最高人民法院


全国人大常委会法制工作委员会 最高人民法院 最高人民检察院 公安部司法部 民政部关于正在服刑的罪犯和被羁押的人的选举权问题的联合通知

1984年3月24日，最高人民法院
公安、司法、民政厅（局）：
全国县、乡两级人民代表大会代表的选举工作，正在逐步展开。在当前严厉打击严重危害社会治安的刑事犯罪活动的情况下，对于过去已判刑、但没有附加剥夺政治权利的严重刑事罪犯和被羁押正在受侦查、起诉、审判的人是否准许行使选举权问题，有些地方提出一些问题和意见，经研究后，现做如下通知，望遵照执行：一、1983年3月全国人大常委会通过的《关于县级以下人民代表大会代表直接选举的若干规定》，对于已被判刑的罪犯和被羁押正在受侦查、起诉、审判的人的选举权问题已经作了规定。这一规定是根据宪法关于公民的选举权、被选举权的规定的原则确定的，是适当的，在这次县、乡直接选举工作中，仍应贯彻执行。二、对这次严厉打击严重危害社会治安的刑事犯罪活动中因反革命案或者严重破坏社会秩序案被羁押正在受侦查、起诉、审判的人，应当依照法律规定经人民检察院或者人民法院决定，在被羁押期间停止行使选举权利；其他未经人民检察院或者人民法院决定停止行使选举权利的，应准予行使选举权利。
三、对正在服刑的反革命罪犯和被判处死刑、无期徒刑的其他罪犯，凡是没有附加剥夺政治权利的，应当由人民法院依照审判监督程序，判处附加剥夺政治权利；被判处有期徒刑（包括原判死缓、无期徒刑后减为有期徒刑的）、现正在服刑的故意杀人、强奸、放火、爆炸、投毒、抢劫、流氓、盗窃（重大）等严重破坏社会秩序的罪犯，凡是需要剥夺选举权利的，也可由人民法院依照审判监督程序，判处附加剥夺政治权利。如果原来是第一审生效的案件，应当由上一级人民法院提审；如果原来是第二审生效的案件，应当由第二审人民法院再审。根据刑事诉讼法第一百五十条的规定，依照上述程序所做的判决、裁定，是终审的判决、裁定，不得上诉。四、今后对于反革命罪犯和判处死刑、无期徒刑的其他罪犯，各级人民法院在审判时，应当依照刑法第五十二条、第五十三条的规定，一律同时判处附加剥夺政治权利；对于严重破坏社会秩序的罪犯，需要剥
夺政治权利的，也应依照刑法第五十二条的规定，同时判处附加剥夺政治权利。五、对准予行使选举权利的被羁押的人和正在服刑的罪犯，经选举委员会和执行羁押、监禁的机关共同决定，可以在原户口所在地参加选举，也可以在劳改场所参加选举；可以在流动票箱投票，也可以委托有选举权的亲属或者其他选民代为投票。


Chapter VII
Special Rules for Anti-dumping Disputes

OUTLINE

Section One Recourse of Anti-dumping Disputes to the DSB
I Introduction
II Sufficiency of Panel Request under the AD Agreement
(i) Art. 6.2 of the DSU and Article 17.4 of the AD Agreement
(ii) Art. 6.2 of the DSU and Article 17.5(i) of the AD Agreement
(iii) A Summary Guiding
III General Legal Basis for Claims against Legislation as Such
IV Special Rules for Claims against Anti-dumping Legislation as Such
(i) Introduction
（ii）General Legal Basis under Art. 17 of the AD Agreement
(iii) Understanding of Art. 17.4 of the AD Agreement
(iv) Extensive Basis in Context
(v) A Summary
Section Two Ad hoc Standard of Review for Anti-dumping Disputes
I Introduction
II Special Standard of Review under the AD Agreement: in General
(i) Ad hoc Approaches to Domestic Determination: Art. 17.6
(ii) Relationship between Art. 11 of the DSU and Art. 17.6 of the AD Agreement
(iii) A Summary Guiding
III Scope of Review of Fact-findings: Art. 17.5(ii) of the AD Agreement
(i)Overview of the GATT Practice
(ii)Concerned Rulings in Reports Issued by WTO Panels
(iii)Tentative Remarks: Guidance from the Appellate Body





