A Legal and Economic Analysis of the Remedy System for Prohibited Subsidies in the WTO

Abstract

WTO 분쟁해결제도는 다른 국제법 분야와는 다른 독특한 이행체제를 갖추고 있어 국제통상법 학자들의 많은 주목을 받아왔다. 특히, WTO 금지 보조금 규정은 다른 WTO 협정분야에 비해 가장 엄격한 반면, 실제 금지 보조금의 분쟁이행 실적은 상대적으로 저조한 편이다. 이에 따라 현 WTO 금지보조금 분쟁판결의 이행을 촉진시키기 위한 구제제도의 효과성에 대한 의문이 생기지 않을 수 없다. 더욱 특이한 점은 법학자들과는 달리 국제경제학자들은 금지보조금으로 규정되어 있는 수출보조금에 대한 현 WTO 규정을 보다 유연하게 하여 각 국이 전략적 경제정책 차원에서 보조금을 사용할 수 있도록 해야 한다는 입장이다. 이에 따라 본 연구에서는 WTO 금지보조금 구제제도에 대한 법•경제학적 분석을 바탕으로 WTO 금지보조금 구제제도의 나아갈 방향을 경제적 근거에 입각하여 제시하고자 한다. 특히, 본 연구는 기존의 경제모형을 활용한 연구 결과와는 달리, 최근에 제시된 경제모형을 활용하여 WTO 금지 보조금 구제제도에 대한 새로운 이해를 도출해내고자 하였다. 그 결과, WTO 금지보조금에 대한 현 규정의 수준은 WTO 보조금 협정이 추구하는 목적과 취지에 맞게 보다 강화되어야 하며, 보다 효과적인 구제제도의 마련을 위하여 기존의 미래지향적(prospective) 피해 구제가 아닌 소급적인(retrospective) 구제가 가능해야 함을 주장하고 있다. 특히 금지보조금 규정상 적용 가능한 기존의신속절차(fast track)규정이 제 효과를 발휘할 수 있도록 WTO 이행패널의 관할권 및 DSU 제21.5조와 제22.6간의 적용순서(sequencing) 관련 규정의 올바른 해석과 적용이 요구될 것이다. 또한 WTO 보조금 협정의 보호대상 및 목적에 따라 금전적 보상은 적합한 구제방안이 될 수 없으며, 특히 이행 촉진을 위한 보복조치의 수준은 보조금의 다자적(multilateral) 성격을 고려하여 보조금의 무역효과에 근거하여 결정되어야 한다고 주장하고 있다. 결국 WTO 규정의 올바른 의미와 효과를 제고하기 위해서는 WTO 재판관과 회원국들의 합리적이고 현실적인 판단을 통하여 해당 규정의 목적과 취지가 충분히 존중될 수 있도록 해야 할 것이다.

The remedy system in the WTO for prompt dispute settlement has attracted a lot of attention by international trade scholars due to its unique enforcement mechanism which is not available in other areas of international law. In particular, the remedy system for prohibited subsidies deserves more focused attention due to a contradiction: Despite the tight regulations and rules to ensure compliance with WTO subsidy rules, the actual implementation rate of the WTO DSB rulings to remove violating prohibited subsidy measures fares the poorest. This leads to the question of whether the current remedy system for prohibited subsidies is indeed effective, or at least desirable from the perspective of WTO Members. During the process of this study, several proposals have been made to remedy the current inefficiency in the remedy system for prohibited subsidies by examining the following issues: (1) Whether retrospective remedies should be allowed for the effective withdrawal of subsidies

(2) What the appropriate level of retaliation for prohibited subsidies should be

(3) Whether monetary compensation could be allowed as an alternative remedy for inducing compliance in prohibited subsidy disputes

and (4) How the current mechanism for inducing compliance through the fast track procedure for prohibited subsidies could be strengthened. In order to address these questions, this research has relied on both legal and economic analyses to provide an economic justification for the legal arguments that are made in this study. In particular, existing research using economic models have been applied to this work in order to provide interesting perspectives that help to suggest a renewed approach for the remedy system, at least for the case of prohibited subsidies. In conclusion, the results of this study suggest that when it comes to the remedy rules on prohibited subsidies, a stronger incentive for prompt compliance is needed through the retrospective application of the retaliation remedy, especially for dealing with non-recurring prohibited subsidies. This study further suggests that the possibility of using monetary compensation as an alternative remedy for prohibited subsidies is not viable, mainly due to the purpose of remedies in prohibited subsidy rules that is served by the property rule. For determining the level of retrospective retaliation, proportionality and the multilateral nature of remedies should be considered, under which the trade effects of the subsidy measure on individual WTO Members should be the basis for calculation. The problem of delayed implementation involving recurring prohibited subsidies may be a more intricate matter that mainly derives from the fundamental nature of subsidies as a strategic national policy. However, the loophole that is created, which undermines the stability and predictability of the WTO remedy system should not go unaddressed. In this regard, the existing fast track procedures that are in place as the remedy system for prohibited subsidies may be made more effective by addressing the problems that incur from the narrow jurisdiction of WTO compliance panels and the arbitrary sequencing arrangements in compliance and authorization proceedings. Ultimately, it will be the role of the WTO adjudicating bodies and the Members to apply the rules in a sensible and practical manner that gives meaning and effectiveness to the WTO rules in accordance with the purpose and objectives of the respective WTO Agreements.