如果政府压根儿就不通过“国有企业”提供补贴，那么没有必要在解释“公共机构”（补贴提供主体）时浪费资源。因为认定完“财政资助”之后必然解释“利益”，这才是判断一个实体的行为（“财政资助”的提供方法）是否符合市场机制的根本依据。“国有企业”是不是真正的商业机构，在“利益”存在的认定阶段会水落石出。真正的商业机构没有一个不尊重市场机制，只要按照市场机制去交易，自然不会存在提供利益以及补贴的嫌疑。
在解释一个法律概念时，要以客观事实为依据，文字主义或文字游戏不能决定法律概念的真正含义。解释国际法的习惯规则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客观性并防止解释条约的主观性。“公共机构”履行政府职能的情况有可能存在，但在解释第1条规定的“公共机构”时不能作为依据。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，上诉机构之所以陷入了文字主义的泥坑，是因为忽略了有关补贴的资源配置的来源和流向，也忽略了补贴的本质。
综上所述，可以得出这样的结论：“公共机构”不是被赋予政府权限并履行政府职能的机构，而是指除政府以外的为全社会或国家的“公共利益”服务的实体。“国有企业”是为“公共利益”服务的实体，因此“国有企业”属于“公共机构”。能够证明“国有企业”“公共性”的证据是政府对“国有企业”的所有权。政府掌握过半数股份（企业所有权）是证明“国有企业”是“公共机构”的充分证据。
6. 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”“企”严重不分甚至合为一体的国度。例如，在重大经济决策上以党代政普遍化、绝大多数国有企业高管本身就是中共党员、党组织（党是为“公共利益”而存在的）被设置于国有企业内部各个层面、国有企业的经营管理者都有行政级别、国有企业受到包括国家规划和产业政策在内的政治权力的严重约束（党决定国有企业高管的人事任免、政府决定国有商业银行存贷款利率）等。在中国，某个中央国有企业的董事长上任省委副书记之类的事情并不鲜见。土地所有权和企业所有权等事关国家经济制度的重大问题上，党的意志是最高层次的或最终的，这从宪法的历次修改中可以得到证实。[62]
党政分离、政企分离不能成为否定“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，因为两者是所有与被所有的关系。而且，在国际贸易领域里，区别对待中国的官与商，对独力[63]竞争（不依赖国家权力仅靠企业自己的经营能力赢得市场）的私营企业是极不公平的。国有企业的所有者是拥有立法、司法、行政执法权力的国家。私营企业与国有企业的竞争，不可能是公平的。国有商业银行的贷款几乎流向国有企业。中小私营企业则苦于失去金融资源，导致高利贷的横行和泛滥。在解释“公共机构”的含义时，上诉机构甚至把“国有企业”和“私营机构”混为一谈，这是本末倒置，这样的解释违背以市场机制为核心的资源配置理念以及补贴的本质（公共资源向企业的无偿流失）。
在“美国对华反倾销和反补贴案”的研究中，有人建议以“国有企业”是“商业机构”为依据以抗辩“国有企业公共机构论”，这确实不算是高明的议论，是经不起推敲的。国有企业本来就是“商业机构”，这是不重要的，也无人争议。关键的是“国有企业”的存在意义及其所有者是谁。谋求“公共利益”是“国有企业”存在的根本意义。政府是“公共利益”的捍卫者，是“公共机构”的所有者。这才是问题的本质所在。“国有企业”是以盈利为目的的实体，但不是为私人牟利，而是实现“公共利益”。再次重申，“国有企业”是为国家和全社会服务的“公共机构”，在社会主义国家更是如此。[64]
在“公共利益”和“私人利益”之间不存在中间利益。将“国有企业”解释为“公共机构”符合补贴的本质和反补贴税制度的宗旨。美国对华反补贴调查大量涉及到了“国有企业”。这一事实说明，我国社会主义经济体制与反补贴措施之间的矛盾和冲突。当遇到外国对华反补贴调查时，谴责对方贸易保护主义云云是无济于事的。因为，问题的根子在于我国以国有企业为主导的社会主义市场经济体制。围绕“公共机构”的解释所展开的争议，实际上是国际法触及到中国社会主义经济体制敏感神经的表现。既要坚持社会主义市场经济和国有企业的垄断地位，又要阻止外国的反补贴调查，这注定是个两难困境。
【作者简介】
白巴根，汕头大学法学院教授，Ph.D.（日本筑波大学）。
【注释】2006年11月，美国开始了对华反补贴调查。到目前为止，案件总数累计30件，其中，做出反补贴终裁的23件。美国对外国反补贴调查案件集中在对华反补贴调查上。根据这一动态研究贸易制度背后的政治经济问题是非常重要的（例如，利益集团所推动的贸易保护主义等等），但反补贴调查案件的数量之多与法律问题没有直接联系。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11月10日）
