3. 上诉机构援引的上下文的可靠性
关于“公共机构”的含义，除《SCM协定》规定的核心条款（第1条）以外上诉机构在援引两个规定，一是有关“财政资助” 第1条1.1(a)(1)(i)至(iii)的穷尽式列举。根据上诉机构的解释，其中作为集合概念的“政府”必然包括“狭义政府”和履行政府职能的“公共机构”。那么试问，当“公共机构”做出有关涉及投股、贷款、贷款担保等资金转移的措施时，不履行“政府职能”就无法完成这些交易吗？换言之，履行政府职能是“公共机构”在提供货物、服务以及购买货物时所必须的条件吗？履行政府职能和权限与“财政资助”之间有必然联系吗？在此情况下，政府把职能和权限移交给“公共机构”（再次重申，上诉机构是承认“公共机构”的职能不是从天上掉下来的，是狭义政府所赋予的结果），再让“公共机构”去采取这些措施，这符合一个国家经济社会运作的常理吗？在不履行政府权限或职能的情况下，“公共机构”当然可以采取上述措施，从业务内容上看，作为“公共机构”的“国有企业”更符合做这些事情。医疗、教育、科研、慈善、环保等机构（没有人怀疑这些是公共机构）的通常的业务显然不是提供贷款或货物等交易活动。
再例如，关于第1条1.1(a)(1)(ii)规定的征税权的放弃问题，在此情况下，“公共机构”首先从政府手里获得征税权（政府职能或权限的赋予），完后又履行这一职能（放弃征税权），政府有必要采取如此繁琐的权力放弃方式吗？既然是放弃一种权力或职能，政府何不直接放弃呢？为什么非通过“公共机构”去放弃权力不可呢？这符合政府运作的基本逻辑吗？
上诉机构为解释“公共机构”时援引的另一个上下文就是第1条1.1(a)(1)(iv)的规定。根据上诉机构的解释，除狭义“政府”以外“公共机构”还要“指示”或“委托”“私营机构”完成其应该被赋予的职能。试问，政府“指示”“私营机构”放弃其征税权这一问题符合实际吗？此外，关于“公共机构”“指示”或“委托”“私营机构”去提供贷款、购买货物等方面，政府直接“指示”或“委托”“私营机构”还可以理解，为什么还要通过“公共机构”去“指示”或“委托”“私营机构”不可呢？这些质疑没有一个不是“公共机构政府职能论”无法做出回答的问题。
4. “公共机构”的客观含义
“任何公共机构”这一规定本身表明，“公共机构”的性质与“政府”职能无关，“任何公共机构”与“履行政府职能的公共机构”的哪一个概念的外延更大呢，难道用后者（没有法律规定）代替法律明文规定的前者吗？
本文认为，《SCM协定》之所以将“公共机构”（而且是“任何公共机构”）与“政府”并列在一起，不是考虑其是否被赋予或履行政府职能或管理权限的问题，如果考虑政府权限，那就没有必要将“公共机构”与其并列在一起，因为将履行政府权限的“公共机构”与“政府”脱离开来处理没有法律意义。将被赋予并履行政府职能和权限的机构解释成政府更加自然，而且不引起争论。试问政府将职能交给“公共机构”履行的意义何在呢？如果只考虑政府权限的履行或实施问题，政府有必要将其赋予“公共机构”来完成吗？如果仅限于政府职能或权限的实施，完全可以通过政府本身来完成。“公共机构”存在的根本意义正是在于其在没有必要履行政府职能和权限的情况下，实现为整个社会和国家服务的公共目的，包括医疗、教育、科研、慈善等机构，当然也包括国有企业，这些恰恰是不需要由政府来做的事情，而且是通过政府职能则往往做不好的事情。
国有企业不是为私人追求利润而服务的机构，是为公共利益，即为整个国家的经济与社会发展服务的实体，这是国有企业存在的根本意义。考察我国宪法有关企业所有权的规定就可以证实这一点，尤其在其经济体制是社会主义市场经济的国家更是如此。如果国有企业不是“公共机构”，那用什么因素来决定国家经济体制的社会主义性质呢？当然，即使在资本主义国家，国有企业仍然属于“公共机构”。如果只考虑追求利益或利润的话，国有企业早就应该被私有化了。整个二十世纪的中外历史实践明确证明，在发展生产和创造利润方面私营机构（私有企业）远远优越于国有企业，但其不一定为公共利益服务，因为其是为私人所控制的资源。国有企业也存在脱离其设立宗旨沦为某些个人谋利手段的实例（例如，国有企业利用垄断地位攫取暴利、经营效率严重恶化等等），但这一点不能作为抗辩国有企业公共性质的理由，这是政府丧失对国有企业有效监管的证明。
