Identification Of "Public Body" In WTO Countervailing Dispute Settlements

Research on the identification of "Public Body" has great significance for the reason that the determination that an entity is a "Public Body" is a prerequisite for the identification of the existence of the subsidy according to the SCM Agreement. This thesis analyzes the standards that Dispute Settlement Body has used in countervailing dispute settlements based on case DS379and the revelations China should learn. The thesis is divided into five sections.The first section is an introduction which introduces the topic by generalizing the controversial points in case DS379.The second section analyzes the standards and methods that DSB has used in the former countervailing dispute settlements. The standard that an entity will constitute a "public body" if it is controlled by the government was first mentioned in the panel report of the case of DS273. In case DS296, although the panel did not mention whether or not to apply that standard, they emphasized that it cannot be identified as a public body even if an entity was owned by the government. In case DS299. the panel did not mention if it would apply the standard neither, however, they determined the entity as a public body by analyzing the decision-making process of the entity.The third section introduces and analyzes the two standards that DSB used to determine an entity as a public body in the case of DS379. In this case, China asserted, to be a "public body", an entity must be authorized by the law of the state to exercise functions of a government or public character, and the acts in question must be performed in the exercise of such authority. However, the United States argued that in all cases, public body status can be determined on the basis of "government control" The panel supported the "government control" standard after demonstration and determined that certain SOEs and SOCBs were "public bodies". The appellate body believed the "government functions" standard should be applied after their demonstration and determined that the SOEs were not public bodies, but they determined that the SOCBs were public bodies due to the insufficiency of evidence. The comparative analysis of the two standards is divided into two ways. It firstly compares the two standards from its proposal, content, demonstration and application on the basis of the panel reports and the appellate body reports of case DS379and comes to the conclusion that the "government functions" standard is more rational. Then, after analyzing, it points out that the essence of the dispute is interests and the so called "government control" standard is becoming a trade protection tool for the western developed countries, the "government functions" standard is more appropriate from the perspective of maintaining the freedom of trade and the interests of our country.The fourth section discusses the revelations China should learn. Firstly, it reviews the missteps China has had in the respondent of case DS379and analyzes the revelations. Secondly, it analyzes revelations from other aspects which includes the improvement of the WTO rules, the reform of the SOEs and the reform of the SOCBs.The fifth section is the conclusion which summarizes the main points and conclusions of this article.