中国自由贸易区中的原产地规则研究

Rules of Origin in China' S Free Trade Areas

成果信息
DC信息
传播影响力
本库下载频次:
本库浏览频次:
CNKI下载频次:0

归属院系：

国际法学院

作者：

陆亚瑾

导师：

岳树梅

导师单位：

国际法学院

学位：

硕士

语种：

中文

关键词：

中国自由贸易区;优惠原产地规则;原产地标准;实质性改变标准;累积规则

摘要：

对于原产地规则的国际立法,1974年海关合作理事会制定的《简化海关手续的国际公约》(International Convention on the Simplification of Customs Procedures,简称《京都公约》)是关于它的最早的国际公约。但该公约仅具有建议性质,没有法律约束力。在1994年,经过艰难的谈判和磋商,WTO成员国达成了《原产地规则协议》(Agreement on Rules of Origin),并将其纳入《乌拉圭回合多边贸易谈判结果最后文件》(Final Act,简称《最后文件》)供缔约方一揽子接受。这是有史以来第一个关于货物原产地规则的多边协议。然而,该协定与WTO其他多边贸易协议不同,它并未明确规定各成员制定原产地规则的具体做法,而仅规定各成员在本国制定原产地规则时应遵循的原则,协定也只起到原则性指导作用。所以,虽然该协定就非优惠性原产地规则达成了重要共识,但目前协调非优惠性原产地规则的多边谈判仍举步维艰,各成员国实施的原产地规则得不到统一。此外,该协定只涉及非优惠性原产地规则,对普惠制和区域贸易安排下的优惠性原产地规则的国际协调目前仍是空白,虽以共同宣言的形式将优惠性原产地规则附在协定之后,但实际上各国在制定优惠原产地规则方面不受约束,具有很强的自主性。因而,目前在多边层面缺乏对优惠原产地规则的立法。由于多边层面在制定规则等方面需要协调多方成员的利益,往往需要耗费很长的时间,因而,近年来更多的国家越来越多的将注意力转向了区域贸易。欧盟和美国作为国际贸易中的两大经济支柱,更是在原产地规则的实践方面为全球树立的风向标,逐步形成了当今世界范围内最为成熟和重要的两种优惠性原产地规则模式——泛欧(Pan-European)原产地规则模式(以下简称泛欧模式)和北美自由贸易区(NAFTA)原产地规则模式(以下简称北美模式)。然而,各优惠贸易区实行不同的原产地规则,其国内又有各自的非优惠性原产地规则,从而加剧“意大利面碗”效应的产生,使得原产地规则的适用越加混乱。因而区域的实践也使得优惠原产地规则的统一问题更加势在必行。学界提出了统一优惠原产地规则的三种解决方案:协调、从根本上改革和取消原产地规则,各自都有拥护者和反对者。但其基本原则都是一致的,即要统一原产地认定标准、降低区域保护性和限制性、简化原产地操作程序等。而中国作为区域贸易的一份子,随着原产地规则在经济全球化背景下逐渐成为重要的贸易政策工具,中国也越来越多地将原产地规则的立法与实践摆在重要的战略位置,但是中国在入世之前并没有严格的优惠与非优惠原产地规则之分,这一问题在入世之后才引起人们注意。中国现行的原产地规则立法是2006年海关总署颁布的《中华人民共和国进出口货物原产地规则条例》,与wto对非优惠性原产地规则的指导原则相一致,但该条例却并不适用于中国自由贸易区。而中国在自贸区中的实践则暴露了其原产地规则在适用中与多边对统一优惠性原产地规则的努力不相符合的一些方面,如原产地认定标准不统一导致原产地的认定混乱;制度型原产地规则还不够完善;原产地操作程序复杂混乱等。这就需要中国从借鉴多边规则、学习其他国家原产地实践、协调国内非优惠性原产地规则、吸收学界合理观点等角度出发探讨解决这些困境的出路。因而,有必要对中国自由贸易区(以下简称自贸区)中的原产地规则进行研究,丰富中国在优惠性原产地规则方面的理论研究。特别是,2015年6月1日和2015年6月17日,中国分别与韩国和澳大利亚新建立了自由贸易区。以此为契机,本文旨在通过对中国自由贸易区中原产地规则的具体适用规定加以分析,分析我国自贸区中原产地规则的具体适用规则,同时探讨其在适用中存在的困境及可能的出路探讨。具体而言,本文分为五部分:第一部分首先研究原产地规则的基础问题,界定原产地规则的定义及其构成要素。第二部分着眼于中国自贸区中原产地规则的现状,主要通过文本分析,考察中国自贸区中原产地规则的立法演进、具体的适用规则等,从而总结出中国自贸区中原产地规则存在的特点。第三部分结合中国的现状考察了中国自贸区中原产地规则存在的困境,如原产地认定标准不统一、制度型原产地规则不够完善、原产地操作程序笼统混乱等。第四部分通过对泛欧原产地规则和北美原产地规则以及最新TPP原产地规则具体规定的了解,以比较分析的方式明确欧美国家在原产地规则方面是如何有效避免问题产生的。第五部分主要探讨了针对中国自由贸易区中原产地规则的困境有何可能的完善措施。从多边规则、区域实践、国内立法、学说观点等角度试图统一中国的原产地认定标准、完善制度型原产地规则并简化中国对原产地规则的操作程序。第六部分是结论部分,总结中国自由贸易区中原产地规则的现状及其困境和完善措施,并进一步简要分析中国在未来建立自由贸易区时应当注重的问题,特别是要注重对区域内产业的保护;在规则制定中也要结合我国的区域经济发展战略。