所以在确认“公共机构”的含义时就没有必要考虑除所有权或控制权以外的其他因素，因为政府是决定国有企业公共性质的主体，掌握所有权是保证企业公共目的的根本手段，因此，“国有企业”是当然的“公共机构”。哪有一家“国有企业”不听从其所有者的控制和管理的呢？哪有一个“国有企业”不是为公共利益而存在的呢？正因为如此，在防止政府通过“私营机构”来提供补贴（逃避法律）时，追加了“指示”或“委托”的证明责任，而把“公共机构”却与“政府”规定在一起。通常来讲，“私营机构”不会将自己所有的资源无偿赋予别人的，这是其本质所在。但是国有企业则不然，因为其是国家所有的企业，将国有企业与政府并列在一起，干脆作为补贴提供主体来处理是符合补贴本质要求的做法。因此，在补贴认定问题上把“政府”和“公共机构”与“私营机构”混在一起，在道理上是讲不通的。国有企业的所有权和经营权的分离，是为解决国有企业经营管理所陷入的严重困难而采取的法律措施，这一点不能成为否认国家掌握国有企业意思决定权的抗辩理由。
5. 中国的实际情况与反补贴措施的意义
最后坦言，中国是一个“官”（中央到地方各级党政部门）“商”（这里的“商”主要是指作为“商业机构”的“国有企业”）或“政”或“企”严重不分甚至合为一体的国度，例如，绝大多数国有企业经营管理者本身就是中共党员，党组织（党绝对是为公共利益而存在的）被设置于国有企业内部各个层面、国有企业在受到国家规划和产业政策在内的严重约束，某个中央国有企业的董事长上任省委副书记之类的事情司空见惯。在中国有关资源配置这样的事关国家和社会的重大问题上，党的意思决定是最高层次的或最终的，这一点从宪法的历次修改过程可以得知。
党政分离、政企分离更不能成为否定“官商合一”的抗辩理由，将“政府”与“国有企业”区别开来几乎是不可能的，因为两者是所有者与被所有者的关系。而且在国际贸易领域里，区别对待中国的官与商，将对独力[51]（“力”比“立”更加符合市场竞争的现实）竞争（不依赖国家权力仅靠企业自己的经营能力在市场上竞争）的企业来讲是严重不公平的。国有企业的所有者是拥有立法、行政执法权力的国家，私营机构与这样的企业在市场上相遇并展开竞争时，能够与其同等对待吗？天底下有这样的平等和公平吗？在解释“公共机构”的含义时，上诉机构把“国有企业”和“私营机构”混为一谈，这是本末倒置的做法，这样的观点符合有关以市场为核心的资源配置方法的理念以及补贴本质的最起码的常识吗？
在此情况下，试图论证“国有企业”是“商业机构”而抗辩“公共机构”的解释也许可能，但确实不算是高明的议论，是经不起推敲的。国有企业是属于“商业机构”的实体，这一点是不重要的，谁也不会争论这一问题。关键的是国有企业的存在意义及其所有者是谁，那就是政府（公共利益的捍卫者，“公共机构”背后的所有者），这才是问题的本质所在。再次重申，国有企业是为国家和全社会（公共利益）服务的“公共机构”，在社会主义国家更是如此。如果谁能证明作为国有企业的所有者的政府不是为公共利益服务的机构，而是为私人谋利的机构，那么这篇文章所提出的问题就没有必要议论了。
《SCM协定》考虑到了防范政府可能利用“私营机构”之手提供补贴（回避法律规范）的问题，难道就会忽略政府通过“国有企业”提供补贴的问题吗？当然不会的，所以将“公共机构”与“政府”并列在一起，干脆作为补贴的提供主体来处理，这是正确的，这样的规定抓到了问题的本质，在此情况下，反补贴调查机关的举证责任应该得到减轻，因为，国有企业和私营机构在本质上是不同的。作为针对补贴产品所造成的实质损害及其威胁的间接救济手段，反补贴措施的本质意义在于抵消竞争对手受到的那部分人为的竞争优势，即竞争条件均等化理论，人为竞争优势往往不仅来自政府，还应该包括“国有企业”，因为后者属于公共资源。
如果政府压根儿就没有任何通过“国有企业”提供补贴的意图，那也没有必要在解释“公共机构”（补贴提供主体）的问题上疲于奔命地去抗辩或争论，因为在“财政资助”认定完之后就是“利益”的判断问题，这才是判断一个实体的行为或措施（“财政资助”的提供方法）是否符合市场要求的核心。“国有企业”是不是真正的商业机构，在“利益”存在的判断阶段就柳暗花明了。真正的商业机构没有一个不是尊重市场机制去运作的，只要是按照市场机制去参与交易，自然不会存在提供利益以及补贴的嫌疑，就算把国有企业作为提供主体来对待，也不是决定性的或终极的问题。
