WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATION
WT/DS361/1
G/L/818
26 March 2007
(07-1254)
Original: English
EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES – REGIME FOR THE IMPORTATION OF BANANAS
Request for Consultations by Colombia
The following communication, dated 21 March 2007, from the delegation of Colombia to the delegation of the European Communities and to the Chairman of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated in accordance with Article 4.4 of the DSU.
_______________
My authorities have instructed me to request the European Communities ("EC") to consult with Colombia pursuant to Article 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes ("DSU"), Article XXIII:1 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 ("GATT 1994"), and Paragraph 3 of the Understanding in Respect of Waivers of Obligations under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 on the regime for the importation of bananas that the EC has applied since 1 January 2006.
Background to the consultations requested by Colombia
In the dispute EC – Bananas III, certain aspects of the EC's previous banana import regime were found to be inconsistent with WTO law.1The EC reached Understandings with Ecuador 2and the United States3identifying means for the resolution of that dispute. According to these Understandings, the EC was to "introduce a Tariff Only regime for imports of bananas no later than 1 January 2006",4to rebind its import tariff on bananas, and to initiate "GATT Article XXVIII negotiations ... in good time t o that effect …"5
Both Understandings provided for the application of three tariff-rate quotas until 31 December 2005, including a zero duty tariff-rate quota for bananas originating in ACP States
("ACP bananas") up to an annual quantity of 750,000 tonnes.6To enable the EC to accord this tariff-rate quota, the EC was granted a waiver from Articles XIII:1 and XIII:2 of the GATT 1994 until 31 December 2005 (the "Article XIII Doha Waiver") .7Furthermore, to enable the EC to provide preferential tariff treatment to products of ACP origin, as required by Article 36.3, Annex V and its Protocols of the ACP-EC Partnership Agreement, the EC was granted a waiver from Article I of the GATT 1994 until 31 December 2007 (the "Article I Doha Waiver") .8
In respect of bananas, the application of the Article I Doha Waiver beyond 31 December 2005 was made subject to a number of terms and conditions. The waiver specified that the EC shall rebind its import tariff on bananas at a level that "would result in at least maintaining total market access for MFN banana suppliers".9It further provided for "multilateral control on the implementation of this commitment"10through a two-stage arbitration procedure and specified that both the "Article XXVIII negotiations and the arbitration procedures shall be concluded before the entry into force of the new EC tariff only regime on 1 January 2006."11
In a communication dated 31 January 2005, the EC stated that it envisaged rebinding its import tariff for bana nas at the level of 230€/tonne.12Following the receipt of this communication, Colombia and other MFN banana suppliers (the "Interested Parties") initiated the arbitration procedure contemplated in the Article I Doha Waiver. The Arbitrator determined that the EC's "envisaged rebinding [of 230€/tonne] would not result in at least maintaining total market access for MFN banana suppliers, taking into account all EC WTO market-access commitments relating to bananas".13
The Article I Doha Waiver required the EC to "rectify the matter" if the Arbitrator were to find that the rebinding initially proposed would not result in at least maintaining total market access for MFN banana suppliers.14On 13 September 2005, the EC notified the Interested Parties that it intended to rectify the matter by setting its import tariff for bananas at the level of 187€/tonne an d establishing a zero duty tariff-rate quota of 775,000 tonnes per year for ACP bananas. Subsequently, the EC initiated the second stage of the arbitration procedure to determine whether its proposal would at least maintain total market access for MFN banana suppliers. Once again, the Arbitrator determined that the EC proposal failed that standard and that, consequently, the EC had "failed to rectify the matter, in accordance with the fifth tiret of the Annex to the Doha Waiver."15On 1 January 2006, the EC implemented a new regime for the importation of bananas under which the tariff levied on bananas of MFN origin ("MFN bananas") was set at 176€/tonne, and ACP bananas may be imported at zero duty up to an annual quantity of 775,000 tonnes (the "ACP TRQ") .
Measure at issue and legal basis of Colombia's complaint
The measure at issue is the EC's the new import regime for bananas set out in (i) Council Regulation (EC) No 1964/2005 of 29 November 2005 on the tariff rates for bananas and (ii) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2014/2005 of 9 December 2005, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 566/2006 of 6 April 2006, on licences under the
arrangements for importing bananas into the Community in respect of bananas released into free circulation at the common customs tariff rate of duty, and (iii) all other legal instruments implementing, relating to, or amending any of the foregoing.
Colombia considers that the new import regime for bananas is inconsistent with the GATT 1994 for the following reasons:
1. The application of a t ariff of 176€/tonne to imports of MFN bananas is inconsistent
with Article II:1 of the GATT 1994 because it is in excess of the duties set forth
under heading 0803001916of the EC's Schedule of Concessions. That schedule
provides for an in-quota duty of 75€/tonne within a tariff-rate quota of 2.2 million
tonnes. The levying of import tariffs in excess of 75€/tonne for all imports of
MFN bananas is inconsistent with this concession. For this reason, before
applying to MFN bananas a tariff higher than 75€/tonne, the EC should have
renegotiated its tariff concession on bananas in accordance with the procedures set
out in Article XXVIII of the GATT 1994, as agreed to in its Understandings with
Ecuador and the United States, and as contemplated under the Article I Doha
Waiver.
2. Only ACP bananas benefit from the application of a zero tariff. The denial of this
advantage to MFN bananas is inconsistent with Article I:1 of the GATT 1994.
This inconsistency cannot be justified under the Article I Doha Waiver because
that waiver ceased to apply to bananas as of 1 January 2006, given the Arbitrator's
determination that the EC had failed to rectify the matter. In any case, the EC
cannot invoke this waiver to justify the inconsistency with Article I:1 of the
GATT 1994 because it does not observe the terms and conditions of the waiver. In
particular, it has failed to rebind its import tariff on bananas and at a level that
results in at least maintaining total market access for MFN banana suppliers,
taking into account all EC WTO market-access commitments.
3. The application of the ACP TRQ entails discrimination between ACP bananas and
MFN bananas inconsistent with Articles XIII:1, XIII:2, and XIII:5 of the GATT
1994. This inconsistency cannot be justified under the Article XIII Doha Waiver
because that waiver expired on 31 December 2005 and has not been extended.17
Procedural Aspects
The Understanding between the EC and Ecuador, the EC and the United States, and the Article I Doha Waiver envisaged a final resolution of a long-standing dispute by 1 January 2006. Regrettably, the EC has once again taken measures inconsistent with WTO law that seriously harm an important sector of Colombia's economy. As a developing country heavily dependent on its exports of bananas, Colombia can ill-afford yet another lengthy dispute settlement proceeding conducted according to standard time frames. Accordingly, Colombia requests the EC to hold consultations within the time frame set out in Article 4.8 of the DSU
for cases of urgency, that is within 10 days after the date of receipt of this request. Should these consultations not lead to a satisfactory settlement, Colombia will consider referring the matter to the Director General pursuant to Article 3.12 of the DSU and the Decision of 5 April 1966 (BISD 14S/18) in the hope that his good offices will facilitate a rapid solution to this dispute and, if necessary, request the establishment of a panel in accordance with applicable accelerated procedures.
I look forward to receiving your reply to this request for consultations. I suggest that the precise date of the consultations be discussed between our missions.
