论WTO《服务贸易总协定》中服务的分类——以中国电子支付案为视角
Classification of Services in GATS—From the Perspective of the WTO China-Certain Measures Affecting Electronic Payment Services Case
摘要: 在GATS语境下划定具体承诺表中各项条目的内容边界，需要解释工具、解释方法作为辅助，而现有的分类体系就是解释工具。本文从中国电子支付案切入，围绕该案所涉相关问题，结合WTO其他的经典案例，就中国涉案服务的分类、GATS项下的服务分类内部逻辑、现有服务贸易的分类框架以及存在的问题等做具体分析，并针对该案的专家组报告提出疑问望在未来的谈判、纠纷甚至修改承诺表时，吸取WTO的“判例”精神以及他国的经验，在未来为国家争取最大的权益。
Abstract: To delimit the boundary of each entry in the schedule of specific commitments in the context of GATS, interpreta-tion tools and interpretation methods are needed, and the existing classification system is the interpretation tool. This article starts from WTO China-Certain Measures Affecting Electronic Payment Services Case and discusses about related topics such as the internal logic of the classification of the service under GATS, the framework of classification of the existing service trade framework and existing problems, in combination with other classic cases of WTO. Also, the paper proposes questions coming from the panel reports, in the hope that the WTO “jurisprudence” spirit and good experience of other countries could be absorbed by our country, so that the largest interests can be gotten in future negotiations, disputes solving and even modifying schedule of commitments.
文章引用：裴永楠. 论WTO《服务贸易总协定》中服务的分类——以中国电子支付案为视角[J]. 争议解决, 2023, 9(1): 137-148. https://doi.org/10.12677/DS.2023.91020

参考文献

[1] 石静霞. WTO服务贸易法专论[M]. 北京: 法律出版社, 2006: 34-35.
[2] 杨国华. “中国电子支付服务案”详解[J]. 世界贸易组织动态与研究, 2013, 20(2): 47-67.
[3] 龙洁. WTO下国际金融服务贸易的自由化与规制[D]: [硕士学位论文]. 上海: 华东政法大学, 2012.
[4] Appellate Body Report, European Communities-Regime for the Importa-tions, Sale and Distribution of Bananas, WT/DS27/AB/R. Para 218.
[5] 汪震, 刘萍. 世贸组织服务部门分类问题[J]. 国际经济合作, 2013(8): 13-16.
[6] Appellate Body Report, United States—Measures Affecting the Cross-Border Supply of Gambling and Betting Services, WT/DS/285/AB/R, Para 175-176, Original Footnotes Omit-ted.
[7] Appellate Body Report, Chile-Price Band System, WT/DS207/AB/R.
[8] Guidelines for the Scheduling of Specific Commitments under the GATS, S/L/92.
[9] Panel Report, China—Certain Measures Affecting Electronic Payment Services, WT/DS413/R, Adopted 31 August 2012.
[10] It Is Understood That Market Access and National Treatment Commitments Apply Only to the Sectors or Sub-Sectors Inscribed in the Schedule. They Do Not Imply a Right for the Supplier of a Committed Service to Supply Uncommitted Services Which Are Inputs to the Committed Ser-vice.
[11] 李晓玲. WTO成员减让表之服务部门的解释方法——基于中国电子支付服务案的研究[J]. 国际经贸探索, 2015, 31(2): 86-99.
[12] 尚杰. 国际软法问题研究[D]: [博士学位论文]. 长春: 吉林大学, 2015.
[13] WTO (2015) Covered or Not Covered: That Is the Question: Services Classification and Its Implications for Specific Commit-ments under the GATS. WTO Working Papers, No. 2015/11, WTO, Geneva.
[14] 韩立余. WTO争端解决中的案例法方法[J]. 现代法学, 2008(3): 190.
[15] 倪建林. 论世界贸易组织法律的渊源[J]. 国际商务研究, 2000(3): 37-40.
[16] 上诉机构表达过专家组没有按照上诉机构的方法审理案件从而出现错误的观点, 其事实上遵循着自身的“判例规则” [Z].
[17] 朱景文. 国际标准和中国的法律改革以贸易、金融和公司治理领域为例[J]. 法学家, 2003(3): 125-137.
[18] WTO Document S/GBT/W/2/Rev.1, 16 January 1997.
[19] WTO Document S/CSC/M/1, p. 2.
[20] 专家组所提出的分类标准可以理解为: Activity 1 + Activity 2 + Activity 3 = Production, 类别根据该Production成果判断[Z].
[21] 如案情需要, 充分证明一项服务是“input”是必要的, 在中国电子支付案的专家组报告(WT/DS413/R)中, 专家组有强调中方没能证明服务的属性是“input” [Z].
[22] Third Party Written Submission of Australia on China-EPS, 18 October 2011, para. 28.
[23] 孙占利. 论电子商务法的基本原则[J]. 现代法学, 2008, 30(3): 114-122.
[24] Panel Report, United States of America-Measures Affecting the Cross-Border Supply of Gam-bling and Betting Services, WT/DS/285/R, para. 6.285.
[25] 朱榄叶. WTO世界贸易组织法经典案例选编[M]. 北京: 北京大学出版社, 2018.
[26] 美国对涉案服务的理解是: EPS作为中国承诺的“Payment and Money Transmission Services”的重要辅助部分, 它应当归为该服务. 而中国认为涉案服务是“Transaction Processing Services”或“Network Services” [Z].
[27] 例如, 如果没有电子支付服务所提供的整套系统, 发卡机构就无法单独发行一种为商户所广泛接受的银行卡, 而收单机构也无法向商户提供一种能够处理如此大量持卡人的服务. 也就是说, EPS是与其他金融服务“集成”的, 不可分割的[Z].
[28] Panel Report, European Communities—Regime for the Importa-tion, Sale and Distribution of Bananas, WT/DS27/R/ USA, as Modified by Appellate Body Report, WT/DS27/AB/R, Para. 7291.
[29] See the Scheduling Guidelines, S/L/92, para. 25.
[30] DSB Minutes of Meetings, WT/DSB/M/321, 7 November 2012, para. 91.
[31] United Nations (1991) The Provisional Central Production Classification.
[32] 彭溆. 论世界贸易组织争端解决中的司法造法[D]: [博士学位论文]. 上海: 华东政法大学, 2006.
[33] 贺小勇. 分歧与和谐: 析WTO争端解决机制的法律适用[J]. 现代法学, 2005, 27(5): 182-187.
[34] Panel Report, China—Measures Affecting Trading Rights and Distribution Services for Certain Publications and Audiovisual Entertainment Products, WT/DS363/R, para. 7.1235.
[35] Appellate Body Report, China—Measures Affecting Trading Rights and Distribution Services for Certain Publications and Audiovisual Entertainment Products, WT/DS363/AB/R, para. 396-397.
[36] 彭岳. 数据本地化措施的贸易规制问题研究[J]. 环球法律评论, 2018, 40(2): 178-192.
[37] Razon, A.K. (2019) Liberalis-ing Blockchain: An Application of the GATS Digital Trade Framework. Melbourne Journal of International Law, 20, 125-157.
[38] 张乃根. 中国涉案WTO争端解决的条约解释及其比较[J]. 世界贸易组织动态与研究, 2012, 19(3): 34-44+52.

为你推荐