A Study On Burden Of Proof In Dispute Settlement Body Of World Trade Organization

China has become a member of WTO on11th December2001, it is a challenge as well as an opportunity for China take part in the international economic cooperation and competition more intensively and extensively, and China has exploit a new field in the world stage. According to the statistical data from WTO, the total trade volume in China exceeded the U.S2.5billion dollar and has already become the NO.1on trading. Furthermore, China not only enjoys the preference treatment, but also faces challenge brought by the multilateral trade mechanism. As of May4,2015, the cases of WTO dispute settlement directly involving China are up to46, and confronted new kind of trade disputes, from anti-dumping fields to cultural publication or financial affairs such as ATM cards and so on. Other members of WTO seems to aim at our country’s policy such as in case of value-added tax on integrated circuits, case of measures affecting imports of automobile parts and case of measures related to the exportation of various raw materials, even the case about rare earths. However, on14September2007, China requested consultations with the United States government on the ground of violation of law regarding investigation of our country’s coated free sheet paper as an independent party. It seems that China comes to adopt an active attitude towards participating in WTO DSB. Thus it is time for us to utilize DSB to protect our country’s profits. And during the process of dispute settlement, rules of burden of proof are very important. It concerns not only the realization of substantive right of dispute parties, but also relates to the final result of cases. Selecting burden of proof of violation complaints in WTO dispute settlement body as a subject and relying on the prevailing research materials and practical experience, the dissertation intends to make an in-depth and systematic exploration of the application of burden of proof in the context of violation complaints trough analysis of Panel and Appellate Body Report by empirical study. The author hopes this study may contribute to help our country to participate in DSB actively, maintain our country’s interests and to push the development of the mechanism.