__________
WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATION
WT/DS361/2
WT/DS364/2
22 December 2009
(09-6682)
EC1– REGIME FOR THE IMPORTATION OF BANANAS (DS361) INITIATED
BY COLOMBIA
EC1– REGIME FOR THE IMPORTATION OF BANANAS (DS364) INITIATED
BY PANAMA
Report by the Director-General on the Use of His Good Offices
in the Above-Mentioned Disputes
(pursuant to Article 3.12 of the DSU)
The following communication, dated 21 December 2009, from the Director-General of the WTO to the Chairman of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated to Members for their information.
_______________
1. This is my report to the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) concerning the use of the good offices of the WTO Director-General in the above-mentioned disputes pursuant to Article 3.12 of the DSU and the Procedures under Article XXIII – Decision of 5 April 1966. As the parties have recently agreed on a way to settle these disputes, the use of my good offices as WTO Director-General in these disputes is no longer needed and resort to such good offices for this purpose is therefore deemed to have ended.
Introduction
2. In the dispute EC-Bananas III2, certain aspects of the European Communities banana import regime in force at the time the dispute was initiated in 1996 were found to be inconsistent with WTO law. A number of proposals by the EC to modify its regime to bring it into compliance with the recommendations and rulings of the Dispute Settlement Body in this dispute were rejected by complaining countries. In April 2001, an agreement was reached between the EC, Ecuador and the United States that entailed, inter alia, the establishment by no later than 1 January 2006 by the EC of a tariff-only import regime for bananas as well as an interim arrangement consisting of: (1) a tariff rate quota scheme for MFN suppliers providing for an in quota tariff rate of 75 euros per tonne up to 2.2 million tons and an out of quota tariff rate of 680 euros per tonne thereafter; and (2) duty-free preferential tariff treatment to bananas for up to 750,000 tonnes originating in ACP countries. This interim arrangement would be made legally permissible under WTO rules through the adoption of several waivers agreed at the Doha Ministerial, as explained further below.
3. A waiver from the application of Article I of the GATT was granted in Doha in November 2001 (the "Doha waiver") for the Cotonou Agreement trade preference, with a duration commensurate with these trade preferences, i.e., until 31 December 2007. This waiver also covered the trade preference for bananas. The waiver specified that the European Communities would rebind its WTO-bound import tariff of 680 euros per tonne on bananas at a level that "would result in at least maintaining total market access for MFN banana suppliers" comparable to that provided for under the interim arrangement. The waiver further provided for multilateral control over the implementation of this commitment through a two-stage arbitration procedure and specified that both the Article XXVIII negotiations and the arbitration procedures would have to be concluded before the entry into force of the new EC tariff-only regime. At the same time, a second waiver to cover the temporary duty-free allocation of 750,000 tonnes to ACP countries was granted until 31 December 2005.
4. During the course of 2005, the European Communities and interested MFN countries attempted but failed to reach agreement on the level of a new EC tariff rate that would maintain the MFN countries' "total market access" as set forth in the Doha waiver. Two arbitrations were held in accordance with the provisions of this waiver. These arbitrations concluded that the tariff levels proposed by the European Communities would not result in at least maintaining total market access for MFN banana suppliers comparable to that under the interim arrangement, taking into account all EC WTO market access commitments relating to bananas. The EC was therefore required to rectify the matter.
5. In response to the second arbitration award and without the prior agreement of MFN suppliers, the EC implemented a new banana import regime on 1 January 2006 (through Council Regulation 1964/2005) . This was the EC banana regime in force when there was a subsequent request by several of the MFN suppliers for the DG to provide his good offices in this dispute as explained further below. Under this new EC regime, the MFN tariff applied to all bananas regardless of their origin was € 176 per ton and there were no quantitative restrictions. In addition, the European Communities offered until the end of 2007 a preference to bananas imported from countries that had signed the "Cotonou Agreement"3. This preference took the form of an annual quota of 775,000 tonnes of bananas free of duty from Cotonou participating countries (the "Cotonou Preference") . All bananas imported from Cotonou countries beyond this amount were also subject to the tariff of € 176 per ton.
6. In the meantime, at the Hong Kong Ministerial in December 2005, several Latin American countries had expressed serious concern over what they considered to be the EU's non-implementation of the earlier WTO's legal rulings and recommendations from the late 1990s in the banana dispute, particularly in the aftermath of the two arbitrations carried out earlier in 2005 under the Doha Waiver. To address these concerns, I nominated Mr Jonas Store, the Norwegian Foreign Minister, to act as a "Facilitator" to assist the parties in trying to find a solution and asked him to report to the General Council in due course. Minister Store conducted regular meetings for the next 18 months, assisting the parties and reporting periodically to the General Council on his efforts. During this process, the participants collected and shared data on imports/exports of bananas in the EU with a view to advancing the search for what should be the appropriate new EC tariff level within the framework of the agreements that had been reached in 2001.
7. Concurrently, implementation of the EC's new import regime for bananas on 1 January 2006 also triggered a number of legal complaints in the WTO by various MFN suppliers in late 2006, including legal proceedings initiated by Ecuador and the United States under the compliance panel procedures of Article 21.5 (c) of the DSU. The reports of the two compliance panels and the Appellate Body in these two proceedings, which were adopted by the DSB in late 20084, confirmed that the new EC regime on banana introduced on 1 January 2006 was still inconsistent with the EU's WTO obligations.
Use of the Good Offices of the WTO Director-General
8. On 21 March and 22 June 2007, Colombia and Panama, respectively, requested new consultations under the DSU with the EC regarding its new banana regime of 1 January 2006 as set out in EC Council regulation (EC) No. 1964/20055. When these consultations failed to lead to a satisfactory settlement, pursuant to Article 3.12 of the DSU and the Procedures under Article XXIII – Decision of 5 April 1966, Colombia and Panama, referred the matter to me on 2 November and 14 December 2007, respectively, with the request that, acting in my ex-officio capacity, I use my good offices with a view to facilitating a solution to their dispute with the EC.
9. Initially, Colombia and the EC had requested that their good offices process not include any third parties. They foresaw, however, that if they were to make progress, subsequent phases of the process could then involve other principal suppliers and parties in the dispute. In the meantime, however, Panama requested me to carry out a separate good offices procedure for its dispute with the EC. Colombia, Panama, and the EC then agreed that the two good offices procedures should run in parallel, although it was envisaged that at a later stage the two processes could be merged if there were sufficient progress toward a solution in both processes.
10. As this was the first time that the provisions of Article 3.12 of the DSU and the Procedures under Article XXIII – Decision of 5 April 1966 were used since the inception of the WTO, I initially sought from the parties their expectations as to what should result from the good offices process. In this regard and in accordance with paragraph 2 of the 1966 procedures, parties were requested to furnish me with all relevant information relating to the matter, including written explanations. I also requested the parties' views on which other Members or inter-governmental organisations they believed appropriate for me to consult with a view to promoting a mutually acceptable solution.
11. The parties stated their preference for a negotiated settlement as opposed to a purely legal process. The parties also agreed in both good offices processes to adhere to confidentiality with respect to the content of the proceedings. It was in this spirit that the two good offices processes were conducted.
12. I held four formal meetings in the Colombia-EC good offices process. There were also several informal bilateral/plurilateral meetings and contacts between the parties and the parties and myself. I also held two formal meetings in the Panama-EC process, with several informal bilateral/plurilateral contacts and meetings between the parties and the parties and myself.6During these two processes, with a view to assisting the parties in recording in text their apparent points of agreement and possible agreement, I put forward a series of written options as to what might be considered by the parties as an acceptable EC import tariff for bananas and under what conditions.