全面指控是指案件包括有关补贴认定的全部要件。关于在其他案件中，中国援引《SCM协定》相关规定是否已经指控过反补贴调查方做出的补贴认定的合法性，笔者尚未考察过。但在近年中美之间发生的贸易争端中，美国针对中国的补贴采取措施的案件占绝大多数。对此，中国通过WTO争端解决机制寻求救济是顺理成章的。“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首次指控。为处理由于美国对华反补贴调查所引起的贸易争端，中美双边磋商失败后（2008年11月14日），WTO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”的含义，专家组支持了美国的立场，否定了中国的立场。专家组报告提交（2010年7月23日）后，中美两国请求上诉机构进一步审理该案（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，从结论上支持了中国的立场。但在其他几个重要法律问题（除“双反调查”以外的财政资助、利益、专项性等）上基本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: UNITEDSTATES – DEFINITIVE ANTI-DUMOING 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。
所有权者是控制企业的决策者，没有必要区分“公共机构政府控制论”和“公共机构政府所有论”。商务部在对华反补贴调查中给受调查企业提供了反驳的机会，以说明“国有企业”未受政府控制。实际上，这一抗辩的成功是相当困难的。“国有企业”和“国家参股的企业”是截然不同的两码事情。国家（具体而言是政府）掌握所有权（持半数以上股份）是控制国有企业的前提。掌握所有权而不控制企业是没有意义的。当然，所有权和经营权是可以分离的，但两者间的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》生效和WTO成立之后，发生了大量有关补贴与反补贴措施的争端（全部贸易争端案件的统计数字以及在全部案件中有关补贴与反补贴争端所占的比例等，请另行参考WTO的官方网站），如此详细争论“公共机构”，“美国对华反倾销和反补贴调查案”是首次。因为在本案中，中国、美国、专家组以及上诉机构在解释“公共机构”时，均没有援引到直接解释这一概念的先例。
反补贴调查的最终目的在于，针对进口产品征收反补贴税。反补贴税是指，为抵消补贴而对进口产品征收的一种特殊关税。
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。”在承认国家政策裁量权的有关绿色补贴（法律规定将其排除在救济措施的范围之外，包括反补贴措施）的规则已经停止适用（1995年12月31日为止）的情况下，《SCM协定》对补贴的救济在向积极方面倾斜。反补贴税是矫正补贴人为竞争优势的救济手段，但与《WTO协定》所追求的削减关税背道而驰。因此，严格规范反补贴调查本身也非常重要。按照补贴的定义要求补贴的认定，是约束反补贴调查的重要法律功能。
在WTO的争端解决过程中不存在要求提出指控的国家首先用尽被指控国家司法审查的义务，WTO成员可以不选择对方国家的司法审查而直接向WTO争端解决机构提出指控。
实质上是指重商主义的眼前利益。凝缩于出口国产品的补贴（人为削减产品成本并降低产品价格），无疑是有利于进口国消费者福利的好事情。但是，反补贴考虑的是维护国内产业的利益，即在挽救企业利益的减损（体现在国内产业实质损害的举证方面）。整个自由贸易体制的主流价值观是，限制和减少国家权力对跨国贸易活动的管理（交易或流通成品的提高），推动市场开放和企业的自由。但从《GATT1947》到《WTO协定》，在自由贸易体制的建设和发展过程中，为国内政治利益做出妥协的法律规定随处可见。例如，承认国内法律优先适用地位的“祖父权条款”、与数量限制的一般取消义务相违背的紧急进口限制措施、与非歧视原则相违背的自由贸易区协定与关税同盟等不胜枚举。自由贸易体制是在国内政治利益和世界经济福利的夹缝中生存和发展起来的，原则性的脆弱或灵活性的过剩贯穿始终。但不可否认的是，自由贸易体制的主流在朝着市场开放的方向发展，而不是国家权力对贸易的管控。纵观自由贸易体制的历史（1948年1月1日至今已有64年），成员（GATT时代因为没有正式成立国际组织叫做缔约方）发展到今天的153个（尚未看到退出该体制的国家或地区），先进工业国家工业产品关税削减至0-2%；这两点足以说明，自由贸易体制是有利的国际机制，其主流价值观并未出现倒退现象。在2008年的金融危机（最严重的市场的失败或严重的政府失控）爆发后，虽然有人怀疑市场机制而重新估量国家干预市场的能力，但尚未看到主权国家陷入贸易保护主义的现象，相反，G20首脑等一再重申反对贸易保护主义。
《SCM协定》这样处理补贴提供主体的方法事关补贴的本质，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）。这是弥尔顿?弗里德曼所讲的花钱的第四种方式（第一种，为自己花自己的钱；第二种，为别人花自己的钱；第三种，为自己花别人的钱），即“为别人花别人的钱”，这在四种花钱方式中是最不负责任的，也是浪费最严重的。享有无偿配置公共资源的决定权的是政府。也只有政府才有权无偿介入资源的配置过程，最典型的就是征税权（从财源上决定资源再配置）。对国家来讲，除征税措施以外，掌握和控制国有企业是介入市场并参与资源配置的重要途径。从未听说过私营企业为其他企业提供补贴的事情，这是不合常理的，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，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。
《SCM协定》第1条：
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).
