研究結論與建議

第一項 WTO 和 RTA 爭端解決機制競合與衝突處理之醒思與困境

在前章中，我們探討了包括條約必須遵守原則、誠信原則、條約生效前的遵約義務、締約國後續實踐、特別法優於普通法、後法優於前法、既判力原則、禁反言原則，

以及遵循前例原則等國際法之條約解釋適用方法和國際法一般法律原則的適用，希望此些理論的提出和適用，能對 WTO 和 RTA 爭端解決機制管轄權競合問題之處理提供助益。然而，現行 WTO 或 RTA 爭端解決機制處理爭端管轄競合問題時，在探討其可適用的國際法原則之外，爭端解決機制審理程序中應如何援引前述之國際法原則，以處理爭端解決機制管轄競合問題，以及 RTA 爭端解決或場域選擇條款是否能在 WTO 訴訟中被援引等問題，仍端視後續發展方能知悉。

第二項 WTO 爭端解決機制對 WTO 與 RTA 規範互動之立場與問題

本論文所提各國際法原理原則，在個案中能否使 WTO 將 RTA 爭端解決條款納入

考量，固端視各法律原則的要件在個案中是否能被滿足；然而，在解決 WTO 和 RTA

137

爭端解決機制管轄衝突問題時，各爭端解決機構之審判範圍和各國際法次系統間的關係與互動，亦將影響 WTO 爭端解決機構處理此等問題時之態度，以下即針對 WTO 爭端解決機構處理此等問題時所受限制，及所面對之困難並提出可能之改善方式：

第一款 DSU 無解決管轄衝突條文，也未訂有衝突法條款

DSU為WTO爭端解決機制處理WTO會員國間規範解釋適用應遵循之規範，然而，

目前DSU中並未就國際爭端解決機制間的管轄權競合訂定場域選擇條款，對於WTO規範與其他國際規範出現適用競合時，因衝突法選法條款的欠缺而導致了WTO爭端解決機制面對與其他國際爭端解決機制出現管轄權競合時，DSU無法提供擁有管轄權問題的解答

⁵⁰²

。倘WTO認為確實不應允許在RTA下設立爭端解決機制，此時自可明文規定要求會員不得以任何方式作成將影響WTO爭端解決機制爭端管轄權形式之協議；相對的，若WTO認為RTA下的爭端解決機制可被設立，為了釐清DSU和RTA下爭端解決和場域選擇條款的適用問題，自亦將公約與其他國際協定之互動與適用關係加以明定，

其中聯合國海洋法公約第 311 條第三項之規範方式，即為可參考的範例之一。

⁵⁰³

面對 DSU 第 7、第 11、第 23 條等已明確表示 WTO 爭端解決機構對會員國爭端有管轄權，且 WTO 無衝突法選法規則的狀態下，即形成了在 DSU 表示 WTO 爭端解

502 關於衝突法訂定的重要性及影響，see Sieber, supra note 49, at 33–34.

503 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, art. 311(3), Apr. 29, 1958, 1833 U.N.T.S. 3 (enter into force on Dec. 10, 1982) provides, “Two or more States Parties may conclude agreements modifying or suspending the operation of provisions of this Convention, applicable solely to the relations between them, provided that such agreements do not relate to a provision derogation from which is incompatible with the effective execution of the object and purpose of this Convention, and provided further that such agreements shall not affect the application of the basic principles embodied herein, and that the provisions of such agreements do not affect the enjoyment by other States Parties of their rights or the performance of their obligations under this Convention.” 聯合國海洋法公約第 311 條第三項中譯：「本公約兩個或兩個以上締約國可訂立僅在各該國相互關係上適用的、修改或暫停適用本公約的規定的協定，但須這種協定不涉及本公約中某項規定，如對該規定予以減損就與公約的目的及宗旨的有效執行不相符合，而且這種協定不應影響本公約所載各項基本原則的適用，同時這種協定的規定不影響其他締約國根據本公約享有其權利和履行其義務。」

138

決機制對案件有管轄權，但 RTA 場域選擇條款表示 WTO 爭端解決機制無管轄權時，

雖然本論文在本章中以嘗試以國際條約之解釋適用和一般法律原則補充了處理此問題的可能解決方案，但在可供解決爭端管轄競合問題之非 WTO 規則適用可能性及優先性尚不明確情況下，為使 WTO 爭端解決機制未來處理此爭議時能有較明確的規範，

而非由會員間自行立法或在個案中掙扎的嘗試主張各種國際法原則，以認定爭端管轄權之歸屬，此問題的根本解決辦法為在 DSU 中訂定場域選擇條款，藉由明文規範 WTO 與其他國際爭端解機構的關係提供 WTO 爭端解決機構處理管轄權衝突時場域選擇的明確指示及依據。

第二款 DSU 下明訂對非 WTO 規則之適用規範

雖然根據 DSU 第 3 條第二項規定，WTO 體系下吾等可能將國際法之其他「非 WTO 規則（non-WTO rules）」適用於 WTO 法系下，但對 DSU 第 3 條第二項採嚴格解釋狀況下，其顯然限用於對「非 WTO 之條約解釋歸則」的適用，此除造成爭端當事國可否援引具特別法性質的 RTA 場域管轄條款解決 WTO 和 RTA 爭端解決競合狀況陷於不確定外，在本質上當事國可否在 WTO 爭端解決機制程序中援引 RTA 規範都將受到挑戰和懷疑。

既目前學理討論多傾向將WTO解釋為非封閉式法體系，WTO爭端解決機制在對爭端的審議上，自也應擴大對非WTO規範的適用

⁵⁰⁴

504 學者 Ulrich Sieber 即批評採取自我封閉體制將導致該制度流於封閉狹隘。See Sieber, supra note

；根本而論，未來在新回合談判對DSU的修正中，WTO會員也應思考如何調合WTO與RTA及其他國際法下次系統之適用關係。此外，倘同意於WTO下有非WTO規則的適用情況下，為進一步釐清「非WTO 規則」在WTO的適用可能性和範圍之外，未來亦可思考在WTO下訂定衝突法規則，

以在WTO和RTA等其他國際法規範予WTO產生衝突狀況下，進一步解決WTO規則和

49, at 43 provides, “[S]elf –constained regimes oftern sufferfrom tunnel vision, i.e., they regulate only a narrow section of social life and do not take competing interest into consideration.”