13. In parallel to these two formal good offices processes, and in the interest of transparency - which could contribute to an agreement among the parties that would be acceptable to all WTO Members – I also held a number of formal7and informal meetings with other WTO Members, including other MFN suppliers, ACP banana producers, other banana producers and importers.8
14. The good offices processes intensified in the first part of July 2008. In attempting to reflect the evolving positions of the parties and in an effort to lead them towards a balanced result, I then put forward in writing the elements of a draft comprehensive banana agreement on 12 July 2009. I informed the parties that these elements were my best effort at helping them find a solution to their disputes. I reiterated that I remained available should the parties need my assistance.
15. Consultations then continued directly between the parties during the latter half of July 2008 and through 2009. These direct consultations finally resulted in two agreements between the EC and its MFN bananas suppliers – one with all Latin MFN suppliers and the other with the United States. These two agreements were initialled by the parties on 15 December 2009. The text of the agreement between the EC and its Latin MFN suppliers - the "Geneva Agreement on Trade in Bananas" was then circulated to the General Council for its information ( WT/L/784 ) . At its meeting of 17-18 December 2009, the General Council took note of this agreement.
__________
WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATION
WT/DS361/3
G/L/818/Add.1
12 November 2012
(12-6214)
Original: English
[WT/DS27, WT/DS361, WT/DS364, WT/DS16,
WT/DS105, WT/DS158, WT/L/616 and WT/L/625 ]
8 November 2012
European Communities – Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas (Guatemala; Honduras; Mexico; United States) (DS16) European Communities – Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas (Ecuador; Guatemala; Honduras; Mexico; United States) (DS27) European Communities – Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of
Bananas (Panama) (DS105)
European Communities – Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas (Guatemala; Honduras; Mexico, Panama; United States) (DS158) European Communities – Regime for the Importation of Bananas (Colombia) (DS361) European Communities – Regime for the Importation of Bananas (Panama) (DS364) European Communities – The ACP-EC Partnership Agreement – Recourse to Arbitration pursuant to the Decision of 14 November 2001 (Brazil; Colombia; Costa Rica; Ecuador; Guatemala; Honduras; Nicaragua; Panama and Venezuela)
( WT/L/616 )
European Communities – The ACP-EC Partnership Agreement – Second Recourse to Arbitration pursuant to the Decision of 14 November 2001 (Brazil; Colombia; Costa Rica; Ecuador; Guatemala; Honduras; Nicaragua and Panama) ( WT/L/625 )1
Notification of a Mutually Agreed Solution
The following communication, dated 8 November 2012, from the delegation of the European Union and the delegations of Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama and Venezuela to the Chairman of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated pursuant to Article 3.6 of the DSU.
_______________
The European Union and the Governments of Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama and Venezuela (hereinafter "the Latin American MFN banana suppliers") notify the DSB that they have reached a mutually agreed solution with respect to the disputes WT/DS16; WT/DS27; WT/DS105; WT/DS158; WT/DS361; WT/DS364; WT/L/616 and WT/L/625 on the terms set out in the attached Geneva Agreement on Trade in Bananas. Having regard to that Agreement, and to the Certification of the EU tariff line on bananas on 27 October 2012 (document reference WT/Let/868 ), the aforementioned disputes are settled as of 27 October 2012.
This letter is without prejudice to the WTO rights and obligations of the EU and the Latin American MFN banana suppliers2.
For the European Union
For the Government of Brazil
For the Government of Colombia
For the Government of Costa Rica
For the Government of Ecuador
For the Government of Guatemala
For the Government of Honduras
For the Government of Mexico