据此可知，补贴主要由两大因素构成，即“财政资助”和“利益”。这里，作为提供主体的“政府”和“公共机构”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，那么有关“财政资助”的规定将失去意义。因为《SCM协定》所规定的毕竟是政府的资源配置，所以主体不仅是必须的，而且还是首要的。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，其本身的定义足矣。当主体得到确认后，判断“财政资助”无须再考虑主体了。
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. 解释补贴定义时，上诉机构只提两个要件（“财政资助”和“利益”），不谈提供主体。
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”的特殊情形时涉及到提供主体entities。
对补贴提供主体予以确认之后，根据“财政资助”的判断标准认定其存在即可。在判断“财政资助”时，不必时刻考虑governmental。不区别补贴提供主体和“财政资助”的做法是很普遍的。例如，WTO秘书处有关《SCM协定》补贴定义的解释，只提“财政资助”和“利益”，不谈提供主体。参阅，
http://www.wto.org/ english/tratop_ e/scm_e/ subs_e.htm（2011年11月10日）；http://www.wto.org/ english/res_ e/booksp_ e/analytic_ index_e/ subsidies_e.htm（2011年11月10日）
受过反补贴调查的国家在对他国进行反补贴调查时，不得不遵守自己做过的解释，即排除“公共机构”的狭义补贴论。在自己受调查时缩小解释，调查对方时则扩大解释，这违背法律的诚信原则。
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，确认主体性质是正确的。“公共机构”是否带有governmental性质与“财政资助”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. 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.
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”并列的是《SCM协定》第1条还是第1条1.1(a)(1)呢？上诉机构是非常混乱的。例如，再次援引上诉机构的解释如下：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. 288.
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，上诉机构也确认了“私营机构”的含义，对此不存在争议，与此相反，考察什么是“国有企业”更有意思。
在《SCM协定》第1条穷尽式列举的四项“财政资助”中，关于a government makes payments to a funding mechanism不存在政府“指示”或“委托”“私营机构”。筹款机构不是接受补贴的受益者，在此情况下，如何确定补贴“利益”的接受者将会复杂化。
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). a government makes payments to a funding mechanism是该条款的第一句，也是被穷尽式列举的“财政资助”的第四项内容。该条款与“公共机构”的解释无关。第二句是有关“财政资助”特殊情形的规定，即“政府”（规定在第一句中）通过对“私营机构”的“指示”或“委托”履行第1条1.1(a) (1)第(i)至(iii)项规定的“财政资助”。依据法律条款的结构，在解释“公共机构”时，第二句不宜被援引为上下文。理由是，该条款的目的是防范政府通过“私营机构”提供补贴以逃避法律约束。如果没有这样的规定，当政府通过“私营机构”将资源配置给其目标企业或产业时，将无法采取救济措施。至少从表面上看，“私营机构”不是补贴提供主体。而且，在只有私营机构是非补贴提供主体时，这样的规定才具有意义；因为“私营机构”毕竟是政府为规避法律所利用的“主体”。《SCM协定》关心的是如何防范政府向个别企业配置资源。符合市场条件的资源配置与《SCM协定》无关。严格来讲，该条款中有关“政府”和“私营机构”的规定与“公共机构”的解释无关。但是，作为解释“公共机构”的上下文，上诉机构却非常看重这一规定。
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. 上诉机构接下来的援引如下：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. 上诉机构注意到了第1条1.1(a)(1)第(iv)项规定的政府“委托”或“指示”的三项措施，即第(i)至(iii)项所列措施。这些措施是通常由政府来履行的，这里的“政府”未必是排除“公共机构”的狭义“政府”。
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，第(i)和(iii)项是典型的企业行为，而第(ii)项则是政府的职能。该解释虽然不能绝对化，但相当有道理。
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，更应该是企业的行为，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.
