多哈公共健康宣言之法律地位

多哈公共健康宣言雖有意解決已開發國家與開發中國家對 TRIPS 協定在解 釋上之歧異，然而，在 WTO 的法律架構下，並未對於「宣言」(declaration)的法

TRIPS to take the necessary action to give effect to this pursuant to Article 66.1 of the TRIPS Agreement. ＂

379 Hoen, supra note 12, at 44.

律地位有任何規範³⁸⁰，該宣言對於會員、WTO 爭端解決小組及上訴機構是否具 有法律上的拘束力，抑或僅具宣示性質，對於開發中國家會員的權益影響甚鉅，

因此，實有必要探究多哈公共健康宣言之法律地位(legal status)。

第一種看法認為多哈公共健康宣言在爭端解決程序中並不具法律上的拘束 力，毋寧為表達承諾及意圖的政治性宣示³⁸¹；第二種看法則持反對的見解，認為 多哈公共健康宣言具有拘束會員、上訴機構及小組之效力。

上述第一種看法多著眼於「宣言」的形式，因為「宣言」在 WTO 的體系下 並 無 特 定 之 法 律 地 位 ， 亦 非 WTO 協 定 下 的 「 職 權 解 釋 」 (authorative interpretation)，因此難認為有法律上的拘束力，但採此種見解者亦承認多哈公共 健康宣言在爭端解決程序中對 TRIPS 協定之解釋具有相當程度之說服力³⁸²，且 由於 WTO 之會員在表決時並未有任何會員棄權或表示不同意，多哈公共健康宣 言之「軟法」(soft law)性質對會員施加遵守之政治壓力³⁸³。

第二種看法則是由維也納公約第三十一條規定演繹而來，涉及 WTO 架構下 對各協定之解釋方式。首先，爭端解決規則與程序瞭解書(Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes)第三條第二項規定「WTO 之 爭端解決制度係提供多邊貿易體系安全性及可預測性之核心因素。會員咸認此制 度旨在維護其於內括協定下之權利義務，並依國際公法之解釋慣例，釐清內括協 定之規定。」³⁸⁴明示爭端解決程序應遵循國際公法解釋條約之習慣法解釋協定之

380 C^ORREA , IMPLICATION OF THE D^OHA D^ECLARATION, supra note 355, at 43.

381 E.g., Alan O. Sykes, TRIPS, Pharmaceuticals, Developing Countries, and the Doha "Solution", 3 CHI.J.INT'L L.47,54(2002); Nabila Ansari, International Patent Rights in a Post-Doha World, 11 -WTRC^URRENTS:I^NT'^L T^RADE L.J.57, 64 (2002).

382 Sykes, id.; Ansari, id..

383 Ansari, id.

384 Art. 3(2) of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes , Apr.

15, 1994, Marrakesh Agreement Establishment the World Trade Organization, Annex 2, Legal

意義。維也納公約對於條約之解釋定有明文，該公約第三十一條規定：「一、條

Instruments—Results of the Uruguay Round vol. 31, 33 I.L.M. 112, 115(1994): “The dispute settlement system of the WTO is a central element in providing security and predictability to the multilateral trading system. The Members recognize that it serves to preserve the rights and obligations of Members under the covered agreements, and to clarify the existing provisions of those agreements in accordance with customary rules of interpretation of public international law.”

385 Vienna Convention, art.31: “1. A treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its object and purpose.

2. The context for the purpose of the interpretation of a treaty shall comprise, in addition to the text, including its preamble and annexes:

(a) any agreement relating to the treaty which was made between all the parties in connection with the conclusion of the treaty;

(b) any instrument which was made by one or more parties in connection with the conclusion of the treaty and accepted by the other parties as an instrument related to the treaty.

3. There shall be taken into account, together with the context:

(a) any subsequent agreement between the parties regarding the interpretation of the treaty or the application of its provisions;

(b) any subsequent practice in the application of the treaty which establishes the agreement of the parties regarding its interpretation;

(c) any relevant rules of international law applicable in the relations between the parties.

4. A special meaning shall be given to a term if it is established that the parties so intended.＂

TRIPS 協定之條文進行解釋³⁸⁶，顯然已將維也納條約法公約定位為國際公法之習 慣法，因此，在對 TRIPS 協定進行解釋，應適用維也納公約之相關規定。此外，

上訴機構在案例中，亦曾將部長宣言之內容作為以維也納條約法公約第三十一條 解釋 GATT 協定之資料³⁸⁷。準此，倘若得將多哈公共健康宣言定位為上開規定第 三項所示應與上下文一併考慮之資料，對於 TRIPS 協定之解釋即有法律上之拘 束力。

採此種見解之學者著眼於多哈公共健康宣言之內容，觀察多哈公共宣言之內 容，雖未改變會員之權利及義務，但已就 TRIPS 協定之解釋方式達成共識，實 質上之效果等同於職權解釋³⁸⁸，尤其是第五段的部分。有部分學者認為多哈公共 健康宣言是維也納公約第三十一條第三項第(a)款關於解釋 TRIPS 協定之後續協 定³⁸⁹，亦有認為應屬第(b)款關於適用 TRIPS 協定之後續慣例，可證明 WTO 會 員對於 TRIPS 協定解釋之認知³⁹⁰。

本文認為，多哈公共健康宣言係由於會員對 TRIPS 協定部分規定（例如：

第八條、第三十一條）之解釋及適用方式在認知上有極大歧見而致生，開發中國 家因此要求以部長宣言確認其等對 TRIP 協定之解讀並未悖於協定本身，以獲得 TRIPS 協定法律上之安定性及可預測性，幾經折衝協調之後，對於歧異之部分達 成共識，而形諸於部長宣言之文字中。是以，多哈公共健康宣言應屬解釋 TRIPS

386 E.g., Appellate Body Report, United States—Standards for Reformulated and Conventional Gasoline, WT/DS2/AB/R 16 (May 20, 2001); Appellate Body Report, India-Patent Protection for Pharmaceutical and Agriculture Chemical products, WT/DS50/AB/R, ¶ 45 (Dec. 19, 1997); Panel Report, Canada-Patent Protection of Pharmaceutical Products, WT/DS114/R, ¶ 7.13 (Mar. 17,2000).

387 Appellate Body Report, United-Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products, Wt/DS58/AB/RW (Oct. 12, 1996), ¶ 130.

388 CORREA , IMPLICATION OF THE DOHA DECLARATION, supra note 355, at 43.

389 E.g., Markus Nolff, Compulsory Patent Licensing in View of the Ministerial Conference Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public health, 84 J.PAT.&TRADEMARK OFF.SOC’Y 133, 134 (2002).

390 Id. at 44.

協定之後續協定，對於會員、小組及上訴機構自有法律上之拘束力。