第一章 緒論
第一節 研究動機及目的
在關稅暨貿易總協定（General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade，以下簡稱為 GATT1）於 1947 年簽署以後，邊境措施所造成的貿易障礙即成功地大幅下降2， 使得多數國家轉而採取技術性貿易障礙作為貿易障礙之方式日趨增加3。雖於 GATT 中設有條文規範此類內地措施4，惟鑑於技術性貿易障礙措施之複雜性，
世界貿易組織（World Trade Organization，以下簡稱為 WTO）之會員國於烏拉圭 回合後修訂技術性貿易障礙協定（Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade，以下 簡稱為 TBT 協定）以規範各會員國之技術性貿易障礙措施5。
截至 2014 年 5 月 26 日止，共計有 49 件涉及 TBT 協定之案子被提到 WTO 底下之爭端解決機構（Dispute Settlement Body, DSB）尋求裁決6。然而絕大多數 的案件不是未進入裁決即和解撤訴，就是因為同時涉及 GATT 而在被爭端解決小
2 Gabrielle Marceau, The New TBT Jurisprudence in US-Clove, WTO US-Tuna II, and US-COOL, 8 ASIAN JOURNAL OF WTO&INTERNATIONAL HEALTH LAW AND POLICY 1, 3 (2013).
3 羅昌發，國際貿易法，頁 162，2010 年。
4 本文於下將探討之 GATT 第 3.4 條即為一重要條文。
5 前揭註 3。
6 WorldTradeLaw.net, Number of Complaints Filed under Selected WTO Agreements, available at http://www.worldtradelaw.net/dsc/database/agreementcount.asp (last visited May 26, 2014).
7 Petros C. Mavroidis, Driftin’ too far from shore – Why the test for compliance with the TBT
Agreement developed by the WTO Appellate Body is wrong, and what should the AB have done instead, 12WORLD TRADE REVIEW 509, 509-10 (2013).
8 Appellate Body Report, European Communities — Measures Affecting Asbestos and Products Containing Asbestos, WT/DS135/AB/R (adopted Apr. 5, 2011).
9 Supra note 7.
‧
（unnecessary obstacles to trade）的規範。
如此的裁決結果留下了一個問題。由於 TBT 協定第 2.1 條國民待遇原則之
10 Appellate Body Report, United States — Measures Affecting the Production and Sale of Clove Cigarettes, WT/DS406/AB/R (adopted Apr. 24, 2012).
11 Appellate Body Report, United States — Measures Concerning the Importation, Marketing and Sale of Tuna and Tuna Products, WT/DS381/AB/R (adopted June 13, 2012).
12 Appellate Body Report, United States — Certain Country of Origin Labelling (COOL) Requirements, WT/DS384/AB/R (adopted July 23, 2012).
13 Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade, art. 2.1: “Members shall ensure that in respect of technical regulations, products imported from the territory of any Member shall be accorded treatment no less favourable than that accorded to like products of national origin and to like products originating in any other country.”
14 於「美國－肉品原產地標示案」中則是因為未有足夠的資料得以進行認定。
15 Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade, art. 2.2: “Members shall ensure that technical regulations are not prepared, adopted or applied with a view to or with the effect of creating unnecessary obstacles to international trade. For this purpose, technical regulations shall not be more trade-restrictive than necessary to fulfil a legitimate objective, taking account of the risks non-fulfilment would create.
Such legitimate objectives are, inter alia: national security requirements; the prevention of deceptive practices; protection of human health or safety, animal or plant life or health, or the environment. In assessing such risks, relevant elements of consideration are, inter alia: available scientific and technical information, related processing technology or intended end-uses of products.”
16 General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, art. 3.4: “The products of the territory of any contracting party imported into the territory of any other contracting party shall be accorded treatment no less favourable than that accorded to like products of national origin in respect of all laws, regulations and requirements affecting their internal sale, offering for sale, purchase, transportation, distribution or use.
The provisions of this paragraph shall not prevent the application of differential internal transportation charges which are based exclusively on the economic operation of the means of transport and not on the nationality of the product.”
17 General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, art. 20: “Subject to the requirement that such measures are not applied in a manner which would constitute a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination between countries where the same conditions prevail, or a disguised restriction on international trade, nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to prevent the adoption or enforcement by any contracting party of measures:…(b) necessary to protect human, animal or plant life or health.”
18 其中又以與該條（b）最為相似，參見莊雅涵，TBT 協定第 2.2 條與 GATT 1994 第 20 條下「必
要性」要件之分析，國立政治大學國際經營與貿易研究所碩士論文，頁 2-3，2013 年 7 月。
‧
審理 TBT 協定；惟此二協定乃是累積適用（cumulative application）之關係，因 此合於其中一協定並不能正當化另一協定之違反19。是以倘若一措施同時受到20 Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade, preamble: “…Recognizing that no country should be prevented from taking measures necessary to ensure the quality of its exports, or for the protection of human, animal or plant life or health, of the environment, or for the prevention of deceptive practices, at the levels it considers appropriate, subject to the requirement that they are not applied in a manner which would constitute a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination between countries where the same conditions prevail or a disguised restriction on international trade, and are otherwise in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement….”
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
機構之立場，肯認國民待遇原則於 GATT 第 3.4 條與 TBT 協定第 2.1 條中應作不 同之解釋21，方能納入 TBT 協定所容許各會員國所具有之政策空間。
基於上述緣由，本文欲探討之核心問題有二：(1)在肯認 GATT 第 3.4 條與 TBT 協定第 2.1 條中之國民待遇原則應為不同之解釋的情況下，現行小組與上訴 機構以何種解釋方式將 WTO 會員國之政策空間納入 TBT 協定第 2.1 條之中，以 及(2)小組與上訴機構該種解釋方式是否妥適。