139

非WTO規則衝突時選擇適用之疑義，並促成相異國際法次系統的和諧適用。

⁵⁰⁵

第三項總結

根據本論文分析，在 RTA 下另設爭端解決機制以處理締約國間所發生爭端已成為當前之趨勢，然而，此並不表示 RTA 下爭端解決機制的設立有其絕對必要。對締約國而言，只要其所簽訂的條約協定能獲得有效施行和落實，不論是以談判協商之外交方式處理，抑或是設立爭端解決機制以處理爭端，爭端解決所採行的形式並非那麼重要。

然而，既然目前許多 WTO 會員間簽署的 RTA，已選擇設置爭端解決機制以解決紛爭，

此時 RTA 和 WTO 爭端解決機制間所可能產生的管轄衝突與競合問題，即需加以處理；

且除了以本論文所提出的條約解釋和國際法原則的適用以處理管轄衝突問題外，為了進一步釐清 WTO 會員在 RTA 條款簽署後對既有權利之影響，WTO 是否應在未來新回合談判中將衝突法規則，或是場域選擇條款訂入 DSU 條款中，而從根本上建構對規範適用及管轄權衝突處理之解答，也是可以思考的解決方式。

對我國而言，與他國洽簽 RTA 並建立貿易夥伴關係以提升我國貿易競爭力，係我國目前努力發展的目標，咸信不論在目前正進行的 ECFA 爭端解決協定談判上，抑或是我國欲洽簽和加入的台美貿易暨投資架構協定（Trade and Investment Framework Agreement，簡稱 TIFA）或是泛太平洋夥伴關係（Trans-Pacific Partnership，簡稱 TPP）

中，爭端解決管轄競合與衝突都是在擬定和對此些規範進行談判時，我國所應注意之重點。此外，雖然締約國在 RTA 設置爭端解決機制的目的，在於提供締約國遇 RTA 或貿易爭端時，以其所認為最適的爭端救濟途徑解決此些爭端，而從調和各國際法適用的概念下，WTO 爭端解決機制對 RTA 等各爭端解決條款也應給予相當之尊重並加

505 DSU 的新回合談判亦尚有許多問題待會員形成共識，其中包括 DSB 決議方式應採司法或應納入政

治考量，裁決執行、甚或是是否應將投資等其他國際經濟法議題納入 WTO 爭端解決機制之處理均仍未 形成共識。See generally Heinz Hauser & Thomas A. Zimmermann, The Challege of Reforming the WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding, 38INTERECONOMICS –REV.EURO.ECON.POL’Y 241 (2003).

140

以適用；惟締約國在簽訂各爭端解決或場域選擇條款時，自也應慮及此些 RTA 條款對

原先以有效運作之 WTO 爭端解決機制可能造成的衝擊與影響，特別是 WTO 爭端解

決機制對會員間爭端之強制管轄權，及其規範本位和以司法體制審議特性，為 WTO

此多邊貿易協定帶來穩定之適用和健全有效的發展而被譽為「王冠上的珠寶」時，RTA

爭端解決機制的建立其下各類型場域選擇條款是否可能動搖 WTO 爭端解決機制維繫

多邊貿易協定運作之根基，也是各締約國訂定相關 RTA 條款或解決爭端解決機制管轄

衝突時我們所應思考的問題。

141

參考文獻

WTO Cases

[1] Appellate Body Report, Argentina – Measures Affecting Imports of Footwear,

Textiles, Apparel and Other Items, WT/DS56/AB/R and Corr.1, adopted 22

April 1998, DSR 1998:III, 1003.

[2] Appellate Body Report, Argentina – Safeguard Measures on Imports of

Footwear, WT/DS121/AB/R, adopted 12 January 2000, DSR 2000:I, 515.

[3] Appellate Body Report, Australia – Measures Affecting Importation of Salmon, WT/DS18/AB/R, adopted 6 November 1998, DSR 1998:VIII, 3327.

[4] Appellate Body Report, Canada – Certain Measures Concerning Periodicals, WT/DS31/AB/R, adopted 30 July 1997, DSR 1997:I, 449.

[5] Appellate Body Report, EC Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products

(Hormones), WT/DS26/AB/R, WT/DS48/AB/R, adopted 13 February 1998,

DSR 1998:I, 135.

[6] Panel Report, EC Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones),

Complaint by the United States, WT/DS26/R/USA, adopted 13 February 1998,

as modified by Appellate Body Report WT/DS26/AB/R, WT/DS48/AB/R, DSR 1998:III, 699

[7] Appellate Body Report, European Communities – Measures Affecting the

Importation of Certain Poultry Products, WT/DS69/AB/R, adopted 23 July

1998, DSR 1998:V, 2031.

[8] Appellate Body Report, European Communities – Regime for the Importation,

Sale and Distribution of Bananas, WT/DS27/AB/R, adopted 25 September

1997, DSR 1997:II, 591.

[9] Appellate Body Report, Japan – Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages, WT/DS8/AB/R, WT/DS10/AB/R, WT/DS11/AB/R, adopted 1 November 1996, DSR 1996:I, 97.

[10] Panel Report, Japan – Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages, WT/DS8/R, WT/DS10/R,

142

WT/DS11/R, adopted 1 November 1996, as modified by Appellate Body Report WT/DS8/AB/R, WT/DS10/AB/R, WT/DS11/AB/R, DSR 1996:I, 125.

[11] Appellate Body Report, Mexico – Anti-Dumping Investigation of High Fructose

Corn Syrup (HFCS) from the United States – Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by the United States, WT/DS132/AB/RW, adopted 21 November 2001,

DSR 2001:XIII, 6675.

[12] Appellate Body Report, Mexico – Tax Measures on Soft Drinks and Other

Beverages, WT/DS308/AB/R, adopted 24 March 2006, DSR 2006:I, 3.

[13] Panel Report, Mexico – Tax Measures on Soft Drinks and Other Beverages, WT/DS308/R, adopted 24 March 2006, as modified by Appellate Body Report WT/DS308/AB/R, DSR 2006:I, 43.

[14] Appellate Body Report, India – Patent Protection for Pharmaceutical and

Agricultural Chemical Products, WT/DS50/AB/R, adopted 16 January 1998,

DSR 1998:I, 9.

[15] Appellate Body Report, United States – Anti-Dumping Act of 1916, WT/DS136/AB/R, WT/DS162/AB/R, adopted 26 September 2000, DSR 2000:X, 4793.

[16] Appellate Body Report, United States – Continued Dumping and Subsidy

Offset Act of 2000, WT/DS217/AB/R, WT/DS234/AB/R, adopted 27 January

2003, DSR 2003:I, 375.

[17] Appellate Body Report, United States – Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp

and Shrimp Products, WT/DS58/AB/R, adopted 6 November 1998, DSR

1998:VII, 2755.

[18] Appellate Body Report, United States – Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp

and Shrimp Products – Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by Malaysia,

WT/DS58/AB/RW, adopted 21 November 2001, DSR 2001:XIII, 6481.

[19] Appellate Body Report, United States – Final Anti-Dumping Measures on

Stainless steel from Mexico, WT/DS344/AB/R, adopted 20 May 2008, DSR

2008:II, 513.

[20] Appellate Body Report, United States – Imposition of Countervailing Duties on

143

Certain Hot-Rolled Lead and Bismuth Carbon Steel Products Originating in the United Kingdom, WT/DS138/AB/R, adopted 7 June 2000, DSR 2000:V,

2595.

[21] Appellate Body Report, United States – Standards for Reformulated and

Conventional Gasoline, WT/DS2/AB/R, adopted 20 May 1996, DSR 1996:I, 3.

[22] Appellate Body Report, United States – Tax Treatment for “Foreign Sales

Corporations”, WT/DS108/AB/R, adopted 20 March 2000, DSR 2000:III,

1619.

[23] Appellate Body Report, United States – Tax Treatment for “Foreign Sales

Corporations” – Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by the European

Communities, WT/DS108/AB/RW, adopted 29 January 2002, DSR 2002:I, 55.