学科：

国际法学

提交日期：

2018-01-11

引用参考：

陆亚瑾. 中国自由贸易区中的原产地规则研究[D]. 西南政法大学,2016.

全文附件授权许可：

知识共享许可协议-署名

  • dc.title
  • 中国自由贸易区中的原产地规则研究
  • dc.title
  • Rules of Origin in China' S Free Trade Areas
  • dc.contributor.schoolno
  • 20130301090745
  • dc.contributor.author
  • 陆亚瑾
  • dc.contributor.affiliation
  • 国际法学院
  • dc.contributor.degree
  • 硕士
  • dc.contributor.childdegree
  • 法学硕士
  • dc.contributor.degreeConferringInstitution
  • 西南政法大学
  • dc.identifier.year
  • 2016
  • dc.contributor.advisor
  • 岳树梅
  • dc.contributor.advisorAffiliation
  • 国际法学院
  • dc.language.iso
  • 中文
  • dc.subject
  • 中国自由贸易区;优惠原产地规则;原产地标准;实质性改变标准;累积规则
  • dc.subject
  • China's Free Trade Areas;preferential rules of origin;origin criteria;substantive change criteria
  • dc.description.abstract
  • 对于原产地规则的国际立法,1974年海关合作理事会制定的《简化海关手续的国际公约》(International Convention on the Simplification of Customs Procedures,简称《京都公约》)是关于它的最早的国际公约。但该公约仅具有建议性质,没有法律约束力。在1994年,经过艰难的谈判和磋商,WTO成员国达成了《原产地规则协议》(Agreement on Rules of Origin),并将其纳入《乌拉圭回合多边贸易谈判结果最后文件》(Final Act,简称《最后文件》)供缔约方一揽子接受。这是有史以来第一个关于货物原产地规则的多边协议。然而,该协定与WTO其他多边贸易协议不同,它并未明确规定各成员制定原产地规则的具体做法,而仅规定各成员在本国制定原产地规则时应遵循的原则,协定也只起到原则性指导作用。所以,虽然该协定就非优惠性原产地规则达成了重要共识,但目前协调非优惠性原产地规则的多边谈判仍举步维艰,各成员国实施的原产地规则得不到统一。此外,该协定只涉及非优惠性原产地规则,对普惠制和区域贸易安排下的优惠性原产地规则的国际协调目前仍是空白,虽以共同宣言的形式将优惠性原产地规则附在协定之后,但实际上各国在制定优惠原产地规则方面不受约束,具有很强的自主性。因而,目前在多边层面缺乏对优惠原产地规则的立法。由于多边层面在制定规则等方面需要协调多方成员的利益,往往需要耗费很长的时间,因而,近年来更多的国家越来越多的将注意力转向了区域贸易。欧盟和美国作为国际贸易中的两大经济支柱,更是在原产地规则的实践方面为全球树立的风向标,逐步形成了当今世界范围内最为成熟和重要的两种优惠性原产地规则模式——泛欧(Pan-European)原产地规则模式(以下简称泛欧模式)和北美自由贸易区(NAFTA)原产地规则模式(以下简称北美模式)。然而,各优惠贸易区实行不同的原产地规则,其国内又有各自的非优惠性原产地规则,从而加剧“意大利面碗”效应的产生,使得原产地规则的适用越加混乱。因而区域的实践也使得优惠原产地规则的统一问题更加势在必行。学界提出了统一优惠原产地规则的三种解决方案:协调、从根本上改革和取消原产地规则,各自都有拥护者和反对者。但其基本原则都是一致的,即要统一原产地认定标准、降低区域保护性和限制性、简化原产地操作程序等。而中国作为区域贸易的一份子,随着原产地规则在经济全球化背景下逐渐成为重要的贸易政策工具,中国也越来越多地将原产地规则的立法与实践摆在重要的战略位置,但是中国在入世之前并没有严格的优惠与非优惠原产地规则之分,这一问题在入世之后才引起人们注意。中国现行的原产地规则立法是2006年海关总署颁布的《中华人民共和国进出口货物原产地规则条例》,与wto对非优惠性原产地规则的指导原则相一致,但该条例却并不适用于中国自由贸易区。而中国在自贸区中的实践则暴露了其原产地规则在适用中与多边对统一优惠性原产地规则的努力不相符合的一些方面,如原产地认定标准不统一导致原产地的认定混乱;制度型原产地规则还不够完善;原产地操作程序复杂混乱等。这就需要中国从借鉴多边规则、学习其他国家原产地实践、协调国内非优惠性原产地规则、吸收学界合理观点等角度出发探讨解决这些困境的出路。因而,有必要对中国自由贸易区(以下简称自贸区)中的原产地规则进行研究,丰富中国在优惠性原产地规则方面的理论研究。特别是,2015年6月1日和2015年6月17日,中国分别与韩国和澳大利亚新建立了自由贸易区。以此为契机,本文旨在通过对中国自由贸易区中原产地规则的具体适用规定加以分析,分析我国自贸区中原产地规则的具体适用规则,同时探讨其在适用中存在的困境及可能的出路探讨。具体而言,本文分为五部分:第一部分首先研究原产地规则的基础问题,界定原产地规则的定义及其构成要素。第二部分着眼于中国自贸区中原产地规则的现状,主要通过文本分析,考察中国自贸区中原产地规则的立法演进、具体的适用规则等,从而总结出中国自贸区中原产地规则存在的特点。第三部分结合中国的现状考察了中国自贸区中原产地规则存在的困境,如原产地认定标准不统一、制度型原产地规则不够完善、原产地操作程序笼统混乱等。第四部分通过对泛欧原产地规则和北美原产地规则以及最新TPP原产地规则具体规定的了解,以比较分析的方式明确欧美国家在原产地规则方面是如何有效避免问题产生的。第五部分主要探讨了针对中国自由贸易区中原产地规则的困境有何可能的完善措施。从多边规则、区域实践、国内立法、学说观点等角度试图统一中国的原产地认定标准、完善制度型原产地规则并简化中国对原产地规则的操作程序。第六部分是结论部分,总结中国自由贸易区中原产地规则的现状及其困境和完善措施,并进一步简要分析中国在未来建立自由贸易区时应当注重的问题,特别是要注重对区域内产业的保护;在规则制定中也要结合我国的区域经济发展战略。
  • dc.description.abstract