在解释一个法律概念时，要以客观存在的事实为依据，再巧妙的文字游戏也不可能决定法律概念的真正含义。解释国际法的习惯规则之所以注重法律概念的通常意义，其目的在于尊重法律概念所具有的基本的客观性并防止解释条约的主观随意性。公共机构履行政府职能的情况不是完全不存在的，但在解释第1条规定的“公共机构”的含义时就不一定可靠了。在“美国对华反倾销和反补贴调查案”中解释“公共机构”概念时，上诉机构陷入了文字主义的泥坑，却忘记了补贴的本质。
【作者简介】
白巴根，汕头大学法学院副教授，Ph.D.（筑波大学）。
【注释】
自2006年11月美国对华反补贴调查的序幕被拉开之后，到目前为止，美国对华反补贴调查的案件总数是28件，其中做出反补贴终裁的有22件。美国对外国反补贴调查案件明显集中在对华反补贴调查上（详细统计请参照商务部网站），根据这一事实和动态来解释和研究贸易制度背后的政治经济学是非常重要的，但反补贴调查案件的数量之多与法律问题没有任何关系，换言之，发起案件的数量不能成为左右法律结论的不利或有利因素。有关详细情况参照商务部国际贸易署进口局官方网站：http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/summary/prc/prc-fr.htm（2011年7月31日）
全面指控是指将有关补贴认定的核心要件全部囊括其中。关于在其他案件中中国援引《SCM协定》的相关规定是否已经指控过反补贴调查方做出的有关补贴认定的问题，实事求是的讲笔者还没有详细考察过。但在中美之间的贸易争端中，美国指控中国补贴问题的案件绝大多数。“美国对华反倾销和反补贴调查案”是中国全面指控美国对华反补贴措施违反《SCM协定》的第一案，也是针对外国对华反补贴调查的第一次指控。为处理由于美国对华反补贴调查所引起的中美贸易争端，中美之间的双边磋商失败后（2008年11月14日），WTO的争端解决机构（Dispute Settlement Body, DSB）成立了专家组（2009年1月24日）。关于如何解释“公共机构”的问题专家组支持了美国的立场，即否定了中国的立场。专家组提交报告（2010年7月23日）后，中美两国继续请求上诉机构审理该案（2011年3月11日，上诉机构提交报告并在网站上公布），关于“公共机构”的含义，上诉机构推翻了专家组的解释也就是在结论上支持了中国的立场，但在其他几个重要的法律问题（财政资助、利益、专项性等）上基本上支持了专家组的立场。有关本案的原始材料请参阅，WT/DS379/R: UNITED STATES –DEFINITIVE ANTI- DUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING DUTIES ON CERTAIN P RODUCTS FROM CHINA(22 October 2010, Report of the Panel) 和 WT/DS379/AB/R: united states – definitive anti-dumping and countervailing duties on certain products from china (11 March 2011, Report of the Appellate Body). 这两份文件公布在WTO的官方网站上，在此不引述网址。以下援引的段落均出上诉机构报告。
“国有企业”和国家参股的企业是截然不同的两码事情。国家（更具体的讲是政府）掌握所有权是控制国有企业的前提，掌握所有权而又不控制企业是没有意义的，当然并不是说所有权和经营权是不能分离的，但这一分离不能成为否定所有权者控制企业的根据。
自1995年1月1日《WTO协定》生效以及WTO成立之后，已经发生了大量有关补贴与反补贴措施的争端（全部案件的统计数字以及在全部案件中有关补贴与反补贴的争端所占的比例等问题请另行参考WTO的官方网站），如此直接并详细争论“公共机构”的案件还是第一次。本案专家组和上诉机构在解释“公共机构”概念时，作为参考均没有援引到直接解释这一概念的较为详细的先例，由此可以推测“公共机构”解释问题的出现实际上是第一次。