[24] Appellate Body Report, United States – Restrictions on Imports of Cotton and

Man-made Fibre Underwear, WT/DS24/AB/R, adopted 25 February 1997,

DSR 1997:I, 11.

[25] Panel Report, Argentina – Definitive Anti-Dumping Duties on Poultry from

Brazil, WT/DS241/R, adopted 19 May 2003, DSR 2003:V, 1727.

[26] Panel Report, Canada – Patent Protection of Pharmaceutical Products, WT/DS114/R, adopted 7 April 2000, DSR 2000:V, 2289.

[27] Panel Report, EC Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones),

Complaint by Canada, WT/DS48/R/CAN, adopted 13 February 1998, as

modified by Appellate Body Report WT/DS26/AB/R, WT/DS48/AB/R, DSR 1998:II, 235.

[28] Panel Report, EC Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Product (Hormones),

Complaint by the United States, WT/DS26/R/USA, adopted 13 February 1998,

as modified by Appellate Body Report WT/DS26/AB/R, WT/DS48/AB/R, DSR 1998:III, 699.

[29] Panel Report, European Communities – Trade Description of Sardines, WT/DS231/R and Corr.1, adopted 23 October 2002, as modified by Appellate Body Report WT/DS231/AB/R, DSR 2002:VIII, 3451.

[30] Panel Report, Guatemala – Definitive Anti-Dumping Measures on Grey

144

Portland Cement from Mexico, WT/DS156/R, adopted 17 November 2000,

DSR 2000:XI, 5295.

[31] Panel Report, India – Patent Protection for Pharmaceutical and Agricultural

Chemical Products, Complaint by the European Communities and their

member States, WT/DS79/R, adopted 22 September 1998, DSR 1998:VI, 2661.

[32] Panel Report, Indonesia – Certain Measures Affecting the Automobile Industry, WT/DS54/R, WT/DS55/R, WT/DS59/R, WT/DS64/R and Corr.1 and 2,

adopted 23 July 1998, and Corr. 3 and 4, DSR 1998:VI, 220.

[33] Panel Report, Korea – Measures Affecting Government Procurement, WT/DS163/R, adopted 19 June 2000, DSR 2000:VIII, 3541.

[34] Panel Report, Mexico – Anti-Dumping Investigation of High Fructose Corn

Syrup (HFCS) from the United States, WT/DS132/R, adopted 24 February 2000,

and Corr.1, DSR 2000:III, 1345.

[35] Panel Report, Mexico – Anti-Dumping Investigation of High Fructose Corn

Syrup (HFCS) from the United States – Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by the United States, WT/DS132/RW, adopted 21 November 2001, upheld by

Appellate Body Report WT/DS132/AB/RW, DSR 2001:XIII, 6717.

[36] Panel Report, Turkey – Restrictions on Imports of Textile and Clothing

Products, WT/DS34/R, adopted 19 November 1999, as modified by Appellate

Body Report WT/DS34/AB/R, DSR 1999:VI, 2363.

GATT Cases

[1] GATT Panel Report, United States - Taxes on Automobiles, DS/31/R, unadopted (Oct. 11, 1994).

[2] GATT Panel Report, EEC – Member States’ Import Regimes for Bananas, DS32/R, unadopted (June 3, 1993).

[3] GATT Panel Report, United States – Measures Affecting Imports of Softwood

Lumber from Canada, SCM/162, B.I.S.D. 40S/358 (Oct. 27, 1993).

[4] GATT Panel Report, United States – Restrictions on Imports of Tuna –

Complaint by the ECC and the Netherlands, DS29/R (June 19, 1994).

145

Other International Law Cases

[1] Judgement of Case Concerning the Gabcikovo–Nagymaros Project (Hungary v.

Slovakia), 1997 I.C.J. 7.

[2] Judgement of Case Concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v. Thailand), 1962 I.C.J. 6.

[3] Judgement of Nottebohn case, 1953 I.C.J. 111.

[4] Opinion of Judge Alfaro and Fitzmaurice in the Temple case, 1962 I.C.J. 39.

[5] Legal Status of Eastern Greenland (Den. v. Nor.), 1933 P.C.I.J. (ser. A/B) No. 53, at 22 (Apr. 15).

[6] Judgement of Nuclear Test (Austl. v. Fr.), 1974 I.C.J. 253 (Dec. 20).

[7] Judgement of Nuclear Test (N.Z. v. Fr.), 1974 I.C.J. 457 (Dec. 20).

英文專書

[1] A

UST

, A

NTHONY

, M

ODERN

T

REATY

L

AW AND

P

RACTICE

(2nd ed. 2007).

[2] Black’s Law Dictionary (6th ed., West Publishing Co., 1990).

[3] B

ROWNLIE

, I

, P

RINCIPLES OF

P

UBLIC

I

NTERNATIONAL

L

(7th ed. 2008).

[4] C

HENG

, Bin, G

ENERAL

P

RINCIPLE OF

L

AW AS

A

PPLIED BY

I

NTERNATIONAL

C

OURTS AND

T

RIBUNALS

(London: Stevens, 2006).

[5] GATT, A

NALYTICAL

I

NDEX

: G

UIDE TO

GATT L

AW AND

P

RACTICE

(1994).

[6] G

URUSWAMY

, L., & B. R. H

ENDRICKS

, I

NTERNATIONAL

E

NVIRONMENTAL

L

(1997).

[7] H

UDEC

, R

OBERT

E., T

GATT L

EGAL

S

YSTEM AND

W

ORLD

T

RADE

D

IPLOMACY

(2nd edn., Butterworth, 1990).

[8] J

ACKSON

, J

OHN

H., T

J

URISPRUDENCE OF

GATT

AND THE

WTO: I

NSIGHTS ON

T

REATY

L

AW AND

E

CONOMIC

R

ELATION

84 (2000).

[9] J

ACKSON

, J

OHN

J., T

W

ORLD

T

RADING

S

YSTEM

(2nd edn. MIT Press, 1997).

[10] L

AUTERPACHT

, H.,

THE

D

EVELOPMENT OF

I

NTERNATIONAL

L

AW BY THE

I

NTERNATIONAL

C

OURT

(2nd edn. New York: Praeger, 1958).

[11] L

, C

HANG

-

, WTO-P

LUS IN

F

REE

T

RADE

A

GREEMENT

(Angle 2010).

[12] L

ONG

, O

LIVIER

, L

AW AND ITS

L

IMITATIONS IN THE

GATT M

ULTILATERAL

T

RADE

S

YSTEM

146

(1985).

[13] L

OWENFELD

, A

NDREAS

, I

NTERNATIONAL

E

CONOMIC

L

(2002).

[14] M

C

ORMICK

, N

EIL

, L

EGAL

R

EASONING AND

L

EGAL

T

HEORY

(Oxford 1999).

[15] Malanczuk, Peter, Akehurst's Modern Introduction to International Law (7th edn Routledge, London & NY 1997).

[16] M

ATSUSHITA

, M

ITSUO

, 5 S

ELECTED

GATT/WTO P

ANEL

R

EPORTS

: S

UMMARIES AND

C

OMMENTARIES

ix (Fair Trade Center, Tokyo, 1999).