For the Government of Nicaragua
For the Government of Panama
For the Government of Venezuela
__________
WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION WT/DS361/1 G/L/818 26 March 2007 (07-1254) Original: English EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES – REGIME FOR THE IMPORTATION OF BANANAS Request for Consultations by Colombia The following communication, dated 21 March 2007, from the delegation of Colombia to the delegation of the European Communities and to the Chairman of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated in accordance with Article 4.4 of the DSU. _______________ My authorities have instructed me to request the European Communities ("EC") to consult with Colombia pursuant to Article 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes ("DSU"), Article XXIII:1 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 ("GATT 1994"), and Paragraph 3 of the Understanding in Respect of Waivers of Obligations under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 on the regime for the importation of bananas that the EC has applied since 1 January 2006. Background to the consultations requested by Colombia In the dispute EC – Bananas III, certain aspects of the EC's previous banana import regime were found to be inconsistent with WTO law.1The EC reached Understandings with Ecuador 2and the United States3identifying means for the resolution of that dispute. According to these Understandings, the EC was to "introduce a Tariff Only regime for imports of bananas no later than 1 January 2006",4to rebind its import tariff on bananas, and to initiate "GATT Article XXVIII negotiations ... in good time t o that effect …"5 Both Understandings provided for the application of three tariff-rate quotas until 31 December 2005, including a zero duty tariff-rate quota for bananas originating in ACP States
东北财经大学网络教育课程考试论文（案例）考核 世界多边贸易体制概论 作者 考试批次 学籍批次 考点 层次 专业 完成时间
浅析WTO争端解决机制 一、关于争端解决机制的几点说明 ㈠争端解决机制的发展 随着经济全球化的日益深入，国与国之间的竞争加剧，贸易摩擦也日益增多。为确保贸易能公平、公正的进行，需要一个有效的争端解决机制。从GATT的争端解决机制条款到WTO的争端解决机制，多边贸易体制日臻完善和成熟。当双边磋商难以达成协议时，争端的申诉方可将争端提请缔约方全体进行处理。 为了进一步强化GATT的争端解决机制，乌拉圭回合谈判较全面、彻底的对GATT争端解决机制和程序作了改进，并最终形成了《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解书》）.通过这样一个强化了的机制，WTO希望能更迅速、更有效地处理成员之间的贸易纠纷和摩擦、维护它们之间的权利与义务，督促各成员更好地履行各项协议的义务及其所作的承诺，“实现问题的满意解决”。 ㈡争端解决机制的基本程序 WTO的争端解决制度是保障WTO多边贸易体制的可靠性和可预见性的核心， DSU对争端解决的基本方法和程序作了极为详细的规定，其基本程序包括：磋商；斡旋，调解和调停；专家小组；上诉视察；对建议或裁定的监督执行；仲裁；补偿与减让的终止以及“交叉报复”。 WTO自1995年成立后，其争端解决机制在处理国际经贸纠纷方面取得了显著成绩，发挥着日益重要的作用。约有80%的争端在建立专家小组之前是通过磋商是争端双方达成一致的，这也表明了争端解决机制的权威性。 当然，WTO争端解决机制远不是完美的，年轻的WTO争端解决机制能不能经受真正的考验还有待时日，但是无疑，我们是有理由乐观的。 二、 WTO争端解决机制运作过程存在的不足——从一个经典案例看香蕉案 ㈠案情 这是一个被数次诉诸GATT和WTO纠纷解决机制的纠纷。欧盟市场的香蕉主要有三部分来源：一个是直接隶属于某些欧盟国家的海外领土，如加勒比海地区的英联邦成员，法国的海外省等；二是通过《洛美协定》同欧盟保持特惠经贸关系的(非洲、加勒比和太平洋地区的国家,ACP);三是中美和南美洲的国家。 欧洲香蕉共同市场组织成立，为国际香蕉市场带来了深刻的结构性变化，由于欧盟（欧共体）404/93规则确立了不同的配额体系，给予ACP国家特惠待遇，导致跨国香蕉企业逐步将投资、经营移出中南美地区，对其造成重大损失。基于此，厄瓜多尔、危地马拉、洪都拉斯和墨西哥以及美国联合申诉专家组技术机构基本接受了申请方五国的主要观点，并要求欧盟应最迟不晚于1999年1月1日修改香蕉进口、销售及分销体制，以同WTO的一般规则相符合。 欧盟接受了以上裁决，公布了1637/98号新决议。但是，申请方五国认为新规则仍然保留了原体制的歧视性，ACP国家继续超越“洛美弃权”的限制从欧盟倾斜的体制中获益，因而对质量更优和更具竞争性的“美元香蕉”将继续构成明显的歧视，于是，通过WTO与欧盟进行谈判，欧盟随后公布了2362/98号新规则，对1637/98号规则的某些执行细节作了修改。但美国对此仍不满意，以欧盟拟实施的新体制带有偏向色彩，不能符合世界贸易组织的要求为由，单方面公布了报复清单和制裁时间表；欧盟岂能相让，他们指出，欧盟不否认美国有权对新香蕉机制提出质询，但美国不应单方面以制裁相威胁，双方应在世界贸易组织的框架之内多边协商问题，并宣布新规则的如期实施。 美国于3月3日发动闪电报复，单方面对欧盟近20种产品征收100%的惩罚性关税，价值5.2亿美元，1999年4月，专家组和仲裁组的两份报告终于被先后正式作出，欧盟败诉，仲裁组认定美国的实际损失为1.914亿美元。总之至今，争端各方都没能找出各方都满意的解决方法。
1.中国稀土出口配额案例分析 2.欧美荷尔蒙牛肉案 3.中美汇率战 4.英特尔反垄断案 5.美对华薄棉纸反规避调查案 6.中国代工模式分析—满城风雨富士康 7.转基因产品引发的贸易争端 8.王致和商标侵权案 9.黑龙江省猪肉出口成功规避绿色壁垒案例 10.黑龙江省猪肉出口 11.WTO经典案例：欧盟强征IT产品税 12.委内瑞拉外汇管制案例 13.中国-欧盟打火机安全装置案 14.欧盟对我国鞋类产品反倾销调查的案例分析 15.中美清洁能源之争分析 16.中俄过贸易中有关“灰色清关”的案例分析 17.中美出版物市场准入案 18.中国间谍门——力拓案 19.中国首例农产品反补贴案——对美白羽肉鸡案 20.GATS第一案——美国赌博案 21.企业社会责任保护案-迪斯尼代工工厂被取消供应商资格案例 22.中国石蜡蜡烛反规避案 23.中美轮胎特保案例调查 24.中外技术贸易案例--玻璃技术引进中的问题 25.中国在WTO的第一起被诉案件---中国集成电路增值税案 26.ETS诉新东方侵权案 27.一场“三败俱伤”的纠纷案－中国劳务输出案例 28.美对华最大制裁案美对华最大制裁案 29.从“冻虾”事件看绿色壁垒 30.力拓间谍案与中国铁矿石贸易 31.中国出口贸易战——我国稀有金属路在何方？ 32.我国技术引进案例---液晶面板引进热 33.欧盟进口香蕉案 34.中国钢管再遭调查案例 35.加拿大对我国烧烤架反补贴案 36.加拿大对华碳钢和不锈钢紧固件反补贴案例 37.中国彩电对美倾销案 38.美泰公司召回产品案 39.从外部规模经济视角解读义乌模式 40.美国对华铜版纸反倾销案例