例如《SCM协定》第19条19.1规定：“如为完成磋商而做出努力后，一成员就补贴的存在和金额做出最终裁定，并裁定通过补贴的影响，补贴进口产品正在造成损害，则该成员可依照本条的规定征收反补贴税，除非此项或此类补贴被撤销。”
《SCM协定》这样处理补贴提供主体的方法事关补贴的本质问题，确实值得研究。从本质上讲，补贴是公共资源无偿流向私营机构和国有企业（商业机构）的部分。这里所说的“无偿”的判断标准就是“市场”，既违背市场条件的资源配置。只有公共资源才有可能无偿转移向企业（包括公有和私有企业，流向企业以外实体的补贴不是《SCM协定》所规范的问题）。这就是弥尔顿·弗里德曼所讲的花钱的第四种方式，即“把别人的钱花在别人身上”，这在四种花钱方式中是最不负责任的，也是浪费最严重的一种。享有无偿配置公共资源的决定权的主体就是政府，也只有政府才能有权无偿介入资源的配置过程，最典型的就是从源头上决定资源再配置的征税权。对国家来讲，除征税措施以外介入市场并参与资源配置的重要途径就是掌握和控制国有企业的所有权。还没有听见过哪一家私营企业为其他企业提供补贴的事情，这样的情况是不合常理的也是不可能的，理由很简单，因为那是私人所有的资源。当然不能否定私营机构的资源也会无偿转移的问题（变成公共利益），但可以断言，其接受者绝对不会是追逐利润的企业，而是教育、医疗、慈善等公益机构。例如，李嘉诚、邵逸夫、霍英东、比尔盖茨、巴菲特（没有一个是国有企业的老板）等提供大规模捐献的慈善活动。因此，把国有企业与其所有者政府并列在一起作为补贴提供主体来处理的做法，是值得深思的问题。
《SCM协定》第1条的英文原文如下：
Part I: General Provisions
Article 1: Definition of a Subsidy
1.1 For the purpose of this Agreement, a subsidy shall be deemed to exist if:
(a)(1) there is a financial contribution by a government or any public body within the territory of a Member (referred to in this Agreement as “government”), i.e. where:
(i) a government practice involves a direct transfer of funds (e.g. grants, loans, and equity infusion), potential direct transfers of funds or liabilities (e.g. loan guarantees);
(ii) government revenue that is otherwise due is foregone or not collected (e.g. fiscal incentives such as tax credits)1;
1. In accordance with the provisions of Article XVI of GATT 1994 (Note to Article XVI) and the provisions of Annexes I through III of this Agreement, the exemption of an exported product from duties or taxes borne by the like product when destined for domestic consumption, or the remission of such duties or taxes in amounts not in excess of those which have accrued, shall not be deemed to be a subsidy.