[17] M

ATSUSHITA

, M

ITSUO

, T

HOMAS J

. S

CHOENBAUM

& P

ETROS

C. M

AVROIDIS

, T

W

ORLD

T

RADE

O

RGANIZATION

: L

, P

RACTICE

,

AND

P

OLICY

(2nd ed., Oxford, 2006) [18] P

ALMETER

, D

AVID

, & P

ETROS

C. M

AVROIDIS

, D

ISPUTE

S

ETTLEMENT IN THE

W

ORLD

T

RADE

O

RGANIZATION

, P

RACTICE AND

P

ROCEDURE

(2nd edn. Cambridge 2004).

[19] P

AUWELYN

, J

OOST

, C

ONFLICT OF NORMS IN

P

UBLIC

I

NTERNATIONAL

L

: H

WTO R

ELATES TO

O

THER

R

ULES OF

I

NTERNATIONAL

L

(2006).

[20] P

ETERSMANN

, E

RNST

-U

LRICH

, I

NTERNATIONAL

T

RADE

L

AW AND THE

GATT-WTO D

ISPUTE

S

ETTLEMENT

S

YSTEM

53(1997).

[21] R

OSENNE

, S

HABTAI

, T

L

AW AND

P

RACTICE OF THE

I

NTERNATIONAL

C

OURT

1920-1996:

V

.3, P

ROCEDURE

(3rd edn. 1997).

[22] S

HAHABUDDEEN

, M

OHOMED

, P

RECEDENT IN THE

W

ORLD

C

OURT

(Grotius, Cambridge, 1996).

[23] S

HAW

, M

ALCOLM

N., I

NTERNATIONAL

L

(Grotius, Cambridge 1991).

[24] U.N. I

NTERNATIONAL

L

C

OMMISSION

, Y

EARBOOK OF THE

I

NTERNATIONAL

L

C

OMMISSION

(II) (1962).

[25] W

AINCYMER

, J

EFF

, WTO L

ITIGATION

: P

ROCEDURAL

A

SPECTS OF

F

ORMAL

D

ISPUTE

S

ETTLEMENT

(Cameron May 2002).

[26] W

OLFRUM

, R

ÜDIGER

, & N

ELE

M

ATZ

, C

ONFLICTS IN

I

NTERNATIONAL

E

NVIRONMENTAL

L

(Springer, Berlin Heidelberg 2003).

英文專書論文

[1] B

ARTELS

, L

ORAND

, & F

EDERICO

O

RTINO

, Introduction, in R

EGIONAL

T

RADE

A

GREEMENTS AND THE

WTO L

EGAL

S

YSTEM

1.

147

[2] B

HAGWATI

, J

AGDISH

, & A

RVIND

P

ANINGARIYA

, Preferential Tradeing Areas and

Multilateralism: Strangers, Friends or Foes?, in FREE

T

RADE

A

REAS OR

F

REE

T

RADE

? T

E

CONOMICS OF

P

REFERENTIAL

T

RADING

A

GREEMENT

1 (AEI Press, 1996).

[3] Cottier, Thomas, & Krista N. Schefer, Non-Violation Complaints in the WTO/GATT

Dispute Settlement: Past, Present and Future, in INTERNATIONAL

T

READE

L

AW AND THE

GATT-TWTO D

ISPUTE

S

ETTLEMENT

S

YSTEM

145 (Petersmann ed. 1997)

[4] Cottier, Thomas, & Marina Foltea, Constitutional Functions of the WTO and Regional

Trade Agreement, in REGIONAL

T

RADE

A

GREEMENT AND THE

WTO L

EGAL

S

YSTEM

43 (Lorand Bartels & Federico Ortino eds., Oxford, 2006).

[5] Damro, Chad, The Political Economy of Regional Trade Agreements, in R

EGIONAL

T

RADE

A

GREEMENTS AND THE

WTO L

EGAL

S

YSTEM

23 (Lorand Bartels & Federico Ortino eds., 2006).

[6] Davey, William, The World Trade Organization: A Brief Introduction, in I

NTERNATIONAL

T

RADE

L

, 83, 83. (Andrew T. Guzman & Joost H.B. Pauwelyn eds., Wolters Kluwer, 2009).

[7] Do, Viet D., & William Watson, Economic Analysis of Regional Trade Agreement, in R

EGIONAL

T

RADE

A

GREEMENTS AND THE

WTO L

EGAL

S

YSTEM

7 (Lorand Bartels &

Federico Ortino eds., 2006)

[8] Estrella, Angela T. Gobbi, & Gary N. Horlick, Mandatory Abolition of Anti-Dumping,

Countervailing Duties and Safeguards in Custom Union and Free Trade Areas

Constituted between WTO Members: Revisiting a Long-Standing Discussion in Light of the Appellate Body’s Turkey – Textiles Ruling, in REGIONAL

T

RADE

A

GREEMENTS AND THE

WTO L

EGAL

S

YSTEM

109 (Lorand Bartels & Federico Ortino eds., 2006).

[9] I

NTERNATIONAL

T

RADE

L

, C

HAPTER

4 T

WTO: H

ISTORY AND

S

TRUCTURE

79 (Andrew T. Guzman & Joost H.B. Pauwelyn eds., Wolters Kluwer, 2009).

[10] Jackson, John H., Designing and Implementing Effective Dispute Settlement Procedures:

WTO Dispute Settlement, Appraisal and Prospects, in THE

WTO

AS AN

I

NTERNATIONAL

O

RGANIZATION

161, 163 ( Anne O. Krueger ed., 1998).

[11] Kwak, Kyung & Gabrielle Marceau, Overlaps and Conflicts of Jurisdiction between the

World Trade Organization and Regional Trade Agreement, in Regional Trade

148

Agreements and the WTO Legal System 465 (Lorand Bartels & Federico Ortino eds.

2006).

[12] Lawrence, R., Emerging Regional Arrangement: Building Blocks or Stumbling Blocks?,

in FINANCE AND THE

I

NTERNATIONAL

E

CONOMY

:5, T

AMEX B

ANK

R

EVIEW

P

RIZE

E

SSAYS

22 (R. O’Brien ed. 1991).

[13] Lockhart, Nicolas JS, & Andrew D. Mitchell, Regional Trade Agreement Under GATT

1994: An Exception and Its Limits, in CHALLEGES AND

P

ROSPECTS FOR THE

WTO 217 (Andrew D. Mitchell ed., Cameron May: London, 2005).

[14] Pescatore, Pierre, Drafting and Analysing Decisions on Dispute Settlement, in H

ANDBOOK OF

WTO/GATT D

ISPUTE

S

ETTLEMENT

32 (Pescatore et al. eds. 1998).

[15] Sieber, Ulrich, Legal Orderin a Global World, in M

P

LANCK

Y

EARBOOK OF

U

NITED

N

ATION

L

1 (A. von Bogdandy & R. Wolfrum eds. 2010).

[16] Watts, Arthur, The International Court and the Continuing Customary International Law

of Treaties, in LIBER

A

MICORUM

J

UDGE

S

HIGERU

O

V

. I 251–66 (Nisuke

Ando,Edward McWhinney & Rüdiger Wolfrum eds., Cambridge 2002).

英文期刊

[1] Alter, Karen J., Resolving or exacerbating disputes? The WTO’s new dispute resolution

system, 79 (4) INT

’

A

. 783 (2003).