案例：欧共体与秘鲁沙丁鱼案 2002年5月29日，WTO争端解决机构发布专家组报告，裁定欧共体有关沙丁鱼描述的欧共体法规违反技术性贸易壁垒协议。 争端涉及的事项 本案涉及的产品是沙丁鱼。其实质是关于沙丁鱼类产品描述、命名的争端。沙丁鱼有很多种类，其中一类主要生活在北大西洋东部(西欧沿海和地中海地区)，一类主要生活在太平洋东部(秘鲁和智利沿海)。但欧共体有关罐装沙丁鱼销售的法规，只允许用北大西洋东部的沙丁鱼制作的罐装沙丁鱼以“沙丁鱼”的名称销售。本案申诉方秘鲁向欧共体出口在秘鲁沿海捕获的沙丁鱼制作的罐装沙丁鱼，名叫东太平洋或秘鲁沙丁鱼。据欧共体法规，这样命名的秘鲁沙丁鱼被禁止在欧共体内销售。 针对上述措施，秘鲁向世界贸易组织争端解决机构提起申诉，认为欧共体的这一法规禁止“沙丁鱼”这一名称与生产国国名、捕获区域名称、沙丁鱼种类或销售国的产品惯常名称一起使用，违反了技术性贸易壁垒协议第2条第4款。秘鲁主张欧共体的这一法规没有按照该款的要求，以与沙丁鱼产品命名相关的国际标准为依据。 联合国粮农组织和世界卫生组织食品规则委员会于1978年制定了有关罐装沙丁鱼和沙丁鱼类产品的标准，1995年进行了修订(与本案直接相关的是1995年的修订，以下简称联合国标准)。该标准规定了沙丁鱼产品的名称，相关产品可以用两种方式命名：“沙丁鱼”这一名称专用于北大西洋东部的沙丁鱼，“X X沙丁鱼”表示某国沙丁鱼、某一地理区域沙丁鱼、某一种类沙丁鱼或符合销售国法律和习惯的产品惯常名称沙丁鱼。依据联合国标准，秘鲁出口的沙丁鱼可以称为东太平洋或秘鲁沙丁鱼。 争议问题及其解决 1．争议措施是否是技术性贸易壁垒协议意义上的技术法规 欧共体原则上不否认欧共体法规是技术性贸易壁垒协议意义上的技术法规，但不接受秘鲁指控的争议措施(命名要求)是技术法规，因为技术性贸易壁垒协议意义上的技术法规涉及标签而不是命名要求。
编者按： 1984年，为了纪念由Benjamin Graham和Daved L. Dodd所合著的《Security Analysis》出版五十周年，哥伦比亚大学邀请了巴菲特来主办一场演讲。这篇文章，“The Superinvestors of Graham-and-Doddsville”，乃是根据当时的讲稿改编而成。文中，巴菲特告诉我们，Graham 的追随者们如何运用Graham的价值投资法，在股市中取得非凡的成功。 （因此，文中的第一人称“我”，指的是巴菲特。） 也许有人会问：Graham和Dodd所提倡的价值投资法，是不是已经过时了呢 今天，很多学术人员会回答说：是的。他们认为，市场是有效的，所以，一切有关经济状况和公司的前景的因素都会反映在股票的价格中。这是因为股市中有很多聪明的分析员，他们会尽量应用所有已知的资讯，使得股票不会偏离其合理的价格。支持此理论的人认为，股市中是没有所谓的“被低估”的股票的；而那些所谓“能够战胜市场”的投资者，也只不过是侥幸罢了。因为，根据其理论（价格已反映所有资讯），拥有“长期战胜市场”的能力，是不可能的。 无论如何，以下我将为大家介绍一批投资者。他们年复一年的，取得了比S&P500指数更好的投资成果。那么，他们的成功到底是不是纯粹的巧合或运气呢，这是值得我们来验证一下的。首先一点，所有以下例举的这些成功者都是我所认识的人，而且都是早在15年前或更久以前，就已经被认定为是优秀的投资者了的。这一点非常重要。因为，如果说，我是在今天早上才从几千个名单中选出最成功的那几个来给你们，那以下的内容就没有什么意义了。第二点，所有的这些投资记录都是经过审查的（audited）。而且，我曾向有参与这些基金的人们求证，他们这些年来所取得的回酬，证实是与这些基金的财政报告相符的。 在我们开始这项验证之前，先说一个比喻。大家想象一下，现在我们举办一个全国性的“掷硬币”赌博游戏，让全体美国人（亿）一起参加，每个人的都以1美元的赌注开始玩。第一天早上，所有的参与者将会开始押注。猜对了的人，可以赢得猜错的人的那1美元。每一天，输了的人会被淘汰出局。第二天，留下来的胜利者将继续游戏，但都必须把之前所赢来的钱全拿来做赌注。如此，（根据“掷硬币”50%的胜负几率）每过一天，就会有约一半的人出局，
美国哥伦比亚大学中文部主任刘乐宁教授谈对外汉语教师培养 刘乐宁（美国哥伦比亚大学东亚语言与文化系教授，中文部主任，“汉语作为外语教学认证项目”负责人） 面对拥有英语优势的听众，刘乐宁老师启发大家是否考虑利用自身汉语和英语的优势，当一名对外汉语老师，并提出优秀对外汉语教师必备的三大能力。 语言能力——“TCSOL老师的英语能力甚至要好于TESOL老师” 刘教授所提到的TCSOL和TESOL分别是TeachingChinesetoSpeakersofOtherLanguages（汉语作为外语教学）及TeachingEnglishtoSpeakersofOtherLanguages（英语作为外语教学）的术语简称，也就是我们常说的对外汉语老师和英语老师。 刘老师强调，对对外汉语老师来讲，自身的汉语和英语能力都要过硬。 学生语言学习过程中的不少偏误是由第一语言的负迁移造成的。如果对学生的母语有很深的了解，对于偏误产生的分析会更加到位。这也就是为什么优秀的对外汉语教师一定必须精通英语的原因。 那我们的母语汉语呢？是不是普通话标准，作文写得不错，就代表你掌握了汉语？刘老师随手拈来的例子可把台下的听众问住了： 当学生问你：“为什么‘一个星期’，‘一个月’是对的，却不可以说‘一个年’，‘一个天’”？你怎么回答？ 当学生根据wear的意思，想当然地造出“我穿眼镜，她不穿眼镜”的句子，你怎么解释？ 当学生怎么也发不好“zh，chi，shi”的读音，你怎么帮助他们正音？ 在美国哥伦比亚大学的汉语教师培养项目中，Educational Chinese Linguistics占很大比重，可见培训看重大家对汉语本体知识的了解。但这种对汉语言的学习，不是从描写语法，而是从教学角度出发，进行基于汉语学习者的典型错误分析及语言对比研究，尤其关注英语为母语的汉语学习者特点。
European Communities — Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas This summary has been prepared by the Secretariat under its own responsibility. The summary is for general information only and is not intended to affect the rights and obligations of Members. See also: > One-page summary of key findings of this dispute > The basics: how disputes are settled in WTO > Computer based training on dispute settlement > Text of the Dispute Settlement Understanding Other disputes involving: > Agricultural and Food > Bananas > Distribution > Ecuador > Guatemala > Honduras > Mexico > United States of America > European Union (formerly EC) > Agreement on Agriculture > General Agreement on Trade in Services > General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 > Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures > Agreement on Trade-Related Current status back to top Compliance proceedings completed with finding(s) of non-compliance on 11 December 2008 Key facts back to top Short title: EC — Bananas III Complainant: Ecuador; Guatemala; Honduras; Mexico; United States of America Respondent: European Communities Third Parties: Belize; Cameroon; Canada; Colombia; Costa Rica; Dominica; Dominican Republic; Ghana; Grenada; India; Jamaica; Japan; Nicaragua; Philippines; Saint Lucia; Saint Vincent and the Grenadines; Senegal; Suriname; Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of); C?te d’Ivoire; Brazil; Madagascar; Panama Agreements cited: (as cited in request for consultations) Import Licensing: Art. 1, 3 Agriculture: Art. 19 Trade-Related Investment Measures (TRIMs): Art. 5, 2 Services (GATS): Art. II, IV, XVI, XVII GATT 1994: Art. I, II, III, X, XI, XIII Request for Consultations 5 February 1996