(iii) a government provides goods or services other than general infrastructure, or purchases goods;
(iv) a government makes payments to a funding mechanism, or entrusts or directs a private body to carry out one or more of the type of functions illustrated in (i) to (iii) above which would normally be vested in the government and the practice, in no real sense, differs from practices normally followed by governments;or (a)(2) there is any form of income or price support in the sense of Article XVI of GATT 1994;and (b) a benefit is thereby conferred.
para. 282. 原文：Article 1.1 of the SCM Agreement stipulates that a "subsidy" shall be deemed to exist for the purpose of the SCM Agreement if there is a "financial contribution by a government or any public body" and "a benefit is thereby conferred".
para. 842. 原文：China''s claims relate to the first of the two elements, in particular, to the question of how to define the term "public body" in Article 1.1(a)(1).
从上诉机构所做的定义中可以看出，补贴主要是由两大因素构成，即“财政资助”和“利益”，可见作为提供主体的“政府”和“公共机构”的影子消失了。实际上作为认定补贴存在的首要要件（政府或“公共机构”），如果没有提供主体的存在，那么有关“财政资助”的规定将会失去意义，因为《SCM协定》所规定的毕竟是政府的资源配置问题，所以主体不仅是必须的要件，而且还是首要的前提中的前提。虽然“财政资助”不是脱离其提供主体而存在的法律要件，但在解释“财政资助”时根据其本身的判断标准即可，当主体已经得到确认的情况，“财政资助”的存在就没有必要考虑主体的性质了。
para. 284. 原文：With respect to the architecture of Article 1.1 of the SCM Agreement, we note that the provision sets out two main elements of a subsidy, namely, a financial contribution and a benefit.
para. 284. Regarding the first element, Article 1.1(a)(1) defines and identifies the governmental conduct that constitutes a financial contribution. 接下来的这句话更能证实上诉机构的意图：It does so both by listing the relevant conduct, and by identifying certain entities and the circumstances in which the conduct of those entities will be considered to be conduct of, and therefore be attributed to, the relevant WTO Member. 其意是在指《SCM协定》在规定补贴定义时列出了构成补贴的行为conduct，在有关判断“财政资助”的特殊情况时涉及到了提供主体entities，实际上这里所指的entities不是“政府”和“公共机构”而是指“私营机构”。
当补贴提供主体确认下来之后，只根据关于“财政资助”的判断标准认定其存在就可以，不一定在判断“财政资助”时时刻考虑governmental的问题。不把补贴提供主体与“财政资助”区别开来的做法是很普遍的，例如WTO秘书处所做的有关《WTO协定》各附件的解释就能说明问题。说明补贴时只提“财政资助”和“利益”，几乎不谈论提供主体。例如，http://www.wto.org/ english/tratop_ e/scm_e/ subs_e.htm（2011年6月8日）；http://www.wto.org/ english/res_ e/booksp_ e/analytic_ index_e/ subsidies_e.htm（2011年7月31日）
para. 284. 原文：Two principal categories of entities are distinguished, those that are "governmental" in the sense of Article 1.1(a)(1): "a government or any public body ... (referred to in this Agreement as ''government'')"; and those in the second clause of subparagraph (iv): "private body".