[2] Bhala, Raj, & David A. Gantz, WTO Case Review 2006, 24 A

RIZ

. J. I

’

& C

OMP

. L.

299. [3] Bhala, Raj, The Myth of Stare Decisis and International Trae Law, 14 A

.U. I

’

L. R

. 845 (1999).

[4] Bowett, T.W., Estoppel Before International Trivunals and its Relation to Acquiescence, 28 B

RITISH

Y

EAR

B

OOK OF

I

NTERNATIONAL

L

156. [5] Brevetti, Rossella, & John Nagel, Corn Products International Files NAFTA Arbitration

Case on HFCS Tax, 20 INT

’

T

RADE

R

. 1759 (Oct. 23, 2003).

[6] Gross, Adam, Can Sub-Saharan African Countries Defend their Trade and Development

Interests Effectively in the WTO? The Case of Cotton, 18 (3) EUR

. J. D

. R

. 368

(2006).

149

[7] Hauser, Heinz, & Thomas A. Zimmermann, The Challege of Reforming the WTO

Dispute Settlement Understanding, 38(5)

I

NTERECONOMICS

– R

. E

URO

. E

CON

. P

’

241 (2003).

[8] Hafez, Zakir, Weak Discipline: GATT Article XXIV and the Emerging WTO

Jurisprudence on RTAs, 79 North Dakota Law Review 879 (2003).

[9] Henry, Hon. Robert L., Jurisprudence Constante and Stare Decisis Contrasted, 15 A.B.A.

11 (1929)

[10] Jackson, John J., World Trade Rules and Environmental Policies: Congruence or

Conflict?, 49 WASH

. & L

L. R

. 1227 (1992).

[11] Jenks, C.W., the conflict of Law Making Treaties, 30 B

RIT

. Y.B. I

’

L. 401 (1953).

[12] Kennedy, Kevin C., Parallel Proceeding at the WTO and Under NAFTA Chapter 19:

Whither the Doctrine of Exhaustion of Local Remedies in DSU Reform, 39 GEO

. W

ASH

. I

’

L. R

. 47 (2007).

[13] Kuijper, Pieter Jan, The Law of GATT as a Special Field of International Law: Ignorance,

Further Refinement of Self-Contained Regime of International Law, 25 NETH

. Y.B. I

’

L. 227 (1994).

[14] Lanoszka, Anna, The Promises of Multilateralism and the Hazards of ‘Single

Undertaking’: The Breakdown of Decision Making within the WTO, 16 MICH

. S

. J.

I

’

L. 655 (2008).

[15] Leal-Arcas, Rafael, Choice of Jurisdiction in International Trade Disputes: Going

Regional or Global?, 16 MINN

. J. I

’

L. 1 (2007).

[16] Lovell, Martin, Regional Trade Agreements and the WTO: An analysis of the efficacy of

the ACFTA forum selection clause in resolving jurisdictional conflict, available at

http://ssrn.com/abstract=1114770.

[17] Lowe, Vaughan, Res Judicata and the Rule of Law in International Arbitration, 8 A

. J.

I

’

L 38 (1996).

[18] Lowe,Vaughan, Overlapping Jurisdiction in International Tribunals, 20 A

USTL

. Y.B.

I

’

L. 191 (1999).

[19] Marceau, Gabrielle, A Call for Coherence in International Law: Praise for the

Prohibition Against “Clinical Isolation” in WTO Dispute Settlement, 33(5) J. World

150

Trade 87 (1999).

[20] Gabrielle Marceau, Conflicts of Norms and Conflicts of Jurisdiction: The relationship

between the WTO Agreement and MEAs and other Treaties, 35(6)

J. W

ORLD

T

RADE

1081 (2001).

[21] Mus, Jan B., Conflicts between Treaties in International Law, 45 N

ETH

. I

’

L. R

. 208 (1998).

[22] Pauwelyn, Joost, & Luiz Eduardo Salles, Forum Shopping Before International

Tribunals: (Real) Concerns, (Im)Possible Solutions, 42 CORNELL

I

’

L.J. 77 (2009).

[23] Pauwelyn, Joost, Editorial Comment, Adding Sweeteners To Softwood Lumber: The

WTO-NAFTA ‘Spaghetti Bowl’ Is Cooking, 9 J.

I

’

E

CON

. L. 197 (2006).

[24] Pescatore, Pierre, The GATT Despute Settlement Mechanism: Its Present Situation and

its Prospects, 27 J.

I

’

A

RBITRATION

5 (1993).

[25] Ragosta, John, Navin Joneja & Mikhail Zeldovich, WTO Dispute Settlement: the System

is Flawed and Must be fixed, 37 INT

’

L. 697 (2003).

[26] Romano, Cesare R.R., The Shift From the Consensual to the Compulsory Paradign in

International Adjudication: Elements for a Theory of Concent, 39 N.Y.U.

J. I

’

&

P

’

791 (2007).

[27] Schoenbaum, T. J., WTO Dispute Settlement: Praise and Suggestions for Reform, 47 I

’

& C

OMP

. L. Q. 647 (1998).

[28] Trachtman, Joel P., The Domain of WTO Dispute Resolution, 40 H

ARV

. I

’

L.J. 333 (1999).

[29] Vacek-Aranda, Alice, Sugar Wars: Dispute Settlement Under NAFTA and the WTO As

Seen Through The Lens of the HFCS Case, and Its Effects on U.S.–Mexican Relations,

12 T

. H

ISP

. J.L. & P

’

121 (2006).

[30] Zahrnt, V., How Regionalization can be a Pillar of a More Effective World Trade

Organization, 39 JWT 671 (2005).

其他資料

[1] Chen, Chun-ming, On a Coherence Approach towards Jurisdictional Conflicts between

the WTO and RTAs, Master Thesis of Graduate Institute of Law, College of Law,

151

National Taiwan University (2009).

[2] Davey, William, Regional Trade Agreements and the WTO: General Observations and

NAFTA Lessons for Asia (Illinois Public Law and Legal Theory Research Papers Series,

Research Paper No. 05-18, Nov. 30, 2005).

[3] Fabbricotti, Alberta, The Interplay Between the WTO and the RTAs: Is It A Question of

Interrelation Between Different Sources of International Law?, Society of International

Economic Law Inaugural Conference, Geneva, July 15-17, 2008, SIEL Online

Proceedings Working Paper No. 12/08, available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1151386.

[4] Fukunaga, Yuka, Securing Compliance Through the WTO Dispute Settlement System:

Implementaiton of DSB Recommendations, 9 J.

I

’

E

CON

. L. 383 (2006).

[5] G

ROTIUS

, H

UGO

, L

D

ROIT DE LA

G

UERRE ET DE LA

P

AIX

413 (D. Alland and S.

Goyard-Fabre, eds., Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1999).

[6] International Law Commission, Study Group, Fragmentation of International Law:

Difficulties Arising from the Diversification and Expansion of International Law, U.N.

Doc. A/CN/4/L.92 (Apr. 13, 2006) (finalized by Martti Koskenniemi).

[7] International Law Commission, Draft Articles on the Law of Treaties with Commentaries, 2 Y.B. I

'

L. C

OMM

’

187, U.N. Doc. A/CN.4/191 (1966).

