WTO 體制하에서 美國의 버드修正案에 관한 批判的 考察 : WTO 紛爭解決機構의 判定을 中心으로 = A Critical Study on the U.S. Byrd Amendment under the WTO Regime : Focusing on the Findings of the WTO Dispute Settlement Body

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

The Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (Byrd Amendment) has been controversial in both domestic U.S. politics and in international trade laws. The Byrd Amendment distributes collected antidumping and countervailing duties to the companies that brought or supported those trade remedy cases. As s result, dumped or subsidized products are not only subject to antidumping or countervailing duties, but also provide the basis for subsidizing the U.S. product.
The complaining parties challenged the Byrd Amendment primarily on the ground that it violated the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the GATT and the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures as a "non-permissible specific action against dumping or a subsidy." The WTO's Dispute Resolution Panel found for the complainants in fall of 2002, and the United States appealed to the WTO Appellate Body. On January 16, 2003, the Appellate Body affirmed the core findings of the Panel, recommending that the United States change or repeal the law in order to comply with its WTO obligations. An arbitration decision directed the United States to comply with the rulings by withdrawing the Byrd Amendment by December 27, 2003, or face authorized retaliatory sanctions. Nevertheless, the Byrd Amendment remains in force.
The main purposes of this article are to analyze the rulings of the case by the Panel and the Appellate Body and to discuss the problems of the Byrd Amendment from the legal and trade policy point of view. In achieving these goals, the article provides a brief explanation of the Byrd Amendment and its implication in Part I & II and deals with the progress of the case and the complaining parties' arguments in Part III & IV. Part V & VI, main parts of the article, dissect the rulings of the case by the Panel and the Appellate Body. Part VII discusses its legal and practical problems in terms of both the GATT/WTO and of the trade policy. Various cases relating to the Byrd Amendment discussed in the U.S. courts are also examined in Part VIII.
The dispute settlement system is a fundamental pillar of the WTO in providing security to the multilateral trading system. Its credibility depends on its strict observance by the members. The failure of the United States, one of the world's leading trading nations is damaging to the effective functioning of the rule-based trading system. Undermining WTO disciplines harms the interests of all Members, including those of the United States. Accordingly, I ask for immediate action to bring the United States into conformity with its WTO obligations.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• Ⅰ. 서론
• Ⅱ. 버드수정안의 주요내용
• Ⅲ. 제소경위
• Ⅳ. 당사국의 주장
• 1. 제소국 : 11개국
• 2. 피제소국 : 미국
• Ⅴ. 패널의 평결
• 1. 주요 법적쟁점 및 평결
• 2. 패널의 결론
• Ⅵ. 상소기구의 평결
• 1. 상소에서 제기된 주요 이슈
• 2. 주요 법적쟁점 및 평결
• 3. 상소기구의 결론
• Ⅶ. 버드수정안의 주요 문제점
• 1. GATT/WTO 협정상의 문제점 : 핵심이슈 분석 및 평가
• 2. 통상정책상의 문제점
• Ⅷ. 미국판례의 검토
• Ⅸ. 결론

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 오병석, "우리나라 수출에 대한 미국의 반덤핑조사에 관한 연구" 7 : 2003

2 최원목, "우리나라 무역보복제도의 발전방향" (51) : 2003

3 왕상한, "미국통상법의 허상과 실체" 법문사 2002

4 법무부, "미국통상법연구" 법무부 1996

5 김정회, "미국의 WTO반덤핑협약 이행에 관한 연구 국제무역연구논총" 3 : 1996

6 김대순, "국제경제법론" 삼영사 1998

7 이재형, "世界貿易機構 紛爭解決制度의 運用上 問題點에 대한 批判的 考察" 법무부 (52) : 52-77, 2003

8 Stewart, "a Practitioner's Guide to Sunset Reviews" 1998

9 Mitsuo Matsushita, "World Trade Organization: Law, Practice, and Policy" Oxford University Press 2003

10 Roger P, "Why a Private Right of Action Against Dumping Would Violate GATT" 66-, 1991

11 International Economic Relations, "West Group" 2002

12 박노형, "WTO체제의 분쟁해결제도연구" 박영사 1996

13 이춘삼, "WTO와 미국의 사법적 반덤핑제도 산업경영연구" 32 : 2000

14 법무부, "WTO분쟁해결제도의 이행과정연구" 법무부 2002

15 박노형, "WTO분쟁해결제도의 운영사례분석" (28) : 1999

16 한꿈통상법연구회, "WTO분쟁사례연구" 한국무역협회 1999

17 김성준, "WTO법의 형성과 전망" 삼성출판사 1996

18 안덕근, "WTO 분쟁해결제도 운영 평가 및 과제" (1) : 2001

19 Thomas L, "WTO Disputes and Developing Countries" 1999

20 "WTO Dispute Settlement Procedures: a Collection of the Legal Texts" WTO 1995

21 법무부, "UR분쟁해결제도연구" 법무부 1994

22 United States, "Status Report by the United States" 2004

23 Kenneth W, "Rules of the Global Game a New Look at US International Economic Policymaking University of Chicago Press" 2004

24 "Report of the Panel United States-Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000" WTO 16-, 2000

25 "Report of the Appellate Body United States-Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000" WTO 2003

26 "Report of the Appellate Body United States-Antidumping Act of 1916" WTO 26-, 2002

27 Anne O, "Political Economy of Trade Protection University of Chicago Press" 1996

28 Daniel L, "Political Economy of International Trade Law Essays in Honour of Robert E" Cambridge University Press 2002

29 John H, "Legal Problems of"

30 "Handbook on the WTO Dispute Settlement System" WTO 2004

31 Kim Anderson, "Global Trading System" 2002

32 Ernst-Ulrich Petersmann, "GATT/WTO Dispute Settlement System" 1997

33 Paul C, "Did the United States Achieve Its Objectives During the Uruguay Round ?" 2000

34 United States, "Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000" 2002

35 Bartels L, "Applicable Law in WTO dispute Settlement Proceedings 35 Journal of World Trade 3" 2001

36 Keith Steele, "Antidumping under the WTO" 1996

37 "Antidumping and Countervailing Procedures-Use or Abuse? Implications for Developing Countries" United Nations United Nations 2001

38 Greg Mastel, "Antidumping Laws and the U.S. Economy" 1998

39 Brink Lindsey, "Antidumping Exposed," 2003

40 Adam C, "Antidumping Beyond the GATT 1994 Supporting Int'l Enactment of Legislation Providing Supplemental Remedies" 10-, 1999

41 Mark L, "Action against Dumping and Subsidization-Antidumping and SCM Agreement-United States Contimued Gumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000" 98-, 2004

42 Hale E, "A Defeat Before the WTO May Constitute an Overall Victory for U" 10-, 2002

43 Bruce A, "60 Journal of International Economics 2" 2003