  • As for the rules of origin, International Convention on the Simplification of Customs Procedures(referred to as the "Kyoto Convention")conducted by the Customs Cooperation Council in 1974 is the first international convention on it. However, the convention has only recommendatory nature, it is not legally binding. And in 1994, after difficult negotiations and consultations, WTO member countries reached a "Rules of Origin Agreement" and put it into the "Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations final document" for Parties to accept the package, which is the first ever multilateral agreement on rules of origin of goods. However, this agreement is different from other WTO multilateral trade agreements. It does not specify how the members identify some problems and issues, but only regulates the principles which should be obeyed when members formulate their owns rules of origin. The agreement will serve only as guiding role. So, while the agreement reached important consensus on non-preferential rules of origin, rules of origin implemented by the Member States has not yet unified and the coordination of non-preferential rules of origin are still struggling multilateral negotiations and; In addition, the agreement involves only nonpreferential rules of origin, international coordination on the preferential rules of origin in GSP and regional trade arrangements is still blank. "Rules of Origin Agreement" attaches the preferential rules of origin later in the form of a joint declaration, but in fact all countries in the development of preferential rules of origin are unconstrained with strong autonomy.And because in the multilateral level, countries need to coordinate the interests of multiparty members, so it often takes a long time in the rule-making. Therefore, in recent years, more and more countries are increasingly turning their attention to regional trade. The EU and the United States have set global benchmark on the rules of origin, especially the practice of preferential rules of origin, and gradually formed two most mature and important modes of preferential rules of origin in the world today- Pan-European(Pan-European) rules of origin mode(hereinafter referred to as Pan-European model) and the North American free Trade Area(NAFTA) rules of origin mode(hereinafter referred to as the North American model). However, each preferential trade area applies different rules of origin, which also has their own domestic non-preferential rules of origin, thus causing a "spaghetti bowl" effect, so that the application of rules of origin has become increasingly chaotic. Thus it is more imperative to make practice to make preferential rules of origin reunification.Academics put forward three solutions to unify preferential rules of origin : coordination, reform and abolish fundamental rules of origin, each has its advocates and opponents. But the basic principles are the same, that is, to unify the standards to determinate the origin of goods, to reduce regional protection and restrictive, and to simplify origin operating procedures. And as the rules of origin under the background of economic globalization has become an important tool of