2020年3月27日，包括中国、欧盟和其他十多个世贸组织成员在内的多个WTO成员国发表联合声明，决定在世贸组织建立多方临时上诉仲裁安排（The Multiparty Interim Appeal Arbitration Arrangement ）。该安排将在上诉机构停摆期间，依据世贸组织《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第25条规定的仲裁程序，审理各参加方提起上诉的争端案件。
目前，各参加方已就多方临时上诉仲裁安排的案文达成一致，并将尽快就该安排与世界贸易组织进行正式沟通。值得注意的是，美国并未加入其中。
The EU and 15 other members of the WTO today decided on an arrangement on 27 March 2020 that they will bring appeals and solve trade disputes among them despite the current paralysis of the WTO Appellate Body. In view of the recent extraordinary circumstances, the members are envisage to set up a multiparty interim appeal arbitration arrangement (hereafter the "MPIA").
The MPIA mirrors the usual WTO appeal rules and can be used between any members of the Organization willing to join, as long as the WTO Appellate Body is not fully functional. In the coming weeks, this arrangement will be officially communicated to the WTO. Notably, the United States did not join this arrangement.
在现行WTO体系中，争端解决机制解决是世贸组织的核心功能之一，功能类似于“最高法院”，该机制在维护多边贸易体制的稳定性和可预期性方面具有重要作用。上诉机构是专门审理上诉案件的常设机构，是争端解决机制的重要组成部分。作为整个国际贸易体系的独立仲裁者，各国都可以通过该机构来解决贸易分歧，这也是WTO体制所依赖基本原则。
去年12月举行的世贸组织总理事会会议上，总理事会关于上诉机构运作的决议草案由于个别成员的连续施压和反对并未通过，致使世贸组织争端解决机制陷入停摆状态。
In the current WTO system, dispute settlement mechanism is one of the core functions which play a key role in the maintenance of stability and predictability of the multilateral trading system. However, because of the objections from some individual WTO members in the general council meeting held in December last year, the draft resolution of the appellate body fail to pass, causing the mechanism suspended.
纵观多方临时上诉仲裁安排中诸条款，可以发现其呈现以下突出特点：
1、程序一致性
临时上诉仲裁安排根据《争端解决谅解协议》第二十五条执行，该条赋予了成员选择仲裁解决争端的权力。换言之，该安排并未跳出WTO原有规则与框架。在该法律架构，允许各国向由贸易专家组成的小组提出上诉，使用WTO上诉机构同样的程序，以做出最终裁决。
同时仲裁程序将遵守《争端解决谅解协议》第十七条中关于上诉的实体和程序的相关规定并延续遵循其核心特征，包括保证独立性和公正性，提高上诉程序效率等。如果参与各方未通过该安排上诉，则裁决结果通过并生效，若参与各方通过该临时安排提起上诉，则仲裁结果对双方将产生终局效力。
"Resolved, in the interim, to put in place contingency measures based on Article 25 of the DSU in order to preserve the essential principles and features of the WTO dispute settlement system which include its binding character and two levels of adjudication through an independent and impartial appellate review of panel reports, and thereby to preserve their rights and obligations under the WTO Agreement."
"The appeal arbitration procedure will be based on the substantive and procedural aspects of Appellate Review pursuant to Article 17 of the DSU, in order to keep its core features, including independence and impartiality, while enhancing the procedural efficiency of appeal proceedings. The appeal arbitration procedure is set out in Annex 1."
