英语翻译It has long been accepted that domestic policies and laws can nullify or impair the purported benets of trade policies,and that the WTO must therefore reach beyond border measures (Bhagwati,1996 :23–24).The GATT’s national treatment a

英语翻译It has long been accepted that domestic policies and laws can nullify or impair the purported benets of trade policies,and that the WTO must therefore reach beyond border measures (Bhagwati,1996 :23–24).The GATT’s national treatment a
英语翻译
It has long been accepted that domestic policies and laws can nullify or impair the purported benets of trade policies,and that the WTO must therefore reach beyond border measures (Bhagwati,1996 :23–24).The GATT’s national treatment and MFN obligations do this to some extent,but the growth in non-tari barriers to trade during the 1960s–1970s prompted GATT parties to negotiate the Standards Code,the predecessor to the TBT,in the Tokyo Round.The addition of the SPS during the Uruguay Round stemmed from the failures of the Standards Code to curtail the growth in technical regulations in food and agricultural products (Marceau and Trachtman,2002 :813–815).The TBT and its companion on food and plant safety now add considerably to the disciplines on domestic regulatory autonomy that are contained in the GATT.
The Preamble to the TBT sheds light on the Agreement’s underlying harmonization claims.Its key trade concerns are to promote transparency by eliminating a country’s ability to choose rules that have greater protective eect and to facilitate trade expansion with associated economies of scale (TBT,Preamble;WTO CTBT,1995,annex 4,Principle 10).These objectives do not necessarily require regulatory harmonization in the form of a single international standard or rule.If the basis of the claim for harmonization is simply to achieve economies of scale or to address transparency concerns,Cassis de Dijon makes clear that mutual recognition would be equally appropriate (Leebron,1996 ; Bhagwati,1996 :9 ; Bhagwati and Srinivasan,1996 :15).But mutual recognition does not respond to concerns that the regulatory regime of another country imposes transboundary costs,hinders the implementation of domestic laws,or is somehow ‘ unfair ’ (Leebron,1996 :94).Such concerns frequently underpin domestic regulation in elds of consumer safety and environmental health.

英语翻译It has long been accepted that domestic policies and laws can nullify or impair the purported benets of trade policies,and that the WTO must therefore reach beyond border measures (Bhagwati,1996 :23–24).The GATT’s national treatment a
长期以来一直认为,对国内政策和法律可以取消或损害的贸易政策的本意是本茨,以及世界贸易组织,因此必须超越边界措施（巴格瓦蒂,1996：23-24）.关贸总协定的国民待遇和最惠国待遇义务,这在一定程度上,但在非塔里增长的障碍,在20世纪60年代,70年代的贸易谈判促使各缔约方在关贸总协定东京回合的标准守则,对技术性贸易壁垒的前身.动植物卫生检疫措施的乌拉圭回合中除了源于对标准法典的失败,以减少在食品和（马素和Trachtman,2002：813-815）农产品技术法规的增长.技术性贸易壁垒及其对粮食安全和植物的同伴现在大大增加对国内管理自治是在关贸总协定中的学科.到技术性贸易壁垒协定序言揭示的基本协调索赔光.它的主要贸易问题是促进消除一个国家的能力有更大的选择规则,保护eect和便利贸易的规模与相关经济（贸易技术壁垒,序言;世贸组织全面禁试条约,1995年,附件4,原则10）扩展的透明度.这些目标并不一定需要在一个统一的国际标准或规则的形式监管的协调.如果进行统一要求的基础上,只是为了实现规模经济或解决透明度问题,黑醋栗去第戎明确,相互承认将是同样适宜（Leebron,1996;巴格瓦蒂,1996：9;巴格瓦蒂和Srinivasan,1996：15）.但是,相互承认不响应关注到另一个国家的监管制度规定跨界成本,阻碍了国内法律的实施,或以某种方式'不公平'（Leebron,1996：94）.这种担忧在消费者经常巩固安全和环境卫生电致发光显示国内监管