西南政法大学国际法学院王衡教授独著论文“The Interpretation of GATS Disciplines on Economic Integration: GATS Commitments as a Threshold?”(《GATS经济一体化纪律解释：以GATS承诺为基准？》)近期发表于Journal of World Trade（《世界贸易杂志》）第46卷第2期。此文是他在欧洲大学研究院（European University Institute）师从WTO/GATT首位法律顾问，国际法泰斗彼得斯曼教授，以马克斯·韦伯（博士后）学者开展博士后研究，以及在横滨国立大学担任访问（授课）教授期间研究成果之一。他曾应邀就该文在东京大学、欧洲大学研究院等地进行发言。
Journal of World Trade是SSIC期刊，由Kluwer出版社出版。据悉，该刊是国际公认的国际经济法权威期刊之一。此前，王衡教授多篇独著论文发表于Cornell International Law Journal （《康奈尔大学国际法杂志》）、Journal of World Trade（《世界贸易杂志》2010年）等著名SSCI期刊。
附：两篇Journal of World Trade论文摘要及翻译：
1. 王衡，The Interpretation of GATS Disciplines on Economic Integration: GATS Commitments as a Threshold?( 《GATS经济一体化纪律解释：以GATS承诺为基准？》), Journal of World Trade, Vol. 46, No. 2, 2012.
摘要：The interpretation of GATS Article V, which deals with economic integration, is of crucial importance to the growing number of economic integration agreements (EIAs) in services, in terms of dispute settlement, services negotiations, the WTO review of EIAs, the coordination between multilateralism and EIAs, and best practices in drawing up EIAs. However, the Article has received insufficient study and remains vague. This paper takes China’s eight EIAs as test cases for interpreting GATS Article V, and argues that GATS commitments may be an appropriate threshold for interpreting the Article, in particular the substantial sectoral coverage and elimination of discrimination requirements, which are probably among the major challenges.
《服务贸易总协定》（GATS）第5条专门调整经济一体化安排。对于日益增长的经济一体化协定（EIAs），该条款解释在争端解决、服务贸易谈判、WTO对经济一体化协定之审查、多边化与经济一体化协定之协调、经济一体化协定起草之最佳做法等诸多方面均具有至关重要价值。然而，该条款解释尚缺乏深入研究，仍然含义不明。本文选取中国8项经济一体化协定为样本，着力研究GATS第5条解释问题。作者主张，GATS承诺可以成为解释该条款的基准线，这尤其适用于实质性部门涵盖要求以及消除歧视要求解释，而上述两项要求亦是解释的主要难点所在。
摘要：The origin of services is often one of the issues that regulators have to address to determine whether there is trade in services. It is also indispensable for the application of preferential trade commitments including national and most-favoured-nation (MFN) treatment, among others. This article examines the relevant provisions to ascertain whether there are any defects in origin rules for services of the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), and, if so, how they could possibly be handled. It concludes, first, that there is the twofold typology for the origin rules: general origin rules and special origin rules. Second, four defects exist in general origin rules for commercial presence, particularly the ownership or control requirement. They are insufficient to determine the origin for juridical persons of equal or scattered shareholding structure or services co-supplied by providers of different nationality. Neither are they always capable of identifying the economic service suppliers and the ultimate owner or controller of suppliers. Third, the application of the general interpretation rule leaves the meaning ambiguous. A substantial input test based on the value added criteria could be adopted as the supplementary means of interpretation.
服务原产地规则经常构成监管者判断服务贸易时需面对的问题之一。包括国民待遇与最惠国待遇在内的优惠贸易承诺实施等诸多方面均离不开服务原产地规则。该文对相关规则加以研究，以分析GATS服务原产地规则是否存在缺陷，如果存在缺陷，应当如何加以解决。文章分析后所得结论包括：首先，服务原产地规则可采用“两分法”，分为一般原产地规则与特殊原产地规则。其次，对于商业存在提供方式，一般原产地规则存在四项缺陷，其中以“拥有或控制要求”所存在的缺陷最为严重。在平均或分散股权结构的法人、不同国籍服务商联合提供服务等情形下，该要求不足以判定原产地。“拥有或控制要求”亦难以准确认定经济意义上的服务提供者，以及服务提供者的最终拥有和控制者。再次，通常解释规则使得服务原产地规则含义模糊。作者主张，基于增值原则的实质投入标准是可供适用的补充解释方法。