2、安排临时性
必须牢记的是，该多方临时上诉仲裁的安排只是在上诉机构停摆期间的临时措施，其并不能替代上诉机构在WTO现行体系下的作用。其最终目标仍是启动上诉机构成员遴选，恢复上诉机构正常运转。换言之，该安排的有效性与期限仅限于上诉机构未能充分发挥职能期间。
"The participating Members indicate their intention to resort to arbitration under Article 25 of the DSU as an interim appeal arbitration procedure (hereafter the "appeal arbitration procedure"), as long as the Appellate Body is not able to hear appeals of panel reports in disputes among them due to an insufficient number of Appellate Body members"
3、开放加入性
目前，加入该安排的成员有澳大利亚、巴西、加拿大、中国、智利、哥伦比亚、哥斯达黎加、欧盟、中国香港、墨西哥、新西兰、挪威、新加坡、瑞士、乌拉圭等国家和地区。值得注意的是，这些参与的会员国大多都是WTO争端解决程序的主要参与者。同时，对希望参与到该安排的其他WTO成员国，临时上诉仲裁安排呈开放和欢迎态度，当然任何参与各方也可依照相关程序退出该上诉安排。
"Any WTO Member is welcome to join the MPIA at any time, by notification to the DSB that it endorses this communication. In relation to disputes to which such WTO Member is a party, the date of that Member's notification to the DSB will be deemed to be the date of this communication for the purposes of paragraphs 9 and 10."
观察
笔者认为，MPIA安排无疑是在当前世贸组织争端解决机制遭受沉重打击下对以WTO规则为基础的多边贸易体制的重要维护和积极尝试。虽然MPIA保留了上诉审议的一些重要特征，捍卫了上诉审议中的核心价值，但在实践中，以下方面的可能产生的问题不得不引起我们的关注。
Although the MPIA arrangement retains some of the important features and core values of the DSU, the following aspects of the possible concerns should be brought to our attention.
首先，作为一个临时裁决机制，临时上诉仲裁很难像上诉机构那样具备一致的规则解释和适用，对规则、概念的理解和解释的准确性无法保障，在具体案件中往往会“失之毫厘，差之千里”。其次，如果将临时机制事实上常态化，又会进一步涉及人员安排和程序规则的设计问题，在诸多成员国利益相互交织的情况下，很难难达成一致。再次，仲裁程序和专家组程序在实践中极易形成竞争关系，因此判断“谁具有权威性”这一问题也随之而来。
为了解决上述问题，实践中可能会滋生出更多新问题，因此由此将会引起的一连串影响理应成为后续各方应重点关注的问题。
First, as a temporary mechanism, it is difficult for provisional appellate arbitration to have consistent interpretation and application of rules compared with the appellate body in WTO system, thus the accuracy of understanding and interpretation of rules cannot be guaranteed. Secondly, if the temporary mechanism is actually normalized, it will further involve the issue of the design of personnel arrangement and procedural rules, it is difficult to reach agreement when the interests of many member are intertwined. Thirdly, the arbitration procedure and the panel procedure are very likely to form a competitive relationship, the issue of authority would become another stumbling block.
In order to solve the above issues, the possible impact should become a concern of all relative parties afterwards.
总之，在该安排下针对WTO框架下的各种争议，各成员国之间能否依照该临时安排的约定有效运作并得出“公正、独立”的裁决，仍有待观察。基于上述分析，全体世界贸易组织全体成员应一起努力并优先考虑将对上诉机构的持久改善作为一项优先事项并尽快启动遴选程序并推动解决上诉机构遴选僵局，使上诉机构能够尽早按照恢复其职能，努力寻求永久性解决方案。当然，各方在推动WTO制度革新的同时，也要为WTO作用弱化的时代做好充分准备。
The MPIA is an actively try under the WTO dispute settlement mechanism in view of current hard circumstance .However, it remains to be seen whether it will be able to operate effectively under the terms of this arrangement and reach a fair and independent verdict. At the same time, all WTO members should work together and give priority to find lasting improvements to the appellate body and to select appropriate process as soon as possible for the resolution of the deadlock so that the appellate body can resume its functions as soon as possible.
扫描下方二维码，即可下载、查阅 The MPIA Arrangement 英文文本
参考文献
1.https://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id=2127
2.https://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2020/march/tradoc_158685.pd
