地址：南京市建鄴區(qū)楠溪江東街85號(hào)金潤(rùn)國(guó)際廣場(chǎng)西樓1506室
電話：025-58866358、58933315
傳真：025-58867358
郵件：info@bonagrain.com
第一輪發(fā)言
General Statement
感謝主席。
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
中方感謝并支持歐盟大使馬克范赫克倫的發(fā)言。作為聯(lián)合提案方之一，中方將就a、b、c三項(xiàng)分議題分享兩點(diǎn)看法：
China thanks and supports the statement made by Ambassador Marc VanHeukelen of the European Union. As one of joint proponents, China would like to share two comments, which cover sub-items a, b and c:
第一，中歐等世貿(mào)組織成員提出聯(lián)合提案，目的是回應(yīng)并解決相關(guān)成員對(duì)上訴程序的關(guān)切，維護(hù)和加強(qiáng)上訴機(jī)構(gòu)的獨(dú)立性和公正性，推動(dòng)世貿(mào)成員開展以文本為基礎(chǔ)的實(shí)質(zhì)性討論，盡快啟動(dòng)上訴機(jī)構(gòu)成員遴選程序。上訴機(jī)構(gòu)危機(jī)已持續(xù)一年多時(shí)間，尚未見到解決曙光。個(gè)別世貿(mào)成員對(duì)上訴程序提出了關(guān)注，但未提出具體建議或解決方案。如該問題持續(xù)得不到解決，上訴機(jī)構(gòu)將在一年后“停擺”。上訴機(jī)構(gòu)成員遴選問題已成為世貿(mào)組織面臨的迫在眉睫的危機(jī)，亟須盡快解決。中國(guó)古代哲學(xué)家孟子曾經(jīng)說過，“徒法不足以自行”。爭(zhēng)端解決機(jī)制是世貿(mào)組織的核心支柱。因此，為推動(dòng)盡快解決上訴機(jī)構(gòu)危機(jī)，中歐等40多個(gè)成員共同提出了聯(lián)合提案，希籍此推動(dòng)實(shí)質(zhì)性討論。
First, the joint proposal by the EU, China and other Members aims to respond to and address a particular Member’s concerns on appellate process, maintain and strengthen the independence and impartiality of the Appellate Body, promote text-based substantial discussions among WTO Members, and launch the selection process for Appellate Body Members as soon as possible. The crisis of the Appellate Body has lasted for more than a year without any silver lining. The individual WTO Member flagged its concerns over the appellate process, but providing no concrete suggestions or solutions. If this issue remains unresolved, the Appellate Body will cease to function after next year. The selection of Appellate Body Members has become an imminent crisis facing the WTO and needs to be resolved at the earliest time. As an ancient Chinese philosopher Mencius said, “l(fā)aws alone cannot carry themselves into practice.” The dispute settlement mechanism is the core pillar of the WTO. Therefore, more than 40 Members, including the EU and China, collectively submitted the joint proposal aiming to promote the substantive discussions, so as to facilitate the crisis of the Appellate Body to be solved without any delay.
第二，中方呼吁世貿(mào)成員積極參與討論磋商，爭(zhēng)取盡快達(dá)成一致。正如印度所言，聯(lián)合提案代表著開始，而非結(jié)束或最終結(jié)果。中方希望總理事會(huì)主席在此次會(huì)后，能夠積極主持討論磋商，以適當(dāng)?shù)臋C(jī)制保持討論勢(shì)頭。維持爭(zhēng)端解決機(jī)制和多邊貿(mào)易體制，是所有世貿(mào)成員的共同責(zé)任，符合所有世貿(mào)成員的共同利益。中方希望所有世貿(mào)成員能夠積極參與，以建設(shè)性的合作態(tài)度和積極務(wù)實(shí)的行動(dòng)，盡快解決上訴機(jī)構(gòu)危機(jī)，共同保障爭(zhēng)端解決機(jī)制的正常運(yùn)行，維護(hù)多邊貿(mào)易體制的權(quán)威性和有效性。中方期待著與所有世貿(mào)成員一起推動(dòng)該項(xiàng)工作。
謝謝。
Second, China calls on all WTO Members to actively engage in the discussions and consultations, and strive to reach consensus as soon as possible. As India just said, joint proposal marks a beginning rather than the end or the final result. China urges the Chairman of the General Council could actively host the discussions and consultations after this meeting, so that the discussion momentum could be maintained through certain appropriate mechanism. Safeguarding the dispute settlement mechanism and the multilateral trading system is the shared responsibility of all WTO Members and serves the common interest of the whole membership. China hopes that every WTO Member could vigorously participate in the spirit of the constructive cooperation, take positive and pragmatic actions to solve the crisis of the Appellate Body as soon as possible, safeguard the well-functioning of the dispute settlement mechanism by collective efforts, and maintain the authoritativeness and effectiveness of the multilateral trading system. China is looking forward to furthering this work with all WTO Members.
Thank you.
第二輪發(fā)言
Second Intervention
感謝主席，我抱歉將再次發(fā)言。
Mr. Chairman, I am sorry to take the floor again.
