Causation Identification Of WTO And Influence For China

Concerning causation identification of WTO Anti-dumping Agreement,it was the focus of the academic circles before and after China entering into the WTO.Until now,people don't concentrate on the topic.However,with the hot discussion of the "market economy status" in China in 2016,China's response to the anti-dumping cases in WTO has aroused the attention of the academic community again.Unlike the problem,the identification of causation is not the focus of the problem,but as one of the three elements of dumping,it also affects China's ultimate responsibility for dumping.As a result,I think,instead of fighting against the issue of market economy status,it is better to actively seek other feasible ways,and causality is exactly the part that I believe has great operational space.Besides,since the second half of 2017,the new US President Trump's trade protectionism policy has been popular all over the world.China's frequent trade protectionism surveys,especially the anti-dumping investigations,must attract enough attention from China.The identification of the causation has been stagnant,since the Doha Round negotiations stalled.However,in the face of the new changes in the international situation,China must focus on the problem of anti-dumping,and causation can play an important role in the future.Firstly,the article sixth of GATT1994 and the 3.5 section of the Anti-dumping Agreement only indicate that we need establish a link between dumping behavior and the result of injury,but the proof of this relationship depends on the analysis of the investigation authorities.What kind of connection is,how close is,and whether other factors will affect this connection...The article does not make any explanation.Although WTO has given its own explanation to the article,it has not answered these questions.Secondly,to discuss the issue of causation,academia circle has two maincontroversies: one is whether the causal relationship of the provisions of article 3.5 of the anti-dumping agreement is a general causal relationship or the main causation;two is how other factors of non-attribution should be excluded.For the first issue,whether it is from the text or from several rounds of talks,can't be identified as the main causation in the strict sense;but if it is regarded as a general causal relationship,the current legislation requires investigation authorities to exclude other factors,which not meet the general definition of causality.From the perspective of case referee,the WTO expert group and the appellate body have formed a more unified view.The investigation authorities must prove that is a causal relationship between dumping behavior and damage,and other factors will not break the causal relationship.For the second issue,non-attribution,at present,the specific provisions of the nonattribution identification are not clearly stated in the provisions and case decisions,it only requires the investigation authorities to fulfill the obligations of article 3.5,and the specific method is determined by the investigating authorities.This method is the compromise,and has played an important role,but for the long-term development of DSU and the efficiency of the case,it is not a long way.Lacking uniform standard,makes case results unconvincing.Thirdly,through the analysis of different cases,we find that DSB uses different rules,such as regarding the factors involved in the case as not related to exclude them;or fundamentally denying the existence of dumping and the damage;and determining through substantial program.Of course,some cases certainly stated "not in any major way to result in damage,and not break the chain of causation",which established a formal template for DSB.In general,WTO adopts a compromise identification standard,reflecting the game results in international rules making.On the one hand,it did not specifically determine that the dumping behavior plays a role in the formation of damage results like the main causation;on the other hand,it also investigates the influence of other factors,and don't directly decide anti-dumping measures.As for the problem of nonattribution,I believe that the identification of non-attribution is the core of causality identification.First of all,it is not practical by a new round of negotiations to determine the specific standard,in the current international context,but it can be determined through the official interpretation of the standard: continuation of the present case rule,countries can make the specific method,which accords with the practical demand of development,and will not make too much impact on the currentsystem.Secondly,WTO can make an official explanation,not only to define the standard of known factors,namely the investigation authorities did not make the relevant factors become "known" obligations,stakeholders should submit them to WTO after investigation authorities formally opening review,nor accepted by panel and the appellate body.Secondly,it is to determine whether the non-attributable method is appropriate.WTO official explanation should make the non-attribution judgment obligation become compulsory——as long as the investigation authorities have a causal relationship between dumping and damage.This exclusion is not to determine the degree of influence of dumping,and aims to show that other factors did not cut the causal the chain,and will not take additional burden or take more anti-dumping duties.As for the specific identification method,it is determined by the respective states,and the panel and the appellate body only make case decisions on the two sides of the dispute.As for the impact on the China,personally speaking: China should pay attention to the identification of causal relationship,from the current domestic legislation and the Ministry of Commerce ruling case,domestic legislation is too simple,not even separately explained,it is difficult to adapt to the needs of the development of practice the ruling of the report;analysis of a concrete case is relatively rough,it is difficult to obtain the approval of all parties.Therefore,in the future development process,China should pay attention to the causality: in view of the general causality and causal relationship have different influence as the complainant and the respondent,the author also analyzes them——from the current point of view,the main causation seems more favorable for China,because it can avoid other countries and the DSU frequently initiated anti-dumping investigations and anti-dumping duties;but in the future,China needs to initiate the causal relationship.Of course,China should also continue to improve legislation,establish complete rules of anti-dumping investigations,especially in the identification of causation,China can try to determine the specific standard of different products and different industries by the form of normative documents,which can improve the operability of standard,and can be flexible and efficient to solve the problem in the specific cases;in addition,the Ministry of Commerce authorities should also improve their ability to write a complete,enrich and logical judgment report,enhancing the persuasion and authority,and reducing the probability of being taken to DSB;at last,China can try to promote its own causationcriteria in bilateral and regional trade agreements,and reflect its own interests.