trade policy, China also increasingly put the original legislation and practice of rules of origin in an important strategic position. But before joining into the WTO, China did not strictly distinguish preferential and non-preferential rules of origin, which caught China's attention after joining into the WTO. China's current rules of origin legislation is "People's Republic of China Import and Export Ordinance, the rules of origin of goods" promulgated by General Administration of Customs in 2006,whose non-preferential rules of origin is basically consistent with WTO rules. However, the regulations are not clearly defined that it can apply to preferential rules. China also has a lot of inconsistency with other countries' effort to unify the preferential rues of origin. Thus, it is necessary to do some research on the preferential rules of origin in China Free Trade Areas(hereinafter referred to as FTAs). In particular, June 1, 2015 and June 17, 2015, respectively, China and South Korea and Australia signed a new FTA, and simultaneously entered into force on December 20. "China- Korea FTA" and "China- Australia FTA" signed on behalf of the higher levels of the FTA, and will further promote the new development of China's regional economic integration. As compared with other free trade agreements China has signed, "China- Korea FTA" for the first time provides for "Treatment of Certain Goods" in the Outward Processing Zone, which enrichs the content of preferential rules of origin.This paper aims to make text analysis on China's preferential rules of origin in its FTAs, and use a comparative study with the representative modes of the Pan-European model and the North American model, to analyze the specific situation of rules of origin in China's FTAs, as well a to explore the existing problems and possible measures in China's FTAs.Specifically, the article is divided into five parts:The first part is about some research on the basis of the rules of origin in China's FTAs like the definition and basic elements it contains.The second part focuses on text analysis on China FTAs in the rules of origin, to study its development, the main content of the rules, and then to sum up China FTAs features.The third part examines some of the shortcomings of China FTAs rules of origin. For example, China doesn't have unified standard to determinate the origin of goods; the regimewide rules of origin are not perfect; and the procedures on rules of origin are confused.The fourth part analyzes the Pan-European model and the North American model of preferential rules of origin and compares them with China FTAs rules of origin. The preferential rules of origin in United States and the European Union are walking in the forefront of the world, which is necessary to conduct research on them in order to learn from them.The fifth part discusses what the possible measures we can adopt to improve our preferential rules of origin.
  • dc.subject.discipline
  • D996.1
  • dc.date.issued
  • 2026-03-23
回到顶部