试析在中国东盟自由贸易区背景下浅谈对第三国服务提供者的保护 摘要货物贸易和服务贸易属于不同的部门，但在实践中，货物贸易中往往涉及服务贸易，并且针对货物贸易的关境措施将同时影响服务和服务提供者，因此本文以中国东盟自贸区为例，从欧共体香蕉案出发，探讨在涉及服务贸易的货物贸易中，如何保护相关服务和服务贸易提供者的利益，促进中国东盟自贸区与第三国经贸关系的和谐发展。 关键词关境措施GATS 东盟非成员国 随着经济全球化进程的加深，跨国公司遍布世界各地，跨国公司的经营模式倾向于生产、销售一体化，通过在国外设立分公司和子公司、寻找代理商进行海外销售，这些产品的跨国流动既属于货物贸易但又不可避免的涉及服务贸易，因此进口国在货物贸易领域的贸易保护措施不仅对货物贸易而且对相关的服务贸易也可能产生不利影响，如何进口国的措施进行规制，保护第三国服务提供者的利益就是一个亟待解决的问题。本文将从欧共体香蕉案切入对这一问题进行探讨。 一、案件背景 欧共体香蕉进口、销售和分销体制案，其涉及主体主要有四方，一是作为一个整体的欧共体，二是通过《洛美协定》同欧共体保持特惠经贸关系的非洲、加勒比海和太平洋地区国家（简称“ACP国家”）；三是拉丁美洲国家。四是美国，因为拉美香蕉的种植、收购、销售均依赖美国几家大的跨国公司的投资，因此欧共体的香蕉进口体制与美
国跨国公司的利益息息相关。欧共体香蕉案曾经三次提交到WTO争端解决机制，历时十年多，在第三次提交到WTO争端解决机制后，1997年5月22日专家组做出了如下裁决：欧共体的香蕉进口体制违反了GATT第1条第1款、第3条第4款、第10条第3款以及第13条第1款，违反了《进口许可程序协议》第1条第3款以及GATS的第2条和第17条。1997年6月11日，欧共体就专家组报告提出上诉。上诉机构维持了专家组报告中的大部分结论。 在本案中欧共体提出上诉的主要原因在于香蕉进口本是货物贸易，适用《关税与贸易总协定》（以下简称GATT）及相关货物贸易的多边协定无可厚非，但认定欧共体的关境措施违反了《服务贸易总协定》（以下简称GATS）是没有根据的。欧共体的理由是：该案主要是货物贸易，但是否涉及GATS所认定的服务贸易尚没有根据；第二，GATS适用的前提是成员国的措施对GATS认定的服务贸易产生了影响，本案中欧共体的关境措施是否已经达到了影响相关服务和提供者的利益需要GA TS的规制，这是有疑问的。在香蕉案中美国以及拉美国家能否使用GATS的规定，保护其在欧洲的香蕉经销商的利益，针对欧共体的抗辩，我们首先要对“服务的提供”、“服务贸易”、“措施”和“影响服务贸易的措施”这几个概念加以界定。 二、相关概念的界定 （一）服务与服务的提供 服务和货物是两个不同的概念，“服务”根据辞海的解释是指提供活劳动的形式来满足他人的某种需要，并取得商业报酬的行为，但
我的哥伦比亚大学申请总结 我不知道，如果没有拿到哥大每年2万多的offer,没有拿到联合国新闻部实习正式录取那句congratulation!我还有没有勇气写下这篇文章。我只知道，今晚，2011年1月24号，走在纽约116街上，天黑沉沉地像一床厚重地让人窒息的天鹅绒一般，铺天盖地都是冷空气里让人不寒而栗的阴郁，而professor 的一句话：“You have very impressive personal statement and outstanding academic achievements, we have no reason to reject you.”让我觉得，四周黑压压的楼里闪耀着全是彩色的光芒，我只知道，从此，我不会再迷路了。等这句congratulation! You have been accepted,已经太久太久了，久到当它缤纷而至的时候，我已经没有勇气发些什么帖子到太傻寄托汇报，只在这里，写下自己的心路。 毕业那年，我迷失了自己。输得一无所有。自尊，前途，爱情，事业，眼看着他们一点一点从我手中走掉。为了和EX在一起，我放弃了到手的保研，工作也不好好找，随便在天津塘沽环球雅思混了下来。我没有脸见同学，只是知道，在倒数第二次全年级聚会上，同学们有去哥大读education的，有拿全奖去威斯康星读communication的，有去法国巴黎高商读经济的，有去外交部的，有保研的，有考研的…可是，我什么都没有。席间每位同学都畅谈未来，问到我时，我手颤抖着握着酒杯，对我的老师，教了我两年的精读老师，看着我精读一路年级第一的老师说，我人生最大的理想，是成为我们班里最早结婚的人。我看到老师的眼里，全是失望，全是失望。我使劲灌醉自己，企图在酒精的作用下忘记自己的失败。最后一次全班聚会，我没有去。再后来，一个小三出现了，她轻而易举地抢走了和我一起快5年的男朋友。 没有认识我现在的老公之前，我是个懦弱而且虚荣到极点的女人。我的托业当年接近满分，但是我去连保洁的二面都没有去，因为我当时的男朋友告诉我，一个读书（他在我放弃保研后自己保研了），一个工作，是不可能长久的。我知道我自己很喜欢读书，可是我却没有勇气去考研，从小到大都是保送的我不允许自己参加升学考试，我觉得这是对我的侮辱。于是，我什么都没有，我不敢和家里说这些事情，只好欺骗家里说我在南开读研究生，其实我没有。懦弱和虚荣让我只能在自我麻醉和欺骗家人中获得一丝丝生存下去的勇气，有很长的一段时间，我想过死。走在天津车水马龙的路上，我不止一次地想到，要是车撞死我就好了，我就不用那么痛苦了。洗澡的时候，水龙头的水冲刷着我的泪水，我试图回想我过去几年都做过什么，但是除了虚荣和欺骗，我什么都没有。睡觉的时候，总是做噩梦，总是梦到全班人一起去看电影，看着看着，全班人都消失了，只剩下我一个，我不知道他们都去了哪里，耳朵里总是有个声音，你在哪所学校啊。到现在为止，我已经不恨EX了，都是我当时自己不去争取的后果，怨不得别人，这个社会就是那么现实。 我终于明白，从前师姐语重心长的一句话，不要为一个男人放弃自己委曲求全，因为很多时候，你委屈也不能求全。可惜，我明白的太晚了。机会就是这样，你不去争取，他一定会走掉，学业，事业，即便男人，也是如此。没有什么东西，注定是一辈子属于你的。 在环球雅思我也不好好教书，虽然我和学生们的关系都很好，我们课间一起吃饭，甚至下了课会有学生用自行车带我回宿舍，结课的时候，一个男学生送给我一本他写的书，扉页上写道，给我最喜欢的莎莎老师，你在我心里永远是那个最棒的firstsha.后来，那个学生去了剑桥。我满是伤心，我们都是同龄人啊，都是大三大四要飞向世界各地展露拳脚的同龄人啊。可是我就这样，一天天看着我的学生飞走了，飞到LSE, 飞到剑桥牛津帝国理工，飞到悉尼墨尔本，而我，还在原地不动，甚至一直在倒退。终于有一天，我无法在课堂上激情洋溢的说着那些雅思写作，阅读，看着我的学生一个个远走高飞，辞去了环雅每个月近万的工作，暗自伤神回家复习GRE去了。此刻，我觉得，我被世界抛弃了。 太抑郁了写的我，休息一下再写吧，每次提到往事就像把自己的伤疤一块一块揭下来，而伤疤里，满是流脓的血水。天知道，我敲打这些字时候还在哭。
浅析WTO贸易争端解决机制
浅 析 W T O 争 端 解 决 机 制 姓名： 班级： 学号：
上课时间： 关键词：WTO、争端、社会机制、规则体系、运作过程、贸易争端、世界贸易组织 摘要：WTO争端解决机制是多边贸易体制中具有核心作用的机制，它通过定权止纷功能的实现对整个WT O的顺利运行起到了重要的保障作用，已被公认为是“WTO最独特的贡献”。作为WTO 新成员的中国，能否在WTO框架内获得其依据WTO协议应享有的权利，有效运用WTO争端解决机制，妥善处理和解决与WTO成员间发生的贸易摩擦和纠纷，不仅取决于机制自身的发展和完善，而且有赖于我国有关法律、政策及机构的必要改革与调整。前后绵延多年的香蕉案堪称世界贸易组织自成立以来运用多边争端解决机制处理得最为重要和最具影响力的案件之一，本案对于南北关系、欧美关系、贸易和发展，以及欧盟对外贸易制度所将带来的影响仍有待各界学人的共同探讨，本文的着眼点，是放在其对实际组织争端解决机制的影响上。
浅析WTO争端解决机制 一、关于争端解决机制的几点说明 ㈠争端解决机制的发展 随着经济全球化的日益深入，国与国之间的竞争加剧，贸易摩擦也日益增多。为确保贸易能公平、公正的进行，需要一个有效的争端解决机制。从GATT的争端解决机制条款到WTO的争端解决机制，多边贸易体制日臻完善和成熟。当双边磋商难以达成协议时，争端的申诉方可将争端提请缔约方全体进行处理。 为了进一步强化GATT的争端解决机制，乌拉圭回合谈判较全面、彻底的对GATT争端解决机制和程序作了改进，并最终形成了《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解书》）.通过这样一个强化了的机制，WTO希望能更迅速、更有效地处理成员之间的贸易纠纷和摩擦、维护它们之间的权利与义务，督促各成员更好地履行各项协议的义务及其所作的承诺，“实现问题的满意解决”。 ㈡争端解决机制的基本程序 WTO的争端解决制度是保障WTO多边贸易体制的可靠性和可预见性的核心， DSU对争端解决的基本方法和程序作了极为详细的规定，其基本程序包括：磋商；斡旋，调解和调停；专家小组；上诉视察；对建议或裁定的监督执行；仲裁；补偿与减让的终止以及“交叉报复”。 当然，WTO争端解决机制远不是完美的，年轻的WTO争端解决机制能不能经受真正的考验还有待时日，但是无疑，我们是有理由乐观的。 二、 WTO争端解决机制运作过程存在的不足——从一个经典案例看香蕉案 ㈠案情 这是一个被数次诉诸GATT和WTO纠纷解决机制的纠纷。欧盟市场的香蕉主要有三部分来源：一个是直接隶属于某些欧盟国家的海外领土，如加勒比海地区的英联邦成员，法国的海外省等；二是通过《洛美协定》同欧盟保持特惠经贸关系的(非洲、加勒比和太平洋地区的国家,ACP);三是中美和南美洲的国家。 欧洲香蕉共同市场组织成立，为国际香蕉市场带来了深刻的结构性变化，由于欧盟（欧共体）404/93规则确立了不同的配额体系，给予ACP国家特惠待遇，导致跨国香蕉企业逐步将投资、经营移出中南美地区，对其造成重大损失。总之至今，争端各方都没能找出各方都满意的解决方法。 ㈡分析 1.组织争端解决机制的影响
