|
Dispute Settlement 2024
欧盟反经济胁迫法运行机制研究
|
Abstract:
一直以来,欧盟跟随美国实施经济制裁,同时不断通过各种经济反制工具进行自我保护,从主要抵御美国经济制裁的《阻断法案》发展到抵御“经济胁迫”的《反经济胁迫条例(草案)》,其反制工具箱愈加完备。欧盟的“经济胁迫”并非是新出现的概念,伴随美欧经济制裁的不断加强,此概念又被欧盟重新发掘和研究。2023年10月3日,欧洲议会以578票赞成的压倒性优势通过了《反胁迫工具法案》,该法案将成为欧盟反经济胁迫体系工具箱的重要组成部分。通过了解和分析该文书制定历程和运作机制可以发现,ACI本身的设立是为了实行贸易保护主义和缓解来自美国的压力,因此我国既需要进一步完善反制体系建设,又需要通过跟踪ACI的实施效果来考虑是否需要对经济胁迫进行专门立法。
The EU has been following the US in implementing economic sanctions, while constantly protecting itself through various economic countermeasures, from the Blocking Act, which mainly resists US economic sanctions, to the Anti-Economic Coercion Regulations (Draft), which mainly resists “economic coercion”, and its countermeasure toolbox has become more and more complete. The EU’s “economic coercion” is not a new concept, and it has been rediscovered and studied by the EU as economic sanctions continue to intensify. On October 3, 2023, the European Parliament overwhelmingly passed the Anti-Coercion Tools Act with 578 votes in favor, which will become the important components of the toolbox of the EU’s anti-economic coercion system. By understanding and analyzing the formulation process and operating mechanism of this instrument, it can be found that the ACI itself was established to implement trade protectionism and alleviate the pressure from the United States, so China needs to further improve the construction of the countermeasure system, and also needs to consider whether special legislation on economic coercion is needed by tracking the implementation effect of the ACI.
[1] | 白雪, 邹国勇. 美国“长臂管辖”的欧盟应对: 措施、成效与启示[J]. 武大国际法评论, 2021, 5(5): 53-76. |
[2] | 杜玉琼, 黄子淋. 论我国反制裁法的功能及其实现路径[J]. 河北法学, 2023, 41(6): 90-112. |
[3] | 陈佳骏. 美国对华胁迫性“经济国策”运用探析[J]. 国际关系研究, 2022(6): 23-46, 153-154. |
[4] | 胡子南. 欧盟强化对华经贸防御工具的动因、举措、影响及中国应对[J]. 太平洋学报, 2022, 30(3): 53-63. |
[5] | 方炯升. 何种经济反制措施更具效能?——以欧盟对美反制为案例的考察[J]. 欧洲研究, 2022, 40(4): 23-52. |
[6] | 叶研. 经济制裁与反经济制裁国际合作[J]. 外交评论(外交学院学报), 2023, 40(1): 26-53, 166. |
[7] | Hafiz, H. (2016) Beyond Liberty: Toward a History and Theory of Economic Coercion. Tennessee Law Review, 83, 1071-1136. |
[8] | O’Brien, R. (2022) Legalizing China’s Economic Coercion Toolkit. UCLA Pacific Basin Law Journal, 39, 99-121. https://doi.org/10.5070/P839158050 |
[9] | Seidl-Hohenveldern, I. (1984) The United Nations and Economic Coercion. Revue Belge de Droit International Belgian Review of International Law, 18, 9-19. |
[10] | Lipsky, S. (1982) The Legitimacy of Economic Coercion: The Carter Foreign Aid Policy and Nicaragua. Loyola of Los Angeles International and Comparative Law Review, 5, Article 3. |
[11] | 霍政欣, 陈彦茹. 反外国制裁的路径演化与中国选择[J]. 社会科学, 2023(2): 179-192. |
[12] | 邵军, 杨丹辉. 全球数字服务税的演进动态与中国的应对策略[J]. 国际经济评论, 2021, 153(3): 121-136. |
[13] | 李寿平. 次级制裁的国际法审视及中国的应对[J]. 政法论丛, 2020(5): 60-69. |
[14] | 陈一峰. 不干涉原则作为习惯国际法之证明方法[J]. 法学家, 2012(5): 153-163, 180. |
[15] | 张辉. 单边制裁是否具有合法性: 一个框架性分析[J]. 中国法学, 2022(3): 283-304. |
[16] | 廖诗评. 《阻断外国法律与措施不当域外适用办法》的属事适用范围[J]. 国际法研究, 2021(2): 44-62. |
[17] | 陈阳, 侯奕隆. 二级经济制裁的法理解构与反制裁逻辑[J]. 经贸法律评论, 2022(6): 70-86. |
[18] | Svetlicinii, A. (2022) China’s Defense against Secondary Sanctions: Lessons from the EU Blocking Statute. Journal of International Trade Law and Policy, 21, 217-239. https://doi.org/10.1108/JITLP-09-2021-0048 |
[19] | Jennison, M. (2020) The More Things Change, the More They Stay the Same: The United States, Trade Sanctions, and International Blocking Acts. Catholic University Law Review, 69, Article 10. |
[20] | Drezner, D.W. (2021) The United States of Sanctions: The Use and Abuse of Economic Coercion. Foreign Affairs, 100, 142-154. |
[21] | 杨志敏. 经济单边主义的“复活”及应对——从拉美国家与美国贸易关系演进的视角分析[J]. 拉丁美洲研究, 2019, 41(4): 60-77, 155-156. |
[22] | 宋国友. 美国对华经贸政策与中美经贸关系新趋势[J]. 国际问题研究, 2023(2): 58-72, 124. |
[23] | 赵怀普. 欧盟在中美欧互动中的多重角色与中欧关系[J]. 国际论坛, 2023, 25(4): 101-119, 158-159. |