第一(yī)輪發言

General Statement

 

感謝主席。

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

中(zhōng)方感謝并支持歐盟大(dà)使馬克範赫克倫的發言。作爲聯合提案方之一(yī)，中(zhōng)方将就a、b、c三項分(fēn)議題分(fēn)享兩點看法：

China thanks and supports the statement made by Ambassador Marc VanHeukelen of the European Union. As one of joint proponents, China would like to share two comments, which cover sub-items a, b and c:

第一(yī)，中(zhōng)歐等世貿組織成員(yuán)提出聯合提案，目的是回應并解決相關成員(yuán)對上訴程序的關切，維護和加強上訴機構的獨立性和公正性，推動世貿成員(yuán)開(kāi)展以文本爲基礎的實質性讨論，盡快啓動上訴機構成員(yuán)遴選程序。上訴機構危機已持續一(yī)年多時間，尚未見到解決曙光。個别世貿成員(yuán)對上訴程序提出了關注，但未提出具體(tǐ)建議或解決方案。如該問題持續得不到解決，上訴機構将在一(yī)年後“停擺”。上訴機構成員(yuán)遴選問題已成爲世貿組織面臨的迫在眉睫的危機，亟須盡快解決。中(zhōng)國古代哲學家孟子曾經說過，“徒法不足以自行”。争端解決機制是世貿組織的核心支柱。因此，爲推動盡快解決上訴機構危機，中(zhōng)歐等40多個成員(yuán)共同提出了聯合提案，希籍此推動實質性讨論。

First, the joint proposal by the EU, China and other Members aims to respond to and address a particular Member’s concerns on appellate process, maintain and strengthen the independence and impartiality of the Appellate Body, promote text-based substantial discussions among WTO Members, and launch the selection process for Appellate Body Members as soon as possible. The crisis of the Appellate Body has lasted for more than a year without any silver lining. The individual WTO Member flagged its concerns over the appellate process, but providing no concrete suggestions or solutions. If this issue remains unresolved, the Appellate Body will cease to function after next year. The selection of Appellate Body Members has become an imminent crisis facing the WTO and needs to be resolved at the earliest time. As an ancient Chinese philosopher Mencius said, “laws alone cannot carry themselves into practice.” The dispute settlement mechanism is the core pillar of the WTO. Therefore, more than 40 Members, including the EU and China, collectively submitted the joint proposal aiming to promote the substantive discussions, so as to facilitate the crisis of the Appellate Body to be solved without any delay.

第二，中(zhōng)方呼籲世貿成員(yuán)積極參與讨論磋商(shāng)，争取盡快達成一(yī)緻。正如印度所言，聯合提案代表着開(kāi)始，而非結束或最終結果。中(zhōng)方希望總理事會主席在此次會後，能夠積極主持讨論磋商(shāng)，以适當的機制保持讨論勢頭。維持争端解決機制和多邊貿易體(tǐ)制，是所有世貿成員(yuán)的共同責任，符合所有世貿成員(yuán)的共同利益。中(zhōng)方希望所有世貿成員(yuán)能夠積極參與，以建設性的合作态度和積極務實的行動，盡快解決上訴機構危機，共同保障争端解決機制的正常運行，維護多邊貿易體(tǐ)制的權威性和有效性。中(zhōng)方期待着與所有世貿成員(yuán)一(yī)起推動該項工(gōng)作。

謝謝。

Second, China calls on all WTO Members to actively engage in the discussions and consultations, and strive to reach consensus as soon as possible. As India just said, joint proposal marks a beginning rather than the end or the final result. China urges the Chairman of the General Council could actively host the discussions and consultations after this meeting, so that the discussion momentum could be maintained through certain appropriate mechanism. Safeguarding the dispute settlement mechanism and the multilateral trading system is the shared responsibility of all WTO Members and serves the common interest of the whole membership. China hopes that every WTO Member could vigorously participate in the spirit of the constructive cooperation, take positive and pragmatic actions to solve the crisis of the Appellate Body as soon as possible, safeguard the well-functioning of the dispute settlement mechanism by collective efforts, and maintain the authoritativeness and effectiveness of the multilateral trading system. China is looking forward to furthering this work with all WTO Members. 

Thank you.

第二輪發言

Second Intervention

 

感謝主席，我(wǒ)抱歉将再次發言。

Mr. Chairman, I am sorry to take the floor again.

我(wǒ)認真聽(tīng)了謝伊大(dà)使的發言，感到有點失望和困惑，但也不驚訝。中(zhōng)方願意并希望繼續與包括美方在内的所有世貿成員(yuán)讨論有關問題。

I listened carefully to the Statement by Ambassador Shea, but felt a little disappointed and confused, though not surprised. China is willing and hopes to continue discussions on relevant issues with all WTO Members including the United States. 