[8] Lovell, Martin, Regional Trade Agreements and the WTO – An analysis of the efficacy of

the ACFTA forum selection clause in resolving jurisdiction al conflict, Working Paper

Series, available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1114770 (last visited June 3, 2012).

[9] Picker, Colin B., Regional Trade Agreement v. The WTO: A Proposal for reform of

Article XXIV to Counter this Institutional Threat, available at

http://www.law.upenn.edu/journals/jil/articles/volume26/issue2/Picker26U.Pa.J.Int’l Econ.L.267(2005).pdf.

[10] P

UFENDORF

, S

AMUEL VON

, D

ROIT DE LA

N

ATION ET DES

G

ENS

, Book V, Chapters XII–XXIII (quoted in

V

ATTEL

, D

ROIT DES

G

ENS

, 511).

[11] Sutherland, Peter, et al., The Report on the Future of the WTO – Addressing Institutional

Challenges in the New Millennium, available at

http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/10anniv_e/future_wto_e.pdf.

[12] V

ATTEL

, E

MER DE

, L

D

ROIT DES

G

ENS OU

P

RINCIPES DE LA

L

N

ATURELLE

(Lyons:

152

Gauthier, 1802).

中文專書

[1] 丘宏達（2006），現代國際法，二版，臺北：三民。

[2] 黃異（2006），國際法在國內法領域中的效力，臺北：元照。

[3] 黃異（2010），國際法，臺北：新學林。

[4] 吳嘉生（2004），國際貿易法析論—WTO 時代之挑戰，臺北：翰蘆。

[5] 陳櫻琴、邱政宗（2009），WTO 與貿易法，二版，臺北：五南。

[6] 羅昌發（2010），國際貿易法，二版，臺北：元照。

[7] 俞寬賜（2006），國際法新論，臺北：啟英。

中文專書論文

[1] 施文真（2008），由『片面宣言之效力』與『禁反言原則』於 WTO 爭端案件中之適用論我國片面遵守國際環境公約之政策，綠化 WTO？－貿易、環境與台灣（國際經貿法與國際環境法系列叢書（一）），臺北：元照。

[2] 洪德欽（2003），WTO 之發展趨勢與挑戰，WTO 法律與政策專題研究，頁 432，

臺北：新學林。

[3] 郭懿美（1997），認識 GATT 之爭端解決機制，國際貿易法律專題研究（一），臺北：群彥。

中文期刊

[1] 林彩瑜（2011），「論 WTO 與區域貿易協定爭端解決機制之衝突與調和」，

台大法學論叢，第 40 卷第一期，頁 393–451。

[2] 曾更瑩（1996）， WTO 爭端解決程序對美國實施三 0 一條款之限制，萬

國法律，第 85 期，頁 35–47。

153

碩博士論文

[1] 田永弘（2011 年），兩岸簽署經濟合作架構協議（ECFA）之研究，淡江大學中國大陸研究所碩士班（文化教育組）碩士論文。

[2] 李孟鎔（2004），兩岸經貿互動過程中 WTO 爭端解決機制之研究，國立東華大學公共行政研究所碩士論文。

[3] 黃意文（2005），WTO 區域貿易協定自由化範圍之研究，中國文化大學經濟學研究所博士論文。

[4] 林淑娟（2007），WTO 架構下兩岸簽署自由貿易協定問題之法制探討，國立高雄大學法律學系研究所碩士論文。

[5] 施延林（2008），WTO 架構下的兩岸經貿之政治經濟分析，國立花蓮教育大學社會發展研究所碩士論文。

[6] 洪守億（2011 年），區域貿易協定與兩岸經濟合作架構協議爭端解決機制之探討，世新大學法學院碩士論文。

[7] 胡紹琳（2001），以歐體香蕉爭端案為例探討 WTO 之爭端解決機制，私立東吳大學法律研究所專業碩士班論文。

[8] 張佑安（2004），世界貿易組織爭端解決架構下救濟方式之研究，國立臺灣大學法律學研究所碩士論文。

[9] 陳小坪（2009），WTO 架構下兩岸經貿互動之研究，國立臺灣師範大學政治學研究所碩士學位論文。

[10] 陳昭仁（2008），GATT／WTO 架構下之區域貿易協定－以 GATT 第二十四條為中心，國立中正大學法學院財經法律學研究所碩士論文。

[11] 陳淑慧（2004），WTO 爭端解決機制及其程序爭點之研究，東海大學法律研究所碩士論文。

[12] 陳筱筠（2004），臺灣在 WTO 爭端解決機制下處理兩岸經貿爭端研究，國立政治

154

大學外交研究所碩士論文。

[13]

楊健弘（2010），論習慣國際法於世界貿易組織爭端解決案件之地位，國立東華

大學財經法律研究所碩士論文。

155

附件

附件一 RTA 爭端解決機制分析表

附件二目前生效施行 RTA 統計表

156

附件一 RTA 爭端解決機制分析表

說明：

1. 本附件一為對 RTA 下爭端解決條款之分析。首先，依 RTA 下是否設爭端解決機制作分類；第二步，依 RTA 爭端解決機制管轄客體範圍分類為處理 RTA 爭端者以及處理 RTA 和 WTO 爭端者；第三步，則是依 RTA 下場域選擇條款有無及其類型區分為無場域選擇條款者，有場域選擇條款者再區分為一般型專屬管轄、別訴權利排除型專屬管轄。

2. RTA 依其性質分類，註釋中則為各 RTA 之爭端解決條款。以粗體標示者為條號以

及用以區辨爭端解決條款之部分條文，粗體加斜體標示者為區辨場域選擇條款之

部分條文。

157

2. Southern African Customs Union (SACU) Agreement²

1 Article 53 (Settlement of Disputes between Parties)

2. If a dispute cannot be settled through consultations within six months, it shall, upon the request of either Party, be submitted to an ad hoc arbitral tribunal.

6. The arbitral tribunal shall reach its award by a majority of votes. Such award shall be final and binding upon both Parties. The arbitral tribunal shall, upon the request of either Party, explain the reasons of its award.

2 Article 13 (Tribunal)

1. Any dispute regarding the interpretation or application of this Agreement, or any dispute arising thereunder at the request of the Council, shall be settled by an ad hoc Tribunal.

3. The Tribunal shall decide by majority vote and its decision shall be final and binding.

3 Article 33 (Arbitration)

1. Disputes between the Parties relating to the interpretation of rights and obligations under this Agreement, which have not been settled through direct consultations or in the Joint Committee within 60 days from the date of the receipt of the request for consultations, may be referred to arbitration by the complaining Party by means of a written notification addressed to the Party complained against. A copy of this notification shall be communicated to all other Parties so that each of those Parties may determine whether to participate in the dispute.

7. The arbitration panel shall examine the matter referred to it in the request for the establishment of an arbitration panel in light of the provisions of this Agreement applied and interpreted in accordance with the rules of interpretation of public international law. The award of the arbitration panel shall be final and binding upon the parties to the dispute.

4 Article 25 bis 1 (Arbitration procedure)

1. Disputes between Parties to this Agreement relating to the interpretation of rights and obligations of the Parties to this Agreement, which have not been settled through consultation or in the Joint Committee within six months, may be referred to arbitration by any party to the dispute by means of a written notification addressed to the other party to the dispute. A copy of this notification shall be communicated to all Parties to this Agreement.