Section One
Recourse of Anti-dumping Disputes to the DSB

I Introduction
Compared to the legally fragmented previous GATT dispute settlement system, the new WTO dispute settlement system is an integrated system with much broader jurisdiction and less scope for “rule shopping” and “forum shopping”. However, according to Art. 1.2 of the DSU which states in part that, “[t]he rules and procedures of this Understanding shall apply subject to such special or additional rules and procedures on dispute settlement contained in the covered agreements as are identified in Appendix 2 to this Understanding”, many covered agreements under the WTO jurisdiction continue to include special dispute settlement rules and procedures. Such special rules and procedures are listed in Appendix 2 to the DSU. And in this chapter, we will focus on such special dispute settlement rules concerning anti-dumping disputes, i.e. Arts. 17.4 through 17.7 of the Anti-dumping Agreement (‘the AD Agreement’).
An analysis of the DSB practice suggests a separate contribution of this chapter to this book, merited by dispute settlement proceedings in the anti-dumping field. In this chapter, the author focuses on the two main issues repeatedly raised, as preliminary or procedural issues, during dispute settlement regarding anti-dumping. One is the issue of recourse of anti-dumping disputes to the DSB, which deals mainly with Arts. 17.4 and 17.5(i) of the AD Agreement; the other one is the issue of standard of review in anti-dumping areas, which runs most on Art. 17.6, including Art. 17.5(ii), of the AD Agreement. And in this section we will focus on the first one. In this respect, Arts. 17.4 and 17.5(i) of the AD Agreement states:

“17.4 If the Member that requested consultations considers that the consultations pursuant to paragraph 3 have failed to achieve a mutually agreed solution, and if final action has been taken by the administering authorities of the importing Member to levy definitive anti-dumping duties or to accept price undertakings, it may refer the matter to the Dispute Settlement Body (“DSB”). When a provisional measure has a significant impact and the Member that requested consultations considers that the measure was taken contrary to the provisions of paragraph 1 of Article 7, that Member may also refer such matter to the DSB.
17.5 The DSB shall, at the request of complaining party, establish a panel to examine the matter based upon:
(i) a written statement of the Member making the request indicating how a benefit accruing to it, directly or indirectly, under this Agreement has been nullified or impaired, or that the achieving of the objectives of the Agreement is being impeded, and
(ii) …”
II Sufficiency of Panel Request under the AD Agreement
Generally, as noted in previously, it is only where the provisions of the DSU and the special or additional rules and procedures of a covered agreement cannot be read as complementing each other that the special or additional provisions are to prevail. A special or additional provision should only be found to prevail over a provision of the DSU in a situation where adherence to the one provision will lead to a violation of the other provision, that is, in the case of a conflict between them. Then the author means to get down to the issue of whether these provisions cited above limits panel request under the AD Agreement to somehow other than those required by Art. 6.2 of the DSU.
In Mexico-HFCS (DS132), the dispute involves the imposition of a definitive anti-dumping measure by the Mexican Ministry of Trade and Industrial Development (SECOFI) on imports of high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) from the United States. Mexico argues that the United States' request for establishment of this Panel is not consistent with the requirements of Art. 6.2 of the DSU and Art. 17.4 and 17.5(i) of the AD Agreement, and therefore argues that the Panel must terminate the proceeding without reaching the substance of the United States' claims.
(i) Art. 6.2 of the DSU and Art. 17.4 of the AD Agreement
In considering the alleged failure to assert claims under Art. 6.2 of the DSU and Art. 17.4 of the AD Agreement, the Panel rules that: 1
“[W]e note first that the Appellate Body has stated that Article 6.2 of the DSU and Article 17.4 of the AD Agreement are complementary and should be applied together in disputes under the AD Agreement. It has further stated that: ‘the word “matter” has the same meaning in Article 17 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement as it has in Article 7 of the DSU. It consists of two element: The specific “measure” and the “claims” relating to it, both of which must be properly identified in a panel request as required by Article 6.2 of the DSU.’