The China’s Market Economy Status Issue in the US Relations with P.R.C: A Technical Issue or more than that?
Author
Li, Dan
Term
4. term
Publication year
2017
Submitted on
2017-05-15
Pages
83
Abstract
Dette speciale undersøger, om USA's afvisning af at give Kina markedsøkonomisk status (MES) blot er et teknisk spørgsmål i forholdet mellem USA og Kina, eller om der ligger bredere politiske hensyn bag. MES er en handelsbetegnelse i WTO-systemet, der påvirker, hvordan myndigheder sammenligner priser i tvister, og den kan derfor få betydning for handelstiltag. For at teste hypotesen om, at spørgsmålet er mere end teknisk, stiller studiet to underspørgsmål om, hvorfor USA fortsat undlader at give Kina MES, set fra både et juridisk perspektiv og et udenrigspolitisk analyseperspektiv (FPA). Specialet anvender two-level game theory, som ser på, hvordan beslutningstagere balancerer indenrigspres og internationale forhandlinger, til at afdække begrundelserne for at nægte Kina MES, mens Rusland har fået det. Analysen peger på to typer drivkræfter: økonomiske faktorer og en ideologisk faktor. Den tilknyttede WTO-sag DS515, rejst af Kina og vedrørende amerikanske metoder til prissammenligning, er fortsat under behandling. På trods af dette vurderer specialet hypotesen inden for disse juridiske og politiske rammer.
This thesis asks whether the United States' refusal to grant China market economy status (MES) is merely a technical matter in US–China relations or reflects broader political considerations. MES is a trade designation within the World Trade Organization system that shapes how governments compare prices in disputes and can influence trade measures. To test the hypothesis that the issue is more than technical, the study poses two sub-questions about why the United States continues to withhold MES from China, examined from legal and foreign policy analysis (FPA) perspectives. It applies two-level game theory, which looks at how policymakers balance domestic pressures and international negotiations, to identify the rationales for denying China MES while granting it to Russia. The analysis points to two kinds of drivers: economic factors and an ideological factor. The related WTO dispute DS515, initiated by China and concerning US price comparison methodologies, remains ongoing. Despite this, the thesis assesses the hypothesis within these legal and political contexts.
[This abstract was generated with the help of AI]
Keywords
Documents