美欧香蕉战升级美宣布惩罚欧盟 据新华社华盛顿12月21日电（记者袁炳忠）美国贸易代表巴尔舍夫斯基21日宣布，鉴于欧盟未能执行世界贸易组织关于美欧香蕉贸易争端的裁决，美国将对来自欧盟的商品征收数亿美元的惩罚性关税。 巴尔舍夫斯基说，这些惩罚措施将从明年2月2日或最迟在3月3日之前开始生效。美国将对一系列来自欧盟国家的产品征收百分之百的关税，这 些产品包括奶酪、甜饼干、蜡烛、手袋、毡纸、贺卡、开司米毛衣、纯棉 床罩、纸板箱、电动交通工具的电池、咖啡壶和吊灯等。这些消费品在美 国市场上的零售价将大幅上涨。 巴尔舍夫斯基说，6年来欧盟一直未执行世贸组织及其前身关税及贸易 总协定关于美欧香蕉贸易争端的裁决，欧盟委员会副主席布里坦与美国总 统克林顿在最近的一次会谈中也未能解决这一争端，因此美国采取上述制 裁措施，以抵销欧盟歧视性香蕉政策给美造成的损失。 美取消对欧盟惩罚性关税八年香蕉战告一段落 【据新华社华盛顿7月1日电】美国贸易代表策利克1日宣布，根据美国和欧盟4月份达成的协议，欧盟从本月1日开始实行新的香蕉进口制度，因此，美国于当天取消了对来自欧盟的1．91亿美元商品征收的100％的惩罚性关税。 策利克在一份声明中说，香蕉贸易争端的解决表明美欧双方是按照相互尊重、谅解以及采取建设性行动的精神来解决相互之间的分歧的。 欧盟于1993年实行新的香蕉进口配额制度。美国认为这损害了在拉美地区经营香蕉种植园的美国跨国公司的利益。为此，美国向世界贸易组织提起了诉讼并获得胜诉。 在世贸组织的授权下，美国于1999年3月开始对来自欧盟的价值1．91亿美元的商品征收100％的关税作为报复。 此后，美国与欧盟围绕这一问题举行了多次磋商，终于在今年4月11日达成协议。 根据协议，欧盟从今年7月1日起逐步增加拉美香蕉的进口配额，到2006年1月1日将完全取消配额制度。 欧盟和拉美国家结束历时15年的香蕉战
哥伦比亚大学详细介绍 纽约市哥伦比亚大学(Columbia University in the City of New York)，通称哥伦比亚大学(Columbia University)，是一所美国私立研究型大学，常春藤联盟(Ivy League)成员之一。她坐落于纽约上曼哈顿地区(Upper Manhattan)的晨边高地(Morningside Heights)。她是纽约州历史最悠久的高等教育机构，美国历史上第五所成立的大学，也是九所美国革命前成立的殖民地学院(Colonial College)之一。 一、基本数据 联系方式 Columbia University 2960 Broadway New York, NY 10027
United States (212) 854-1754 基本信息 建校时间:1754 男女同校:是 学校性质:私立非营利 所在城市规模:大型城市 学术校历表:Semester 基本宗教信仰:- 特殊宗教信仰:- 费用数据 州内学费:$47,246州外学费:$47,246房租及伙食费:$11,396书费:$1,040学生组成数据 全日制本科生:7,111在职本科生:1,016
男性本科生:4,151 女性本科生:3,976 研究生总人数:17,923 全日制研究生:14,682 在职研究生:3,241 二、助学金统计数据 基本信息 助学金申请表提交截止日期:March 1学费担保计划:不提供预付学费计划:提供 学费分期付款计划:提供 州内学费:$47,246州外学费:$47,246助学金联系方式 电话:(212) 854-3711 电子邮箱:ugrad-finaid@https://www.doczj.com/doc/072859463.html, 网站:https://www.doczj.com/doc/072859463.html,/finaid
世界贸易争端解决机制的程序 世界贸易组织争端解决机制主要包括作为WTO协议附件2的《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》及其附件。此外，《关于实施与审议〈关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解〉决定》、《关于按照〈履行1994年关税与贸易总协定第六条的协定〉或〈补贴与反补贴措施协定〉第五部分处理争端的宣言》以及世界贸易组织各项协定及配套或附属协议中有关争端解决的条款都是世界贸易组织争端解决机制的有机组成部分。 《关于争端解决规则和程序的谅解》是WTO争端解决机制的基本文件，共有27条和4个附件，其主要目的在于为多边贸易体制提供安全性和可预测性，保障各有关协议成员方的权利义务。 WTO争端解决包括下列基本阶段：磋商、专家组程序、上诉机构程序、争端解决机构决定及其监督实施、制裁等阶段，还包括斡旋、调解和调停、仲裁等选择性争端解决程序。有些阶段基本上是GATT1947争端解决相应程序的重述，有些则是WTO的创新。 一、磋商 磋商是争端解决的第一个程序阶段，是指两个或两个以上成员为使相互间的争议问题得到解决或达成谅解而进行国际交涉的一种方式。由于磋商解决争端问题是争端各当事方在协商一致的基础上达成一致意见，有利于所达成协议的执行，因此这一阶段是争端解决的必经阶段，也是世界贸易组织所提供的争端解决方式。 《争端解决谅解》第4条规定，某一成员方认为另一成员方在其境内采取的措施影响了世界贸易组织所管辖协议的实施，并损害了该成员方的利益，可提出要求磋商的请求，另一成员方应对此请求给予同情的考虑，并提供充分的磋商机会。从该条规定可以看出，任一成员方在被提起磋商请求时，有提供磋商机会的义务。 《争端解决谅解》第4条还规定了磋商的具体程序和各个阶段的具体时限： 1、某一成员方提出磋商请求后，接到请求的成员方应白收到请求的10
1、哥伦比亚大学（Columbia University） 哥伦比亚大学是美国八所常春藤盟校中唯一拥有新闻学院的大学。学院连续多年名列全美新闻学专业榜首。该学院可授予新闻学硕士（A.Program）和管理学硕士(M.S.Program)两种硕士学位，以及传播学博士学位（Doctor of Philosophy in Communication）。另外，新闻学院还与其他学院共同设立了5种双硕士课程，分别是：新闻学语法学、新闻学与商学、新闻学与地球环境学、新闻学与宗教、新闻学与国际关系。申请新闻学院需要提交的材料有本科GPA（入学平均成绩为3.7以上）、三封推荐信、GRE成绩、两篇Essay。国际学生需要提交TOEFL成绩（iBT成绩不低于114分，笔考不低于650分）。 2.密苏里大学（University of Missouri） 密苏里大学是世界上第一个设立新闻硕士和博士学位的美国大学，其新闻学院目前设置了13个专业的五年制本硕连读课程、28个专业的两年制硕士学位课程和5个专业的博士课程，同时还可授予新闻学硕士和法学博士双学位。密苏里大学新闻学院的毕业生广泛活跃于美国乃至世界各主流媒体，学院每年毕业生的就业率和起薪在美国大学新闻学院中都位居前列，这也导致了入学竞争十分激烈。国际申请者需要提交的材料有：完整的申请表格、两份官方成绩单（研究生GPA 不低于3.5分，本科GPA不低于3.0分）、GRE成绩（语文与数学部分成绩合计不低于1，100分）、TOEFL成绩（笔考600分以上）。申请博士学位还必须具有至少两年的新闻行业全职工作经历。 3威斯康星大学麦迪逊分校（University of Wisconsin Madison）
名校档案 所在城市：哥伦比亚大学（Columbia University） 所在城市：纽约州，纽约市（NY，New York，New York） 学校排名：U.S.News 2013——TOP 4 办学性质：私立 优势专业：英语，历史，政治科学，经济，生物，音乐，戏剧，机械工程等男女比例：51：49 本科学生总数：5766人 亚裔学生比例：17% 国际学生比例：11% 学校网址：https://www.doczj.com/doc/072859463.html,/ 招生处信息：电话（212）854-2522，传真（212）854-1209 录取要求：
费用参考：
学校简介 哥伦比亚大学（Columbia University,The School of General Studies）建校于1754年，坐落于纽约市曼哈顿，濒临哈德逊河，在中央公园北面。它属于私立的常春藤盟校，并在2012年的《美国新闻与世界报道》综合大学排名中夺得第四位，同时也是美国《新闻周刊》世界100强大学排名第10位的学校。 1754年，英国国王乔治二世颁布的《国王宪章》印证了哥大的创立，在当时命名为国王学院。它是每周大陆最古老的学员之一，达特茅斯学院和威廉玛丽学院与它同属皇家宪章。
因为经济问题，1857年，哥伦比亚大学（哥大）校区由曼哈顿下城迁至中城，在此后的四十年间，学校增设了医药、法律、工程、政治、建筑、哲学和理论科学等系所。于1879年，哥伦比亚大学（哥大）再迁至目前的校区，而至1912年，图书馆学系、口腔外科、新闻学院、教育学院…等先後加入哥伦比亚大学之阵容，哥伦比亚大学（哥大）正式成为一所综合大学。 学院在成立之初，创校者便提出了与近代教育思潮迥然不同的观点。在整合人道主义理念与科学方法的基础上，创校者认为成功的教学除倚赖专业教师在教材教法与专业知识的精通外，还需要专业教师了解学生在何种情况下能进行最为有效的学习。正是基于此种教育理念，学院在1890年初便推出了融合心理学、社会学的教育课程项目，成为全美第一所将教育活动推及社会关怀的学校。随后学院又开设了教育史学、比较教育学、教育管理学、教育经济学、教育政策学、
