On March 23, the United States submitted a consultation request to China under the WTO Dispute Settlement Mechanism, alleging that the Chinese government’s measures regarding the conditions for technology licensing did not comply with the relevant provisions of the TRIPS Agreement.
At that time, the person in charge of the Treaty and Law Division of the Ministry of Commerce stated in a statement on this point that the Chinese side has received requests for consultations from the United States. The Chinese government has always attached great importance to the protection of intellectual property rights and has taken many strong measures to protect the legitimate rights of intellectuals at home and abroad. Achievements are obvious to all. China has always respected the rules of the WTO and maintained the multilateral trading system. The Chinese side regrets the U.S. side's request for consultations and will handle it properly in accordance with the WTO dispute settlement procedures.
This time, both the European Union and Japan have indicated that they have a large number of interest claims in this area, and thus applied to join the consultation process.
According to the relevant provisions of the WTO, the parties to the dispute must first resolve the dispute through consultations, and in the process, if a third party believes that the ongoing negotiations are related to their own trade interests, they can also participate in the consultation as third parties. The request for consultation with the parties involved in the consultation shall be notified within 10 days after the date of the consultation. However, if the parties to the consultation believe that the issue has no trade interest relationship with the third party, it may also refuse the third party to participate in the consultation.
EU believes there are major trade interests in the negotiations
Recently, a spokesperson for the European Commission said that the United States and Europe have the same concerns about the openness of the Chinese market, and will 'investigate the possibility of filing a complaint with the WTO.'
However, the spokesperson also said in response to a Xinhua reporter’s question that the EU has noticed that the United States has published a list of Chinese products proposed to be subject to tariffs under the '301 investigation' and that the EU has been operating since the United States launched the '301 investigation' in August last year. Closely follow the progress of the investigation. However, the EU opposes any trade measures that violate the rules of the WTO.
In fact, such statements are not contradictory, but are related to the US strategy in the WTO's request for consultations with China. That is to say, the United States conducts the contents of the '301 investigation' with the TRIPS-related content requested by the WTO. The spin-off.
What the EU opposes is trade measures that violate the rules of the WTO, that is, the U.S. unilaterally adopted and the highly controversial '301 investigation' in Europe, but it is not a legal case under the WTO rules.
In simple terms, in the actual operations of the USTR, the United States dares to use the '301 investigation'. The reason is that the US does not believe that its investigation did not accuse the Chinese side of its conduct in violation of the TRIPS principle. The U.S. China's accusations have nothing to do with the WTO, so the '301 investigation' assessment of Chinese government behavior is not within the scope of the WTO rules.
At the same time, in the United States’ view that China violated the behavior in the area of TRIPS, on March 23, the United States submitted a consultation request to China under the WTO Dispute Settlement Mechanism, which means that the Chinese government’s measures regarding the conditions for technology licensing do not comply with the TRIPS regulations.
The Ministry of Commerce stated on the 4th that China had already initiated a consultation request under the WTO Dispute Settlement Mechanism on the 4th regarding the proposal for taxation under the US 301 investigation into China, and officially launched the WTO dispute settlement procedure.
The spokesperson of the Ministry of Commerce stated that the U.S. disregards WTO rules, abandons its own commitment to the WTO, announces the taxation proposals under the U.S. 301 investigation, and proposes to impose a 25% tariff on the products of China’s approximately 1300 tariff numbers. It will involve me. About 50 billion U.S. dollars are exported. This unilateralism approach not only seriously damages China’s legitimate rights and interests, but also constitutes a blatant violation of the WTO rules. It is bound to detract from the authority of the rules-based multilateral trading system. The Chinese side resolutely Opposition.
The first financial reporter got the EU and Japan application documents. The EU pointed out in this document that the EU’s export of high-tech products and high-tech knowledge-intensive service products are important for the protection of intellectual property rights in EU products. The EU estimates that the annual export of high-tech products is around 680 billion euros, of which the EU exports 30 billion euros of high-tech products to China each year.
At the same time, the EU’s direct investment in China is huge, with a total value of around 180 billion euros. The European Union proposes that most of the investment in these investments is currently based on joint venture requirements. The EU believes that these investments have also been negotiated by the United States. Impact of the Chinese (Chinese) Measures. The EU has significant trading interests in these negotiations.
On April 4, 2018, Ambassador Zhang Ming, head of the delegation to the European Union, issued a signed article on the European political network (politico.eu) on the so-called 'trade warfare', which stated that China and the EU should jointly safeguard the international rule-based world. Multilateral trade order.
Zhang Ming pointed out that in an international situation that is full of uncertainties, the stability of China-EU cooperation is precious. China and the EU are both important members of the World Trade Organization and are all-round strategic partners. They should join hands and share a clear-cut vision. To oppose trade protectionism, to maintain a rule-based international multilateral trade order, and to maintain the momentum of a sustained improvement in the world economy. This is the common responsibility of China and the EU and should also be the common action of China and the EU.
Japan also wants to take a ride
The First Financial Reporter was informed that China and the United States once again confronted the US’s performance in the '301 investigation' at the WTO Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) meeting on March 27. At that time, the Japanese representative stated that he agreed with the United States to strengthen the protection of intellectual property rights. The point of view, but trade measures must be consistent with the WTO agreement.
In the Japanese application documents seen by the First Financial reporter, Japan pointed out that it was 'one of the largest stakeholders in technology transfer to China'. Compared with the EU's concise application documents, Japan listed two pages of paper. Three major concerns.
In which, Japan proposed that Japan had long expressed concern about the issues raised by the United States.
Second, Japan is one of the major countries exporting technology to China. Japan believes that Japan’s technology provided to Chinese companies will account for 20% of China’s technology imports (calculated by the number of contracts) within this year. For this reason, Japan is a technology transfer to China. Largest stakeholders.
Third, Japanese nationals have a large number of patents in China. For example, in 2015, Japanese nationals applied for about 40,000 patent applications, of which 36,000 were granted, and these Japanese nationals in China have patent rights. Accept supervision of relevant Chinese laws.
Japan also expressed special concerns about the technical expertise of Japanese joint ventures in China in the application.
In general, the members who are required to negotiate should reply within 10 days after receiving the consultation request, and should not negotiate more than 30 days after the date of receiving the request. The consultation should be after the date on which the requested party receives the consultation request. Completed in 60 days.
According to the relevant provisions of the WTO Dispute Settlement Mechanism, the 60-day period means that parties to the dispute are expected to resolve the dispute through diplomatic negotiations in a friendly manner during this period.
If the member has not responded within 10 days after receiving the request, or has not conducted the consultation within 30 days after the date of receiving the request, or 35 days after receiving the request for consultation, both parties believe that no consensus can be reached, or that they have received consultations. Within 60 days after the date of the request, consensus could not be reached. The complaining party may apply for the establishment of an expert group. Of course, the parties to the dispute may also directly request the establishment of an expert group without consulting.