para. 284.原文：If the entity is governmental (in the sense referred to in Article 1.1(a)(1)), and its conduct falls within the scope of subparagraphs (i)-(iii) or the first clause of subparagraph (iv), there is a financial contribution. 在认定“财政资助”之前确认主体的性质是正确的。但考察“公共机构”是否带有governmental这一性质的问题与“财政资助”的判断无关。
para. 284. 原文：When, however, the entity is a private body, and its conduct falls within the scope of subparagraphs (i)?(iii), then there is only a financial contribution if, in addition, the requisite link between the government and that conduct is established by a showing of entrustment or direction.
para. 284. 原文：Thus, the second clause of subparagraph (iv) requires an affirmative demonstration of the link between the government and the specific conduct, whereas all conduct of a governmental entity constitutes a financial contribution to the extent that it falls within subparagraphs (i)-(iii) and the first clause of subparagraph (iv) .
para. 285.
para. 285. 原文："of or pertaining to the people as a whole; belonging to, affecting or concerning the community or nation", as "carried out or made by or on behalf of the community as a whole", or as "authorized by or representing the community".
para. 285.
para. 286. 原文：The composite term "public body" could thus refer to a number of different concepts, depending on the combination of the different definitional elements. As such, dictionary definitions suggest a rather broad range of potential meanings of the term "public body", which encompasses a variety of entities, including both entities that are vested with or exercise governmental authority and entities belonging to the community or nation.
para. 286.
para. 286. 原文：Where it is necessary to distinguish between these two uses of the term "government" for purposes of our analysis, we refer to the first use of the word as "government" in the narrow sense, and to the second use of the word as "government" in the collective sense, or the collective term "government".
para. 287.
para. 288. 原文：We note that Article 1.1(a)(1) of the SCM Agreement joins "government" in the narrow sense and "public body" under the collective term "government". In contrast, Article 1 clearly juxtaposes the concepts of "government" (including "public body") and "private body".
para. 288.
para. 284. 原文：If the entity is governmental (in the sense referred to in Article 1.1(a)(1)), and its conduct falls within the scope of subparagraphs (i)-(iii) or the first clause of subparagraph (iv), there is a financial contribution. When, however, the entity is a private body, and its conduct falls within the scope of subparagraphs (i)?(iii), then there is only a financial contribution if, in addition, the requisite link between the government and that conduct is established by a showing of entrustment or direction. Thus, the second clause of subparagraph (iv) requires an affirmative demonstration of the link between the government and the specific conduct, whereas all conduct of a governmental entity constitutes a financial contribution to the extent that it falls within subparagraphs (i)-(iii) and the first clause of subparagraph (iv)。
Panel Report on US — Exports Restraints, para. 8.53. 原文：The Panel on US — Export Restraints considered that the purpose of subparagraph (iv) of Article 1.1(a)(i) to the SCM Agreement is to avoid circumvention of subparagraphs (i)-(iii) of the same Article by a government operating through a private body:
“e find no support in the text of the Agreement for the US reading of the word ‘type’. Rather, in our view, the phrase ‘type of functions’ refers to the physical functions identified in subparagraphs (i)-(iii). In this regard, we believe that the intention of subparagraph (iv) is to avoid circumvention of subparagraphs (i)-(iii) by a government simply by acting through a private body. Thus, ultimately, the scope of the actions (the physical functions) covered by subparagraph (iv) must be the same as those covered by subparagraphs (i)-(iii). That is, the difference between subparagraphs (i)-(iii) on the one hand, and subparagraph (iv) on the other, has to do with the identity of the actor, and not with the nature of the action. The phrase ‘type of functions’ ensures that this is the case, that is, that Article 1 covers the types of functions identified in subparagraphs (i)-(iii) whether those functions are performed by the government itself or are delegated to a private body by the government.”