我認(rèn)真聽了謝伊大使的發(fā)言，感到有點(diǎn)失望和困惑，但也不驚訝。中方愿意并希望繼續(xù)與包括美方在內(nèi)的所有世貿(mào)成員討論有關(guān)問題。
I listened carefully to the Statement by Ambassador Shea, but felt a little disappointed and confused, though not surprised. China is willing and hopes to continue discussions on relevant issues with all WTO Members including the United States.
我對(duì)美方的表態(tài)有幾點(diǎn)疑問：
I have several questions regarding the statement by the United States:
一是關(guān)于90天的問題。的確，現(xiàn)有規(guī)則規(guī)定的上訴審限是90天，但二十多年來，案件越來越復(fù)雜，案卷材料越來越多。早先的案件，比如美國(guó)限制汽油進(jìn)口案（DS2），所有案件相關(guān)材料匯總起來不過一小紙箱。但情況不同了，現(xiàn)在每一個(gè)案件可能都得要幾十箱文件。上訴機(jī)構(gòu)明顯無法按期完成工作，我們?cè)撛趺崔k？我們很難找到解決之道。例如，未來遴選上訴機(jī)構(gòu)成員時(shí)，難道我們要尋找那些能夠一目十行的人？或者我們要求上訴機(jī)構(gòu)成員每天工作16小時(shí)、睡覺5小時(shí)、吃飯3小時(shí)？實(shí)際上，35年前，我在準(zhǔn)備中國(guó)的高考時(shí)曾經(jīng)這么做過，但我知道這種做法是不可持續(xù)的。所以我的問題是，鑒于目前這種狀況，美方建議要怎么辦?
First, regarding the issue of 90 days. Of course, the existing rule stipulates the 90-day deadline for the appellate review. However, after more than twenty years, cases have become more and more complex, case materials therefore also surged. In early years cases, such as United States Gasoline (DS2), a small carton suffices for all case-related materials. That is no longer the same situation. Nowadays, we probably need dozens of cartons to pile relevant materials for almost every case. This is the reality that Appellate Body cannot finish its work on time. Given the United States’ position to oppose the increase of resources, what we should do? We are struggling to find a way, for example, in the future when we select Appellate Body members, may we look for those who are able to read ten lines at a glance or can we ask the Appellate Body members to work 16 hours, sleep 5 hours and eat for 3 hours per day? Actually, I did it myself 35 years ago, when I prepared my college entrance examination in China, but I know it is not sustainable. So my question is, what suggestions the United States would like to make under such circumstance?
二是關(guān)于越權(quán)問題。中方也希望上訴機(jī)構(gòu)按照授權(quán)工作，不要擴(kuò)張其判決。但坦率地說，如何界定是否越權(quán)并沒有各方認(rèn)同的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。除了敦促上訴機(jī)構(gòu)認(rèn)真注意這一問題外，美方認(rèn)為我們還能做什么？
Second, regarding the issue of overreach. China also wants the Appellate Body to stay in line with its mandate, rather than expanding its adjudications. To be frank, Members do not have consensus over the criteria to determine whether the overreach occurs. Except for urging the Appellate Body to take serious note on this issue. In the United States’ opinion, what else could we do?
三是關(guān)于先例問題。上訴機(jī)構(gòu)在以往爭(zhēng)端案件中做出的裁決，為什么不能參考？已經(jīng)分析過的法律問題，為什么要浪費(fèi)時(shí)間和資源重新再分析一遍？這不符合司法經(jīng)濟(jì)原則，與美方所主張的提高爭(zhēng)端解決效率是互相矛盾的。
Third, regarding the issue of precedent. When the Appellate Body made adjudications in previous disputes, I don’t know why these judgments cannot be used as reference? Why should we waste time and resources to redo the analysis of the already analyzed legal issues? It also runs against the judicial economy principle, which directly conflicts with the positions of the United States to enhance the efficiency of dispute settlement.
四是關(guān)于解決美方關(guān)切問題。美方說歐盟、中國(guó)和印度的部分建議會(huì)影響對(duì)上訴機(jī)構(gòu)的問責(zé)。那美方能否回答一下，提案中哪些內(nèi)容解決了美方關(guān)切，還有哪些關(guān)切沒有解決？對(duì)于未解決的關(guān)切，美方有哪些具體的意見？如果沒有，是否美方愿意坐等上訴機(jī)構(gòu)癱瘓？
Fourth, regarding solving concerns of the United States. The United States views that some suggestions by EU, China and India will make the Appellate Body even less accountable. Could the United States give a response to the proposal regarding which of its concerns have been addressed and which are not? Does the United States have specific suggestions on how to address those remaining concerns? If not, is it the intention of the United States to sit back and wait for the paralysis of the Appellate Boddy？
最后，主席，我對(duì)謝伊大使的表態(tài)表示歡迎，他說美國(guó)愿意就此問題與其他成員進(jìn)行深入探討。我希望我的這些問題能夠在今后深入的討論中得到解答。
謝謝。
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I welcome Ambassador Shea’s statement that the United States would like to engage in the deep discussions with other Members on this issue. And I hope my questions can be answered in the future in-depth discussions.
Thank you.
