| In 2018,USTR issued the "Section 301 investigation report",in which the second part accused China of "unfair technology transfer regime",i.e."compulsory technology transfer",and the third part accused China of"discriminatory licensing restrictions" in four clauses related to international technology transfer,which violated the principle of national treatment of WTO.Subsequently,the United States submitted a request for consultation to the WTO dispute settlement body on the basis of the third part of the Section 301 investigation report.As for compulsory technology transfer,through the analysis of its essence,it is not difficult to find out that its core is actually the legal rules of technology transfer performance requirements prohibition.However,after investigation,none of the provisions concerning technology taransfer in international treaties explicitly prohibit the performance requirements of technology transfer,which actually originated from bilateral or multilateral investment treaties between the United States and other countries.However,at present,China and the United States have not concluded a bilateral investment treaty,so it is improper for the United States accusing China of the"compulsory technology transfer performance requirements".In addition,the United States did not provide any substantial evidence in the Section 301 investigation report to prove that China has compulsory technology transfer performance requirements,which is only a kind of inference and assumption of the United States and American enterprises.Moreover,the United States did not put forward a request for consultation to the WTO dispute settlement body,which also reflected its authenticity to be examined.As for the restriction of discriminatory licensing,developing countries,such as China,and the United Nations have tried many times to establish a sound international technology transfer system under the framework of intemational law,but because of the interest game between developing countries and western developed countries,the establishment has not been successful.As a result,although there is a basis for defense,but there is no systematic international article in the field of international technology transfer in international law,so it is uncertain whether China’s defense will be adopted by the WTO dispute settlement body or not.On the other hand,the administrative regulations related to dispute have been issued for a long time,and some clauses cannot meet the current situation of China’s economic development.Therefore,three days after the second session of the 13th National People’s Congress voted to adopt the foreign investment law,the State Council issued a decision to delete four dispute clauses,which also means the end of this technology transfer dispute between China and US.However,However,the deletion of the four controversial clauses does not revise the two controversial regulations.It remains a question whether it will leave a hidden danger for the western developed countries to accused China of the issue of technology transfer in the future..More Than This,this case is still a wake-up call for the reform and improvement of China’s legal system of international technology transfer.At the same time of improving the legal system of international technology transfer and strictly supervising the administration of administrative organs in accordance with the law,we should also strive to promote the independent innovation of domestic technology,optimize the innovative business environment,take account of domestic technology research and development and foreign investment,improve the level of technology development,establish a healthy,free,fair and friendly international image,and further improve China’s international social influence.These are the most effective responses. |