4. The award of the arbitral tribunal shall be final and binding upon the parties to the dispute.

5 Article 41 (Arbitration)

(1) Disputes between the Parties, relating to the interpretation of rights and obligations under this

158

6. EFTA – Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia⁶

Agreement, which have not been settled through direct onsultations or in the Joint Committee within 90 days from the date of the receipt of the request for consultations, may be referred to arbitration by any Party to the dispute by means of a written notification addressed to the other Party to the dispute. A copy of this notification shall be communicated to Egypt or the EFTA Secretariat, as the case may be. Where more than one Party requests the submission to an arbitral tribunal of a dispute with the same Party relating to the same question a single arbitral tribunal should be established to consider such disputes whenever feasible.

(2) The constitution and functioning of the arbitral tribunal shall be governed by Annex VI. The award of the arbitral tribunal shall be final and binding upon the Parties to the dispute.

6 Article 31 (Dispute Settlement Procedure)

1. The Parties shall at all times endeavour to agree on the interpretation and application of this Agreement, and shall make every attempt through co-operation and consultations to arrive at a mutually satisfactory resolution of any matter that might affect its operation.

7. The award of the arbitral tribunal shall be final and binding upon the Parties to the dispute.

7 Article 31 (Dispute Settlement Procedure)

1. The Parties shall at all times endeavour to agree on the interpretation and application of this Agreement, and shall make every attempt through co-operation and consultations to arrive at a mutually satisfactory resolution of any matter that might affect its operation.

7. The award of the arbitral tribunal shall be final and binding upon the Parties to the dispute.

8 Article 24 (arbitration Procedure)

1. Disputes between States Parties to this Agreement, relating to the interpretation of rights and obligations of the States Parties to this Agreement, which have not been settled through consultation or in the Joint Committee within six months, may be referred to arbitration by any State party to the dispute by means of a written notification addressed to the other State party to the dispute. A copy of this notification shall be communicated to all States Parties to this Agreement.

4. The award of the arbitral tribunal shall be final and binding upon the States parties to the dispute.

9 Article 29 (Arbitration Procedure)

1. Disputes between Parties to this Agreement, relating to the interpretation of rights and obligations of the Parties to this Agreement,....

4. The award of the arbitral tribunal shall be final and binding upon the parties to the dispute.

10 Article 34 (Arbitration)

159

Party by means of a written notification addressed to the Party complained against. A copy of this notification shall be communicated to all other Parties so that each of those Parties may determine whether to participate in the dispute.

5. The arbitration panel shall examine the matter referred to it in the request for the establishment of an arbitration panel in light of the provisions of this Agreement applied and interpreted in accordance with the rules of interpretation of public international law. The award of the arbitration panel shall be final and binding upon the parties to the dispute.

11 Article 38 (Arbitration)

1. Disputes between the Parties, relating to the interpretation of rights and obligations under this Agreement, which have not been settled through direct consultations or in the Joint Committee within 90 days from the date of the receipt of the request for consultations, may be referred to arbitration by any Party to the dispute by means of a written notification addressed to the other Party to the dispute.

2. The constitution and functioning of the arbitral tribunal shall be governed by Annex VI. The award of the arbitral tribunal shall be final and binding upon the Parties to the dispute.

12 Article 5 (Choice of Forum)

(1) Where a dispute concerning any matter arises under this Agreement and under another international agreement to which the Parties to the dispute are party, the Complaining Party may select the forum in which to address that matter and that forum shall be used to the exclusion of other possible fora in respect of that matter.

(2) For the purposes of this Article, the Complaining Party shall be deemed to have selected the forum in which to settle the dispute when it has requested the establishment of an arbitral tribunal pursuant to Article 8 (Request for Establishment of Arbitral Tribunals) or requested the establishment of, or referred a matter to, a similar dispute settlement panel under another international agreement

13 Article 2 (Scope and Coverage)

(1) This Agreement shall apply to disputes arising under the Framework Agreement which shall also include the Annexes and the contents therein. Hereinafter, any reference to the Framework Agreement shall include all future legal instruments agreed pursuant to it unless where the context otherwise provides.

(2) Once dispute settlement proceedings have been initiated under this Agreement or under any other treaty to which the parties to a dispute are parties concerning a particular right or obligation of such parties arising under the Framework Agreement or that other treaty, the forum selected by the complaining party shall be used to the exclusion of any other for such dispute.

Article 6 Appointment of Arbitral Tribunals

1. If the consultations referred to in Article 4 fail to settle a dispute within 60 days after the date of receipt of the request for consultations or within 20 days after such date in cases of urgency including those which concern perishable goods, the complaining party may make a written request to the party complained against to appoint an arbitral tribunal under this Article. A copy of this request shall also be communicated to the rest

160

(1)This Agreement shall apply with respect to the avoidance or settlement of all disputes arising between the Parties under the covered agreements. Unless otherwise provided in this Agreement or any other covered agreement, this Agreement shall apply to all disputes between the Parties.

(5) Once dispute settlement proceedings have been initiated under this Agreement or under any other treaty to which the parties to a dispute are parties concerning a particular right or obligation of such Parties arising under the covered agreements and that other treaty, the forum selected by the Complaining Party shall be used to the exclusion of any other for such dispute.

Article 6 (Establishment of Arbitral Panels)

1. If the consultations under Article 4 fail to settle a dispute within 60 days after the date of receipt of the request for consultations or within 20 days after such date in cases of urgency, including those which concern perishable goods, the Complaining Party may make a written request to the Party Complained Against to establish an arbitral panel. A copy of this request shall also be communicated to the rest of the Parties.

15 Article 60 (Scope of Application)

(1) Unless otherwise provided for in this Agreement, this Chapter shall apply with respect to the settlement of all disputes between the Parties concerning the interpretation or application of this Agreement.

(4) Notwithstanding paragraph 3, once dispute settlement proceedings have been initiated under this Chapter or under any other international agreement to which all of the parties to a dispute are parties with respect to a particular dispute, the forum selected by the complaining party shall be used to the exclusion of any other fora for that particular dispute. However, this shall not apply if substantially separate and distinct rights or obligations under different international agreements are in dispute. Once dispute settlement proceedings have been initiated under this Agreement or under any other treaty to which the parties to a dispute are parties concerning a particular right or obligation of such Parties arising under the covered agreements or that other

在文檔中世界貿易組織與區域貿易協定之競合與衝突研究 —以爭端解決機制為中心 (頁 150-200)

第一項 WTO 和 RTA 爭端解決機制競合與衝突處理之醒思與困境

在前章中，我們探討了包括條約必須遵守原則、誠信原則、條約生效前的遵約義 務、締約國後續實踐、特別法優於普通法、後法優於前法、既判力原則、禁反言原則，

第二項 WTO 爭端解決機制對 WTO 與 RTA 規範互動之立場與問題

本論文所提各國際法原理原則，在個案中能否使 WTO 將 RTA 爭端解決條款納入

考量，固端視各法律原則的要件在個案中是否能被滿足；然而，在解決 WTO 和 RTA

第一款 DSU 無解決管轄衝突條文，也未訂有衝突法條款

DSU為WTO爭端解決機制處理WTO會員國間規範解釋適用應遵循之規範，然而，

其中聯合國海洋法公約第 311 條第三項之規範方式，即為可參考的範例之一。

面對 DSU 第 7、第 11、第 23 條等已明確表示 WTO 爭端解決機構對會員國爭端 有管轄權，且 WTO 無衝突法選法規則的狀態下，即形成了在 DSU 表示 WTO 爭端解

