WTO中国案例精选(1) 杨国华 编 著 mobi 下载 网盘 caj lrf pdf txt 阿里云

案例在法学教育中的作用是公认的。有了案例，法律规则就“活”了起来——从抽象的概念、冷冰冰的条文，变成了社会中一个个活生生的事例。

涉及中国的案例会让学生增加一种“亲切感”——中国在WTO中作为“原告”或“被告”的察件，不仅事关重大，而且饶有趣味。

法律来源于丰富多彩的生活，而案例教学能够让法律回到生活，成为有血有肉的“人”。在WTO法中，这个“人”是理性的、讲道理的。这个“人”的一言一行，值得我们认真观察研究，认真学习效仿。

案件一

美国钢铁保障措施案

案件二

中国汽车零部件案

案件三

中国知识产权案

案件四

中国出版物案

中国参与WTO案件统计

    杨国华，商务部条约法律司副司长，北京大学法学博士，西南政法大学WTO案例教学研究中心名誉主任，西南政法大学兼职教授。曾任中国驻美大使馆知识产权官员，并参与中国加入WT0多双边谈判和外经贸易部WT0法律领导小组办公室工作，负责与中国有关的WTO争端解决事务，还曾负责外国对华反倾销的应诉、中外知识产权谈判与合作。主要著作有《WTO争端解决程序详解》、《中美知识产权问题概况》、《美国贸易法301条款研究》、《中美经贸关系中的法律问题》、《中国加，NWTO法律问题专论》、《WT0美国钢铁保障措施案研究》、《中国与WTO争端解决机制专题研究》、WTO Dispute SettlementUnderstanding：A Detailed Interpretation、《中美知识产权问题概观》等。

暂无出版社相关信息，正在全力查找中！

    7.514

    Therefore， the standard of compliance with Article 61 is the minimum internationally agreed standard set out in that Article. The minimum standard in Article 61 does not defer to China's domestic practice on the definition of criminal liability and sanctions for other wrongful acts in areas not subject to international obligations under the TRIPS Agreement， unless it so states. For example， the second sentence refers to "crimes of a corresponding gravity" which might refer to domestic practice in other areas. However， the first sentence of Article 61 does not make any such reference.

    7.515

    For the above reasons， the Panel confirms its view at paragraphs 0 to 0 above that the first sentence of Article 61 of the TRIPS Agreement imposes an obligation. The Panel willow turn to the terms used in that provision， read in context and in light of the object and purpose of the Agreement， to determine the scope and content of that obligation. （Iv）Scope of the Obligation

    7.516 The terms of the obligation in the first sentence of Article 61 of the TRIPS Agreement are that Members shall "provide for criminal procedures and penalties to be applied". That obligation applies to “willful trademark counterfeiting or copyright piracy on commercial scale". Within that scope， there are no exceptions. The obligation applies to all acts of willful trademark counterfeiting or copyright piracy on a commercial scale.

    7.517 The Panel recalls its conclusion at paragraph 0 above that， in China， acts of trademark and copyright infringement falling below the applicable thresholds are not subject to criminal procedures and penalties. The issue that arises is whether any of those acts of infringement constitute "willful trademark counterfeiting or copyright piracy on a commercial scale" within the meaning of the first sentence of Article 61. This requires the Panel to consider the interpretation of that phrase.

    7.518 The Panel notes that the first sentence of Article 61 contains no fewer than four limitations on the obligation that it sets forth. These define the scope of the relevant obligation and are not exceptions. The first limitation is that the obligation applies to trademarks and copyright rather than to all intellectual property rights covered by the TRIPS Agreement. The fourth sentence of Article 61 gives Members the option to criminalize other infringements of intellectual property rights， in particular where they are committed willfully and on a commercial scale. Despite the potential gravity of such infringements， Article 61 creates no obligation to criminalize them.

    ……

在线阅读地址：WTO中国案例精选(1) 杨国华 编 著在线阅读

在线听书地址：WTO中国案例精选(1) 杨国华 编 著在线收听

在线购买地址：WTO中国案例精选(1) 杨国华 编 著在线购买

暂无原文赏析，正在全力查找中！

书籍介绍

本书共分为四部分，主要内容包括：美国钢铁保障措施案、中国汽车零部件案、中国知识产权案、中国出版物案。