para. 288. 原文：As we see it, the juxtaposition of the collective term "government" on the one side and "private body" on the other side, as well as the joining under the collective term "government" of both a "government" in the narrow sense and "any public body" in Article 1.1(a)(1) of the SCM Agreement, suggests certain commonalities in the meaning of the term "government" in the narrow sense and the term "public body" and a nexus between these two concepts. 将集合概念“政府”和“私营机构”并列在一起的，是《SCM协定》第1条还是第1条1.1(a)(1)吗？上诉机构对此问题的理解是非常混乱的。例如，在此再次援引上诉机构所做的解释如下：We note that Article 1.1(a)(1) of the SCM Agreement joins "government" in the narrow sense and "public body" under the collective term "government". In contrast, Article 1 clearly juxtaposes the concepts of "government" (including "public body") and "private body". para. 288.
para. 288.
para. 288. 原文：When Article 1.1(a)(1) stipulates that "a government" and "any public body" are referred to in the SCM Agreement as "government", the collective term "government" is used as a superordinate, including, inter alia, "any public body" as one hyponym.
para. 288.原文：Joining together the two terms under the collective term "government" thus implies a sufficient degree of commonality or overlap in their essential characteristics that the entity in question is properly understood as one that is governmental in nature and whose conduct will, when it falls within the categories listed in subparagraphs (i)-(iii) and the first clause of subparagraph (iv), constitute a "financial contribution" for purposes of the SCM Agreement.
para. 290.
para. 290.
para. 290. 原文：As we see it, these defining elements of the word "government" inform the meaning of the term "public body". This suggests that the performance of governmental functions, or the fact of being vested with, and exercising, the authority to perform such functions are core commonalities between government and public body.
para. 291. In seeking to refine our understanding of the concept of "public body" in Article 1.1(a)(1) of the SCM Agreement, and, in particular, of the core characteristics that such an entity must share with government in the narrow sense, we consider next the context provided by Article 1.1(a)(1)(iv). As noted above, this provision introduces the concept of "private body". 此外，上诉机构也在确认“私营机构”的含义，对此没有人提出质疑，对问题的论证也没有太大的意义，但与此形成对照，人们可以去理解什么是“国有企业”。例如，291段最后一句与292段。
para. 293. 原文：We also consider that, because the word "government" in Article 1.1(a)(1)(iv) is used in the sense of the collective term "government", that provision covers financial contributions provided by a government or any public body where "a government or any public body" entrusts or directs a private body to carry out one or more of the type of functions or conduct illustrated in subparagraphs (i)-(iii). Accordingly, subparagraph (iv) envisages that a public body may "entrust" or "direct" a private body to carry out the type of functions or conduct illustrated in subparagraphs (i)-(iii).
para. 293.
para. 294.
para. 294. 原文：The verb "direct" is defined as to give authoritative instructions to, to order the performance of something, to command, to control, or to govern an action. The verb "entrust" means giving a person responsibility for a task. The Appellate Body has interpreted "direction" as referring to situations where a government exercises its authority, including some degree of compulsion, over a private body, and "entrustment" as referring to situations in which a government gives responsibility to a private body. Thus, pursuant to subparagraph (iv), a public body may exercise its authority in order to compel or command a private body, or govern a private body''s actions (direction), and may give responsibility for certain tasks to a private body (entrustment). As we see it, for a public body to be able to exercise its authority over a private body (direction), a public body must itself possess such authority, or ability to compel or command. Similarly, in order to be able to give responsibility to a private body (entrustment), it must itself be vested with such responsibility. If a public body did not itself dispose of the relevant authority or responsibility, it could not effectively control or govern the actions of a private body or delegate such responsibility to a private body. This, in turn, suggests that the requisite attributes to be able to entrust or direct a private body, namely, authority in the case of direction and responsibility in the case of entrustment, are common characteristics of both government in the narrow sense and a public body.
