the material used in making it which may also be used in a range of other products. All of those essential factors are missing in the wording of the context which only makes it harder to see through the shadow of doubts whether a measure is one to survive desperate times or one in disguise which is a QR prohibited under Article XI(1). In this sense, it is true that the ‘carve-out’ is drafted overly-narrow which lacks proper horizons and up for interpretations.
PART 3
解决方案：
保证国际贸易制度稳定的尝试
Solutions: Endeavors to secure the international trade regime
客观的说，新冠疫情称得上是国际贸易体系的试金石。然而破除当前困境并不能寄希望于各国放弃保护自身利益而将世界贸易格局的稳定优先。疫情教会世界贸易的应当是各国将贸易政策透明化。
诸多学者，包括法律人和经济学者，同世贸组织都已对贸易政策透明度问题的重要性开展过多次讨论。[7]如果在成员国之间设定一个严格的报告义务，让成员国针对其在危机中面临的问题及自身的优势进行清晰的分析，并在此基础上建立一个针对全球性危机的沟通机制，那么我们前面提到的平衡是完全可以达到的。也只有通过政策透明化，全球才能更好地面对汹涌而来的危机。
It is fair to say that Covid-19 is a litmus test for the system. As far as I am concerned, it did not tell the world to refrain from keeping oneself safe and put world trade at first. The true lesson learned is to be honest of what kind of mess one is currently in and here is why.
Loads of scholars, economist and lawyers have spoken about the transparency in trade policies. To put it simple, for example, Arcadia is the main producer of a medical good, say respirator. And Utopia is the main provider of an essential material. When the virus breaks out, Utopia has to think about making respirators on its own for Utopia would fear that Arcadia could ban the exportation on it after they ship all the material to Arcadia. Vice versa, Arcadia would say: I’d better stop the exportation since Utopia could stop exporting the material, and hang on to what they already have. In the pattern, the world trading system would be in chaos in no time.
All of those above are avoidable if we establish a conversation system in times of global crisis. In today’s world, every big countries are holding the life line of at least one supply chain. Other than winning about the consistency and making conspiracies against each other like an immature child, Nations should make a clear representation on what they are currently facing and what they need and what they have to offer. By transparency, the world stands a better chance in grief crisis.
结论
Conclusions
综上所述，新冠疫情清楚地表明，关贸总协定第十一条第一款的禁止性规定确实较为宽泛，而该条第二款（A）项对例外情形规定的却又过于狭隘。但从1947年制定关贸总协定的角度来看，这个问题其实不必深究，因为缔约各方刚经历过一场战争，没有人比他们更懂什么叫“严重短缺”。关贸总协定过去的几十年中基本保持不变确实有其自身原因，确保业已建立的世界贸易秩序的稳定，再确保各成员国政策透明度。然而，这一点知易行难。
To sum up what I have mentioned above, it is true that the prohibition under Article XI:1 GATT is overly broad, and the exceptions under Article XI:2(a) overly narrow. And the pandemic has been demonstrating it clearly. But in the perspective of GATT 1947, we should not think on this problem too hard for back in the days the contracting parties of it had literally just survived a war to understand what the word ‘critical shortage’ means. The provisions of GATT remain largely unchanged for a reason. The best way to secure the international trade regime is transparency on every trade policy. Yet it is easier said than done.
参考文献 Reference
[1]Casey, Christopher A.;Cimino-Isaacs, Cathleen D. ‘Export Restrictions in Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic’(2020) CRS < Export Restrictions in Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic (congress.gov)> Accessed 06 November
[2]Report of the panel, COLOMBIA – MEASURES RELATING TO THE IMPORTATION OF TEXTILES, APPAREL AND FOOTWEAR（WT/DS461/RW）5 October 2018
[3]Report of the panel, COLOMBIA – MEASURES RELATING TO THE IMPORTATION OF TEXTILES, APPAREL AND FOOTWEAR（WT/DS461/RW）5 October 2018, para 7.179
[4]Report of the panel, COLOMBIA – MEASURES RELATING TO THE IMPORTATION OF TEXTILES, APPAREL AND FOOTWEAR（WT/DS461/RW）5 October 2018, paras 7.237 – 7.238
[4]Joost Pauwelyn, ‘Export Restrictions in Times of Pandemic: Options and Limits Under International Trade Agreements’ [2020] Journal of World Trade 727
[6]Report of the Panels, China – Raw Materials, paras 7.351–7.352.
[7]See WTO, ‘TRANSPARENCY – WHY IT MATTERS AT TIMES OF CRISIS’, (7 April 2020) (“Transparency disciplines are designed to ensure that traders can quickly and easily obtain useful information about importation and other requirements for goods. Allowing members and stakeholders to have quick access to product requirements and certification procedures is crucial in emergency situations: this can avoid delays/rejections and help essential medical goods to reach those who need them when they need them. Such notifications are included in WTO searchable databases covering a vast array of trade-policy measures, such as the TFA Database or ePing.”)
LAWYER
作者简介
李文萱 律师
执业领域：
涉外民商事争议解决、国际商事仲裁、劳动人事争议、公司法务
李亚伦 律师
执业领域：
刑事辩护、环境保护、能源行业、房地产/建设工程/、公司商务