《WTO协定》附件2的《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第3条2款第一句规定：“WTO争端解决制度是为多边贸易体制提供稳定性与可预见性的核心因素，各成员认识到，该制度的任务在于维护各成员基于适用协定所承担的义务和所享有的权利，以及遵照关于解释的国际法习惯规则澄清适用协定的现有规定。”该规定所言及的关于解释的国际法习惯规则是指《维也纳条约法公约》第31条等规定。国际法上一直承认，该规定是关于解释的国际法习惯规则的法典化。《维也纳条约法公约》（第三节 条约之解释）第31条（解释之一般规则）规定：
一、条约应依其用语按其上下文并参照条约之目的及宗旨所具有之通常意义，善意解释之。
二、就解释条约而言，上下文除指约文（包括前言和附件）以外，应该包括：
（甲）全体当事国间因缔结条约所订与条约有关之任何协定；
（乙）一个以上当事国因缔结条约所订并经其他当事国接受为条约有关文书之任何文书。
三、应与上下文一并考虑者尚有：
（甲）当事国嗣后所订关于条约之解释或其或其规定之适用之任何协定；
（乙）嗣后在条约适用方面确定各当事国对条约解释之协定之任何惯例；
（丙）适用于当事国间关系之任何有关国际法规则；
四、倘经确定当事国有此原意，条约用语应使其具有特殊意义。
虽然该条款没有给“公共机构”提供定义，但是，“公共机构”不是指“被赋予政府权限并履行政府职能的机构”。
第1条1.1 (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")，接下来的规定就是英文的“i.e. where:”说明再往下规定的是“财政资助”，而不是补贴提供主体。作为上下文，从有关“财政资助”的规定中寻找有关解释主体的依据时，要符合法律规定的基本逻辑。上诉机构对referred to in this Agreement as "government"的解释严重过度，其最大的硬伤在于对法律条款框架的误解。最明显的就是把“政府”和“私营机构”并列在一起，把“私营机构”也当做补贴提供主体。这样的解释对“公共机构”来讲是牵强附会的。《SCM协定》第1条1.1 (a)(1)这一条款并没有表明在i.e. where以下的规定中出现的每一个government概念中必须包括“政府”和“公共机构”，尤其是不能以referred to in this Agreement as "government"中的集合概念“政府”为根据，将“公共机构”的含义解释成是“履行政府职能的机构”。上诉机构的头脑中隐藏着“公共机构是履行政府职能的实体”的观念，在此潜意识的驱使下，其在为其解释寻找上下文的根据，这是主观臆断的。
政府设立“公共机构”的目的在于实现公共利益。有些公共事业本来就没有必要通过履行政府职能来完成，而且，有些不适于通过政府职能和权限来完成的工作，“公共机构”会完成的更好。政府职能和企业经营之间的分离更具说服力。例如，国有商业银行与国家行政机构的脱钩。但是，政府通过国有商业银行履行公共任务（提高存贷款利率等）时，没有必要让银行肩负政府职能。此外，邮政、自来水、煤气以及电力供应等“公共事业”亦然如是。
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."
掌握“国有企业”所有权不是实现“公共利益”的唯一途径，国家可以通过对私有企业的征税实现公共利益。这关系到一个国家的体制选择，不是本文讨论的问题。
在对
宪法规定的土地所有权和企业所有权制度进行修改时，均有党的重要文件先出台。此外，中国《
反垄断法》专章规定“滥用行政权力排除和限制竞争”，参见该法第
32条至第
37条。该条款从反面证实，行政权力对国有企业的控制。《
反垄断法》的规定不能适用于党的机关介入市场、限制竞争的行为，这是事实。
毛泽东的“独立自主，自力更是”是指，中国独立于西方国家而依靠自己的力量进行社会主义建设。该观点贯彻到贸易领域是指，中国不参与多边自由贸易体制，关起门来建设社会主义。台湾地区退出GATT后一直到上世纪80年代初期的20多年间，中国未向自由贸易体制靠拢。建国后的实践证明，脱离世界市场是建设不好社会主义强大国家的。“改革开放”的“开放”是指为贸易自由化开道。国际法上的结果就是签署《WTO协定》并加入WTO。现今中国的强大，恰恰是融入世界体系（包括自由贸易体制）、参与全球市场的结果。例如，3万亿美元的外汇储备是用贸易逆差换来的。没有自由贸易，如此庞大金额的外汇储备是不可能的。可以用毛泽东的“独立自主，自力更生”来形容企业的“独力竞争”。“独力竞争”是指，在自由贸易体制下，中国企业独立于国家的保护伞、凭借自身的经营实力赢得世界市场。这是中国加入WTO的核心意义。在保持垄断地位的情况下，国有企业是否真的能够增强国际竞争力是个疑问。国有企业是与自由竞争原则背道而驰的企业机制，国有企业资本收益率的严重低下、国家资源的严重浪费，是严重缺乏竞争机制（国有企业的自然垄断以及行政垄断）造成的。
“中国特色社会主义”和“社会主义市场经济”，是党和政府的文件表述我国社会经济制度时用的重要概念，这里“社会主义”是根本性的，保证“社会主义”的核心之一是“国有企业”。