para. 295. 原文：This raises the question as to what kind of authority or responsibility an entity must exercise or be vested with to constitute a public body in the sense of the SCM Agreement. 紧接着这一提问，上诉机构的援引如下：We note that subparagraph (iv) refers to entrustment or direction to carry out the type of functions illustrated in subparagraphs (i)-(iii) "which would normally be vested in the government". para. 295. 上诉机构注意到，第1条1.1(a)(1)(iv) 规定政府“委托”或“指示”的三项措施，即(i)至(iii)所列措施。这些措施是通常由政府来履行的职能。
para. 295. 原文：We recall the Panel''s statement that the provision of loans and loan guarantees referred to in subparagraph (i), and the provision of goods and services referred to in subparagraph (iii), are "functions that are typically carried out by, indeed in the first instance are the core business of, firms or corporations rather than governments." 专家组认为三项职能中，(i)和 (iii) 是典型的企业行为，而(ii)则是政府的职能或权限。这一解释虽然不能绝对化，但是相当有道理。
para. 295.原文：The United States maintains that the provision of loans and loan guarantees, and the provision of goods and services, are not inherently the functions of governments or entities vested with authority to perform governmental functions, but rather of firms or businesses, including sometimes those owned or controlled by the government. 美国认为，提供贷款和贷款担保以及货物和服务不是被赋予政府权限的机构本来所负的职能，更是企业的行为，包括被政府控制的企业。
para. 295. China disagrees with this statement and contends that the provision of loans and goods or services is not inherently governmental or inherently non-governmental.
para. 296. 原文：We observe that the Panel identifies no basis for its statement that certain acts listed in subparagraphs (i) and (iii) are "in the first instance the core business of firms or corporations rather than governments"
para. 296. 原文：In any event, we consider that whether a particular means of making a financial contribution is more commonly used by public or private entities has no direct bearing on, nor allows any inference regarding, the constituent elements of a public body in the context of Article 1.1(a)(1) of the SCM Agreement.
para. 296. 原文：On the contrary, we consider relevant that, while the types of conduct listed in Article 1.1(a)(1)(i) and (iii) can be carried out by a government as well as by private bodies, a decision to forego or not collect government revenue that is otherwise due, which is set out in subparagraph (ii), appears to constitute conduct inherently involving the exercise of governmental authority. Taxation, for instance, is an integral part of the sovereign function.
para. 296. 原文：Thus, if anything, the context of Article 1.1(a)(1)(i)-(iii) and in particular subparagraph (ii) lends support to the proposition that a "public body" in the sense of Article 1.1(a)(1) connotes an entity vested with certain governmental responsibilities, or exercising certain governmental authority.
para. 297. 原文：This brings us to the next contextual element, namely, the phrase "which would normally be vested in the government" in subparagraph (iv). As we see it, the reference to "normally" in this phrase incorporates the notion of what would ordinarily be considered part of governmental practice in the legal order of the relevant Member. This suggests that whether the functions or conduct are of a kind that are ordinarily classified as governmental in the legal order of the relevant Member may be a relevant consideration for determining whether or not a specific entity is a public body. The next part of that provision, which refers to a practice that, "in no real sense, differs from practices normally followed by governments", further suggests that the classification and functions of entities within WTO Members generally may also bear on the question of what features are normally exhibited by public bodies.
原文：Article 1.1 of the SCM Agreement stipulates that a "subsidy" shall be deemed to exist for the purpose of the SCM Agreement if there is a "financial contribution by a government or any public body" and "a benefit is thereby conferred."
本文把毛泽东所说的“独立自主”套在企业头上了，但把“立”改成了“力”字。毛主席所说的独立自主主要是指中国独立于西方国家而用自己的力量进行社会主义建设。不能把这一论点予以绝对化。建国后的实践证明，脱离世界市场还真的建设不好社会主义的强大国家。现今中国的强大恰恰是融入世界体制（包括自由贸易体制），参与全球市场的结果。现在本文强调的“独力自主”是指在自由贸易体制下，让中国企业独立于国家的保护伞而仅凭自己的经营实力去赢得世界市场。这是中国加入WTO的核心意义所在。严格来讲，国有企业是与自由竞争原则背道而驰的企业机制，大量的国有企业的自然垄断以及行政垄断的存在以及资本收益率的严重低下等问题在严重拖后中国经济的向前发展。
