摘要： 对《补贴与反补贴措施协议》第1.1条(a)(1)(iii)中“一般基础设施”的判断，可借助公共物品理论对基础设施进行类型化识别。具体而言，纯公共基础设施自动构成“一般基础设施”，除非政府行为限制此类基础设施的使用；私人基础设施自动丧失“一般基础设施”的资格；准公共基础设施应首先被假定构成“一般基础设施”，除非证据表明存在准入限制。准公共基础设施应进一步区别“俱乐部基础设施”和“公共池塘基础设施”，并在符合比例性原则和普遍使用标准时构成“一般基础设施”。中国应对美国相关反补贴调查的基本思路，应是主张土地使用权和电力均构成“公共池塘基础设施”，并分别根据普遍使用标准和比例性原则予以抗辩。

关键词: 补贴, 一般基础设施, 公共物品理论, 欧盟空客案, 美国波音案

Abstract: The“general infrastructure”in article 1.1(a)(1)(iii)of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures should be categorized according to the theory of public goods.Specifically，pure public infrastructure automatically constitutes general infrastructure；private infrastructure automatically loses the qualification of general infrastructure；quasi-public infrastructure should be presumed to constitute general infrastructure and made differences between“the infrastructure of club”and“the infrastructure of public pond”.Especially，quasi-public infrastructure should be seen as“general infrastructure”conforming to the principle of proportionality.The basic idea for China to respond to the related countervailing investigations from United States should be to advocate botn the right of land use and power to constitute“quasi public infrastructure”so as to be exempted according to the standard of common use and the principle of proportionality.

Key words: Subsidy, General Infrastructure, Public Goods Theory, the Airbus Case, the Boeing’s Case