我(wǒ)對美方的表态有幾點疑問：

I have several questions regarding the statement by the United States:

一(yī)是關于90天的問題。的确，現有規則規定的上訴審限是90天，但二十多年來，案件越來越複雜(zá)，案卷材料越來越多。早先的案件，比如美國限制汽油進口案（DS2），所有案件相關材料彙總起來不過一(yī)小(xiǎo)紙(zhǐ)箱。但情況不同了，現在每一(yī)個案件可能都得要幾十箱文件。上訴機構明顯無法按期完成工(gōng)作，我(wǒ)們該怎麽辦？我(wǒ)們很難找到解決之道。例如，未來遴選上訴機構成員(yuán)時，難道我(wǒ)們要尋找那些能夠一(yī)目十行的人？或者我(wǒ)們要求上訴機構成員(yuán)每天工(gōng)作16小(xiǎo)時、睡覺5小(xiǎo)時、吃飯3小(xiǎo)時？實際上，35年前，我(wǒ)在準備中(zhōng)國的高考時曾經這麽做過，但我(wǒ)知(zhī)道這種做法是不可持續的。所以我(wǒ)的問題是，鑒于目前這種狀況，美方建議要怎麽辦?

First, regarding the issue of 90 days. Of course, the existing rule stipulates the 90-day deadline for the appellate review. However, after more than twenty years, cases have become more and more complex, case materials therefore also surged. In early years cases, such as United States Gasoline (DS2), a small carton suffices for all case-related materials. That is no longer the same situation. Nowadays, we probably need dozens of cartons to pile relevant materials for almost every case. This is the reality that Appellate Body cannot finish its work on time. Given the United States’ position to oppose the increase of resources, what we should do? We are struggling to find a way, for example, in the future when we select Appellate Body members, may we look for those who are able to read ten lines at a glance or can we ask the Appellate Body members to work 16 hours, sleep 5 hours and eat for 3 hours per day? Actually, I did it myself 35 years ago, when I prepared my college entrance examination in China, but I know it is not sustainable. So my question is, what suggestions the United States would like to make under such circumstance? 

二是關于越權問題。中(zhōng)方也希望上訴機構按照授權工(gōng)作，不要擴張其判決。但坦率地說，如何界定是否越權并沒有各方認同的标準。除了敦促上訴機構認真注意這一(yī)問題外(wài)，美方認爲我(wǒ)們還能做什麽？

Second, regarding the issue of overreach. China also wants the Appellate Body to stay in line with its mandate, rather than expanding its adjudications. To be frank, Members do not have consensus over the criteria to determine whether the overreach occurs. Except for urging the Appellate Body to take serious note on this issue. In the United States’ opinion, what else could we do? 

三是關于先例問題。上訴機構在以往争端案件中(zhōng)做出的裁決，爲什麽不能參考？已經分(fēn)析過的法律問題，爲什麽要浪費(fèi)時間和資(zī)源重新再分(fēn)析一(yī)遍？這不符合司法經濟原則，與美方所主張的提高争端解決效率是互相矛盾的。

Third, regarding the issue of precedent. When the Appellate Body made adjudications in previous disputes, I don’t know why these judgments cannot be used as reference? Why should we waste time and resources to redo the analysis of the already analyzed legal issues? It also runs against the judicial economy principle, which directly conflicts with the positions of the United States to enhance the efficiency of dispute settlement.

四是關于解決美方關切問題。美方說歐盟、中(zhōng)國和印度的部分(fēn)建議會影響對上訴機構的問責。那美方能否回答一(yī)下(xià)，提案中(zhōng)哪些内容解決了美方關切，還有哪些關切沒有解決？對于未解決的關切，美方有哪些具體(tǐ)的意見？如果沒有，是否美方願意坐等上訴機構癱瘓？

Fourth, regarding solving concerns of the United States. The United States views that some suggestions by EU, China and India will make the Appellate Body even less accountable. Could the United States give a response to the proposal regarding which of its concerns have been addressed and which are not? Does the United States have specific suggestions on how to address those remaining concerns? If not, is it the intention of the United States to sit back and wait for the paralysis of the Appellate Boddy？

最後，主席，我(wǒ)對謝伊大(dà)使的表态表示歡迎，他說美國願意就此問題與其他成員(yuán)進行深入探讨。我(wǒ)希望我(wǒ)的這些問題能夠在今後深入的讨論中(zhōng)得到解答。

謝謝。

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I welcome Ambassador Shea’s statement that the United States would like to engage in the deep discussions with other Members on this issue. And I hope my questions can be answered in the future in-depth discussions.

Thank you.