決機制對案件有管轄權，但 RTA 場域選擇條款表示 WTO 爭端解決機制無管轄權時，

第二款 DSU 下明訂對非 WTO 規則之適用規範

既目前學理討論多傾向將WTO解釋為非封閉式法體系，WTO爭端解決機制在對 爭端的審議上，自也應擴大對非WTO規範的適用

以在WTO和RTA等其他國際法規範予WTO產生衝突狀況下，進一步解決WTO規則和

非WTO規則衝突時選擇適用之疑義，並促成相異國際法次系統的和諧適用。

第三項 總結

然而，既然目前許多 WTO 會員間簽署的 RTA，已選擇設置爭端解決機制以解決紛爭，

此時 RTA 和 WTO 爭端解決機制間所可能產生的管轄衝突與競合問題，即需加以處理；

以適用；惟締約國在簽訂各爭端解決或場域選擇條款時，自也應慮及此些 RTA 條款對

原先以有效運作之 WTO 爭端解決機制可能造成的衝擊與影響，特別是 WTO 爭端解

決機制對會員間爭端之強制管轄權，及其規範本位和以司法體制審議特性，為 WTO

此多邊貿易協定帶來穩定之適用和健全有效的發展而被譽為「王冠上的珠寶」時，RTA

爭端解決機制的建立其下各類型場域選擇條款是否可能動搖 WTO 爭端解決機制維繫

多邊貿易協定運作之根基，也是各締約國訂定相關 RTA 條款或解決爭端解決機制管轄

衝突時我們所應思考的問題。

參考文獻

WTO Cases

[1] Appellate Body Report, Argentina – Measures Affecting Imports of Footwear,

April 1998, DSR 1998:III, 1003.

[2] Appellate Body Report, Argentina – Safeguard Measures on Imports of

[3] Appellate Body Report, Australia – Measures Affecting Importation of Salmon, WT/DS18/AB/R, adopted 6 November 1998, DSR 1998:VIII, 3327.

[4] Appellate Body Report, Canada – Certain Measures Concerning Periodicals, WT/DS31/AB/R, adopted 30 July 1997, DSR 1997:I, 449.

[5] Appellate Body Report, EC Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products

DSR 1998:I, 135.

[6] Panel Report, EC Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones),

as modified by Appellate Body Report WT/DS26/AB/R, WT/DS48/AB/R, DSR 1998:III, 699

[7] Appellate Body Report, European Communities – Measures Affecting the

1998, DSR 1998:V, 2031.

[8] Appellate Body Report, European Communities – Regime for the Importation,

1997, DSR 1997:II, 591.

[9] Appellate Body Report, Japan – Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages, WT/DS8/AB/R, WT/DS10/AB/R, WT/DS11/AB/R, adopted 1 November 1996, DSR 1996:I, 97.

[10] Panel Report, Japan – Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages, WT/DS8/R, WT/DS10/R,

WT/DS11/R, adopted 1 November 1996, as modified by Appellate Body Report WT/DS8/AB/R, WT/DS10/AB/R, WT/DS11/AB/R, DSR 1996:I, 125.

[11] Appellate Body Report, Mexico – Anti-Dumping Investigation of High Fructose

DSR 2001:XIII, 6675.

[12] Appellate Body Report, Mexico – Tax Measures on Soft Drinks and Other

[13] Panel Report, Mexico – Tax Measures on Soft Drinks and Other Beverages, WT/DS308/R, adopted 24 March 2006, as modified by Appellate Body Report WT/DS308/AB/R, DSR 2006:I, 43.

[14] Appellate Body Report, India – Patent Protection for Pharmaceutical and

DSR 1998:I, 9.

[15] Appellate Body Report, United States – Anti-Dumping Act of 1916, WT/DS136/AB/R, WT/DS162/AB/R, adopted 26 September 2000, DSR 2000:X, 4793.

[16] Appellate Body Report, United States – Continued Dumping and Subsidy

2003, DSR 2003:I, 375.

[17] Appellate Body Report, United States – Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp

1998:VII, 2755.

[18] Appellate Body Report, United States – Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp

WT/DS58/AB/RW, adopted 21 November 2001, DSR 2001:XIII, 6481.

[19] Appellate Body Report, United States – Final Anti-Dumping Measures on

2008:II, 513.

[20] Appellate Body Report, United States – Imposition of Countervailing Duties on

2595.

[21] Appellate Body Report, United States – Standards for Reformulated and

[22] Appellate Body Report, United States – Tax Treatment for “Foreign Sales

1619.

[23] Appellate Body Report, United States – Tax Treatment for “Foreign Sales

[24] Appellate Body Report, United States – Restrictions on Imports of Cotton and

DSR 1997:I, 11.

[25] Panel Report, Argentina – Definitive Anti-Dumping Duties on Poultry from

[26] Panel Report, Canada – Patent Protection of Pharmaceutical Products, WT/DS114/R, adopted 7 April 2000, DSR 2000:V, 2289.

[27] Panel Report, EC Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones),

modified by Appellate Body Report WT/DS26/AB/R, WT/DS48/AB/R, DSR 1998:II, 235.

[28] Panel Report, EC Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Product (Hormones),

as modified by Appellate Body Report WT/DS26/AB/R, WT/DS48/AB/R, DSR 1998:III, 699.

[29] Panel Report, European Communities – Trade Description of Sardines, WT/DS231/R and Corr.1, adopted 23 October 2002, as modified by Appellate Body Report WT/DS231/AB/R, DSR 2002:VIII, 3451.

[30] Panel Report, Guatemala – Definitive Anti-Dumping Measures on Grey

DSR 2000:XI, 5295.

[31] Panel Report, India – Patent Protection for Pharmaceutical and Agricultural

[32] Panel Report, Indonesia – Certain Measures Affecting the Automobile Industry, WT/DS54/R, WT/DS55/R, WT/DS59/R, WT/DS64/R and Corr.1 and 2,

adopted 23 July 1998, and Corr. 3 and 4, DSR 1998:VI, 220.

[33] Panel Report, Korea – Measures Affecting Government Procurement, WT/DS163/R, adopted 19 June 2000, DSR 2000:VIII, 3541.

[34] Panel Report, Mexico – Anti-Dumping Investigation of High Fructose Corn

在前章中，我們探討了包括條約必須遵守原則、誠信原則、條約生效前的遵約義務、締約國後續實踐、特別法優於普通法、後法優於前法、既判力原則、禁反言原則，

面對 DSU 第 7、第 11、第 23 條等已明確表示 WTO 爭端解決機構對會員國爭端有管轄權，且 WTO 無衝突法選法規則的狀態下，即形成了在 DSU 表示 WTO 爭端解

既目前學理討論多傾向將WTO解釋為非封閉式法體系，WTO爭端解決機制在對爭端的審議上，自也應擴大對非WTO規範的適用

第三項總結