WTO 보조금협정 제2조상 특정성 기준

• 영문명: Specificity under art. 2 SCMA
• 발행기관: 조선대학교 법학연구원
• 저자명: 이환규(Lee, Hwan-Gyu)
• 간행물 정보: 『법학논총』제17권 제1호, 355~385쪽, 전체 31쪽
• 주제분류: 법학 > 법학
• 파일형태: PDF
• 발행일자: 2010.03.30

국문 초록

WTO 보조금협정에서 새로이 도입된 개념인 특정성 개념은 상계조치를 취하기 위한 주요 기준이 된다. 본 논문에서는 이러한 특정성 개념이 보조금협정에 도입된 과정을 살펴볼 것이며, 특정성에 대해 규정하고 있는 보조금협정 제2조를 중심으로 특정성 개념을 분석할 것이다. 보조금협정 제2조 에서의 특정성 개념은 기업 특정성, 지역 특정성 그리고 금지보조금의 특정성 문제 등으로 나누어 볼 수 있는데, 각각에 대한 조문 분석을 통해 특정성 개념을 명확하게 이해하고 적용함으로써 다자간 무역체제 내에서 보조금 규제 문제에 대해 효율적으로 대처할 수 있는 방안을 모색하고자 한다.

영문 초록

Only subsidies which are specific within the meaning of art. 2 SCMA can be subject to the discipline on prohibited subsidies in part Ⅱ, actionable under part Ⅲ SCMA, or subject to countervailing measures in accordance with part Ⅴ SCMA. Therefore, the correct understanding and application of art. 2 SCMA play a key role in the effective and sound implementation of multilateral subsidy disciplines. The concept of specificity was basically developed in the U.S. administrative and statutory implementation of Countervailing Duty Law. This was introduced explicitly in the U.S. Countervailing Duty Statute of 1979 implementing the Tokyo Round Code. The notion of specificity was first discussed in the Uruguay Round negotiation jointly with the definition of subsidy. The drafting history of the SCMA reveals that the specificity of subsidy was conceived and introduced as a necessary condition in order for a subsidy to become actionable or subject to countervailing measures. Pursuant to art. 2 SCMA, a finding of specificity can be based upon a showing that the benefits of a program are specially provided either de jure or de facto. Where the authority providing the subsidy, or the legislation pursuant to which the authority operates, expressly limits access to the subsidy to an enterprise or industry, the subsidy is specific as a matter of law. Where there are reasons to believe that a subsidy may be specific as a matter of fact, the subsidy is specific if one or more of the following factors exist: (1) the use of a subsidy programme by a limited number of certain enterprises; (2) the predominant use by certain enterprises; (3) the granting of disproportionately large amounts of subsidy to certain enterprises; (4) the manner in which discretion has been exercised by the granting authority in the decision to grant a subsidy. Specificity may take various form pursuant to art. 2 SCMA: (1) enterprise specificity, when the government subsidizes a particular enterprise or several particular enterprises; (2) industry specificity, when the government subsidizes a particular economic sector or several economic sectors; (3) regional specificity, when the government subsidizes the economic operators within a specific region or regions forming part of its territorial jurisdiction; and (4) specificity of prohibited subsidies. This article is intended to clarify the definition of specificity by analyzing art. 2 SCMA. It helps us discipline only those subsidies that produce trade-distorting effects and avoid disciplining subsidies which are instruments of the legitimate public policies.

목차

Ⅰ. 서 론

Ⅱ. 특정성 개념 도입 과정

Ⅲ. 기업 특정성

Ⅳ. 지역 특정성

Ⅴ. 금지보조금의 특정성

Ⅵ. 결 론

키워드

특정성 법률상 특정성 사실상 특정성 기업 특정성 지역 특정성 금지보조금의 특정성 specificity de jure specificity de facto specificity industry specificity regional specificity specificity of prohibited subsidy