chapter iv introduces the common doctrine that there is not a de jure stare decisis in the dsm according to the text of the wto, the viewpoint of appellate body and the allegation of some scholars, and then questions the reasons by which of the common doctrine excludes the system of stare decisis . this chapter continues to examine the practice of wto adjudic 第四章首先根據(jù)wto的約文、上訴機(jī)構(gòu)的觀點(diǎn)和學(xué)者們的主張,闡述了在wto爭(zhēng)端解決中不存在法律上先例制度的通說,并對(duì)學(xué)說上主張wto排斥先例制度的理由提出質(zhì)疑,進(jìn)而通過考察wto爭(zhēng)端解決實(shí)踐,得出了wto爭(zhēng)端解決中存在事實(shí)上遵循先例的結(jié)論,并進(jìn)一步探討了在wto爭(zhēng)端解決中確立正式先例制度的意義和必要性以及諸先例之間的位階關(guān)系等問題。
chapter iv introduces the common doctrine that there is not a de jure stare decisis in the dsm according to the text of the wto, the viewpoint of appellate body and the allegation of some scholars, and then questions the reasons by which of the common doctrine excludes the system of stare decisis . this chapter continues to examine the practice of wto adjudic 第四章首先根據(jù)wto的約文、上訴機(jī)構(gòu)的觀點(diǎn)和學(xué)者們的主張,闡述了在wto爭(zhēng)端解決中不存在法律上先例制度的通說,并對(duì)學(xué)說上主張wto排斥先例制度的理由提出質(zhì)疑,進(jìn)而通過考察wto爭(zhēng)端解決實(shí)踐,得出了wto爭(zhēng)端解決中存在事實(shí)上遵循先例的結(jié)論,并進(jìn)一步探討了在wto爭(zhēng)端解決中確立正式先例制度的意義和必要性以及諸先例之間的位階關(guān)系等問題。