Font Size: a A A

China’s Indigenous Innovation Policy In The Context Of Its WTO Obligations And Commitments

Posted on:2013-05-09Degree:MasterType:Thesis
Country:ChinaCandidate:P MuFull Text:PDF
GTID:2246330374974594Subject:International law
Abstract/Summary:PDF Full Text Request
The Indigenous Innovation Law and Administrative Measures are playing astrategic role in improving the capability of China’s independent innovation. Practiceindicates that the Indigenous Innovation Policy and Administrative Measures promotethe development of China’s independent innovation capability. They should continueto develop, improve and play a role in China’s independent innovation capability.However, foreign industries and governments make perverse accusations on China’sIndigenous Innovation Policy. Moreover, they want our country to stop the execution.They not only put pressure on our government but also use the WTO disputesettlement procedures to force our country to stop the implementation of theIndigenous Innovation Policy and Administrative Measures. The significance ofresearch on the relationship between China’s Indigenous innovation policy andadministrative measures and the WTO regulation system is to respond to and win thepossible lawsuit that may be filed by the United States and the EU. Although theUnited States and the EU have not sued, they have repeatedly threatened to forceChina to stop the implementation of the Indigenous innovation policy andadministrative measures through the WTO dispute settlement procedures.As a Member of the World Trade Organization ("WTO"), China is currently not asignatory to the Government Procurement Agreement ("GPA") which provides marketaccess and requires non-discriminatory treatment to foreign goods and services in government procurement. Nevertheless, China’s Indigenous Innovation measures arestill subject to China’s obligations under the Protocol on the Accession of the People’sRepublic of China ("Accession Protocol") and other WTO agreements, such as theGeneral Agreement on Tariffs and Trade1994("GATT"), the WTO Agreement onSubsidies and Countervailing Measures ("SCM"), and the Trade-Related Aspects ofIntellectual Property Rights Agreement ("TRIPS").This article is a detailed analysis of the legitimacy of China’s IndigenousInnovation Policy and Administrative Measures under the WTO System given theallegations of foreign industries and governments.(1)Foreign industries and governments have expressed serious concerns overthe lack of transparency in the publication of China’s Indigenous Innovation measures.But the author believes that China should bear only the obligation of the non-existence of secret agreements. There is no suspected violation as the IndigenousInnovation Policy and Administrative Measures are published on the official website.(2)The foreign industries’ concerns about the proper organization of theexpert panels and their assessment process are not justified as violation of properadministrative obligations. The author thinks that the proper obligations relate only tothe regulations implement, not regulations itself as foreign industries and thegovernments concern. So the accused is not established(3)The fact that China has already promised to join the GPA gives the foreignindustries and governments legitimate expectations of benefits. So the situation is anon-violation Claim. The author believes that the provisions on governmentprocurement in China’s accession to the Working Party Report "and" China’s WTOProtocol do not give national treatment of foreign suppliers. Also, the author disclosesthat the existence and appliance of the Government Procurement Management InterimMeasures, which is inconsistent with National Treatment, does not give foreigngovernments and business benefits of legitimate expectations. So the non-violationClaim does not apply to China’s Indigenous Innovation Policy and AdministrativeMeasures. (4)It violates the TRIPS provisions of national treatment requirements andpatent matters that Indigenous Innovation Policy and Administrative Measuresdiscriminate against the entrance to the Chinese government procurement market forthe foreign intellectual property products so that they have to transfer intellectualproperty rights to Chinese companies. According to the report of the Expert Group onIndonesian Automotive case, the author thinks it is unreasonable to interpret theTRIPS national treatment obligation as preventing from the fact that the domesticenterprises win the priority of government procurement would cause difficulties forforeign companies’ export. So The Indigenous Innovation Policy and AdministrativeMeasures do not violate TRIPS Agreement.In the end, the author proposes amendments to the transparency and the reviewprocess of Indigenous Innovation Policy for China before joining in the GPA.
Keywords/Search Tags:Government Procurement, The Indigenous InnovationLaw and Administrative Measures, GPA
PDF Full Text Request
Related items