美国哥伦比亚大学访学项目 一、项目介绍 1、哥伦比亚大学简介 哥伦比亚大学美国历史最悠久的五所大学之一，与耶鲁、哈佛、普林斯顿、康乃尔等八所大学共同组成“常春藤联盟(Ivy League)”，成为世界顶尖学府的代名词。学校位于世界之都--纽约曼哈顿，亦是奥巴马、胡适、徐志摩、李政道、蒙代尔、摩尔根等名人求学之地。哥伦比亚的校友和教授中一共有83人获得过诺贝尔奖，包括奥巴马总统在内的三位美国总统是该校的毕业生。 在2018年《美国新闻与世界报道》发布的美国大学权威排名中，哥伦比亚大学在全美4000多所高校综合排名第5名；在2018 年Times世界大学排名中，哥伦比亚大学位列第14位；在上海交通大学发布的全球高校学术排名中，哥伦比亚大学位于第8名。 2、访学时间及专业方向 2018年秋季访学时间为：2018年9月– 2018年12月。根据学习目标、英语水平和专业背景的不同，参加项目的学生可选报两类课程：英语及美国文化课程（ALP）、与大学专业学分课程。参加项目的学生与哥伦比亚大学在读学生混合编班，由哥伦比亚大学进行统一的学术管理与学术考核，获得哥伦比亚大学正式成绩单。 第一种：英语及美国文化课程（ALP） 访学时间：2018年9月4日–12月7日（根据2017年日期预估，以校方最终公布的日期为准） 对于希望通过访学提高英语水平、了解美国社会、增进对不同文化的认识和理解、提高创新意识和国际意识的同学，可申请英语及美国文化课程，通过与来自世界各地的同学一起学习，快速提高英语应用能力与沟通交流能力。哥伦比亚大学ALP成立于1911年，是全美最古老的语言中心。课程内容丰富、形式多样，以分级小班授课、专题讲座、小组讨论、校园文化实践、参观当地机构、参加中美大学生交流活动等各种形式，强化训练学生的英语听说读写能力、了解美国历史文化。 第二种：大学专业学分课程 访学时间：2018年9月4日–12月21日（根据2017年日期预估，以校方最终公布的日期为准）
欧盟香蕉案 Banana III : European Communities - Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas HEADNOTE AB-1997-3, WT/DS27/AB/R, Adopted by Dispute Settlement Body, November 17 1997, Ecuador, European Communities, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico and the United States, Appellants; Ecuador, European Communities, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico and the United States, Appellees; Belize, Cameroon, Colombia, Costa Rica, C?te d'Ivoire, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ghana, Grenada, Jamaica, Japan, Nicaragua, Saint Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Senegal, Suriname and V enezuela, Third Participants; Division: Bacchus, Beeby and El-Naggar. Introduction On 9 September 1997, the WTO Appellate Body (the “AB”) issued its report on the case European Communities- Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas1. This is only the last episode of a long battle and the practical result is still to come2. The EC insisted on separate panel reports for each complaining party. The panel accepted, but made identical sections for factual aspects and party’s arguments. Only the findings were different to the extent that the respective submissions differed3. The four panel reports appealed were circulated on 22 May 1997. In those reports, the Panel concluded that the EC import regime for bananas was inconsistent with obligations under Articles I:1, III: 4, and XIII GATT, Articles II and XVII GATS and some provisions of the Licensing Agreement. Both the complaining parties and the EC presented their claims on appeal. Numerous other Members filed their submissions as third participants, belonging to the ACP group4 or to the Members of the Framework Agreement5, as well as Japan. The number of participants and the length of the procedure and of the reports6 are an indication of the importance of the case. Several issues of both General and Trade International Law were 1WT/DS27/AB/R. The three members of the AB serving on this case are Mr. J. Bacchus (US) as president, Mr. C. Beeby (New Zealand) and Professor Said El-Nagar (Egypt). It is interesting to note that the president is a national of the US, a Member that has a great interest in the case. This will not be possible at the panel procedure, according to Article 8 DSU, unless the parties agreed. 2The EC has been granted a period to implement the ruling of the DSB ending on 1 January 1999. 3Therefore, the claims of Guatemala and Honduras were treated together, since those parties filed a joint first submission. This report does not discuss GATS issues, since their initial submission did not allege infringements of GATS. 4ACP States are those African Caribbean and Pacific States which are parties to the Fourth ACP-EC Convention of Lomé (Lomé IV Convention) signed in Lomé, 15 December 1989, as revised by the Agreement signed in Mauritius on 4 November 1995. 5This Agreement was signed as a result of the second GATT panel initiated by Colombia, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Nicaragua and Venezuela against the EC banana regime. Guatemala was not a member of the Agreement and therefore appears as a complainant in the present case. 6Normally, the AB procedure takes one month. In exceptionally complicated cases, this period may be extended to three months. This period was respected, since the notice of appeal was filed by the EC on 11 June 1997. Each report counts around 400 pages, while the AB report is more than 100.