第二節 GATS 下之一般規範：國內規章、限制競爭行為
第一項 國內規章：GAST 第 6 條
按GATS 第 6 條79國內規章之規定如下：
77 同註 22，頁 43。
78 AB, Canada-Autos,[84]
79 GATS, Art.6:
1. In sectors where specific commitments are undertaken, each Member shall ensure that all measures of general application affecting trade in services are administered in a reasonable, objective
and impartial manner.
2. (a) Each Member shall maintain or institute as soon as practicable judicial, arbitral or administrative tribunals or procedures which provide, at the request of an affected service supplier, for the prompt review of, and where justified, appropriate remedies for, administrative decisions affecting trade in services. Where such procedures
1.對已提出特定承諾之行業，各會員應確保其影響服務貿易之所有一般性適用 所有措施是以合理、客觀且公平之方式實施。
2.(a)會員應維持或儘速制定司法、仲裁或行政裁判或程序，俾在受影響之服務 提供者要求時，對影響服務貿易之行政處分即時提供審查及適當之救濟。對該等程 序未能獨立於作成有關行政處分之機關者，會員應確保該等程序確實提供客觀且公 正之審查。
(b)第(a)款之規定不得解釋為要求會員制定與其憲政結構或法律制度不一致之 裁判或程序。
are not independent of the agency entrusted with the administrative decision concerned, the Member shall ensure that the procedures in fact provide for an objective and impartial review.
(b) The provisions of subparagraph (a) shall not be construed to require a Member to institute such tribunals or procedures where this would be inconsistent with its constitutional structure or the nature of its legal system.
3. Where authorization is required for the supply of a service on which a specific commitment has been made, the competent authorities of a Member shall, within a reasonable period of time after the submission of an application considered complete under domestic laws and regulations, inform the applicant of the decision concerning the application. At the request of the applicant, the competentauthorities of the Member shall provide, without undue delay, information concerning the status of the application.
4. With a view to ensuring that measures relating to qualification requirements and procedures, technical standards and licensing requirements do not constitute unnecessary barriers to trade in services, the Council for Trade in Services shall, through appropriate bodies it may establish, develop any necessary disciplines. Such disciplines shall aim to ensure that such requirements are, inter alia:
(a) based on objective and transparent criteria, such as competence and the ability to supply the service;
(b) not more burdensome than necessary to ensure the quality of the service;
(c) in the case of licensing procedures, not in themselves a restriction on the supply of the service.
5. (a) In sectors in which a Member has undertaken specific commitments, pending the entry into force of disciplines developed in these sectors pursuant to paragraph 4, the Member shall not apply licensing and qualification requirements and technical standards that nullify or impair such specific commitments in a manner which:
(i) does not comply with the criteria outlined in subparagraphs 4(a), (b) or (c); and
(ii) could not reasonably have been expected of that Member at the time the specific commitments in those sectors were made.
(b) In determining whether a Member is in conformity with the obligation under paragraph 5(a), account shall be taken of international standards of relevant international organizations applied by that Member.
6. In sectors where specific commitments regarding professional services are undertaken, each Member shall provide for adequate procedures to verify the competence of professionals of any other Member.
3.特定承諾中之服務應先申請許可始得提供者，會員之該管機關，應於依據其 國內法令規定，申請案完備後之合理期限內，通知申請人有關該申請案之結果。申 請人有所請求者，會員該管機關應提供申請人有關該申請案情況之資訊，不得有任 何不當之延誤。
4.為確保有關資格要件、程序、技術標準及核照條件等措施，不致成為服務貿 易不必要之障礙，服務貿易理事會應經由其設立之適當機構制訂必要規範。該規範 尤其應確保上述措施係：
(a)基於客觀及透明之標準，例如提供服務之資格及能力；
(b)不得比確保服務品質所必要之要求更苛刻；
(c)就核照程序本身而言，不得成為服務供給之限制。
5.(a)在會員已提出特定承諾之行業部門，於依照第 4 項所制訂之規範未生效 前，該會員之核照、資格條件及技術標準之適用，不得以下列方式使該特定承諾失 效或減損：
(i)不符合第 4 項第(a)款、第(b)款或第(c)款規定之標準；且 (ii)於該會員為該等行業提出特定承諾時，所無法合理預期者。
(b)評估會員是否履行第 5 項第(a)款義務者，應考量該會員所適用相關國際組織
80之國際標準。
6.與專業性服務有關之行業已被提出特定承諾時，會員應提供適當程序，以驗 證其他會員專業人員之能力。
以上洋洋灑灑列出的國內規章，目的在於把會員國國內規制措施對貿易的限制降到 最低。例如。GATS第6條第1款、第2款、第3款和第6款規定，是規定會員國在已經做出 承諾的部門，應以合理、客觀和公正的方式管理對服務貿易產生影響的所有普遍適用的 措施，要求建立審查影響服務貿易的行政處分的機制。並且，要求維持或建立司法、仲 裁或行政法庭或程序，並提供客觀、公正的審查。另外，GATS 第6條第5款的規定，雖 然只有臨時適用的性質，但它對成員方採取的許可、資格和技術標準等措施提出了要求
81。
GATS 第六條適用於已承諾部門中不屬於市場進入和國民待遇紀律約束的限制措 施，也適用於許可和資格要求及程式、技術標準，甚至還適用於在沒有作出具體承諾的
80 「相關國際組織」，係指至少所有世界貿易組織會員皆得成為會員之國際性機構。
81 韓龍，「WTO 服務貿易中的規制紀律與規制自由--對 GATS 國內規制問題與發展趨勢的透視」，法商 研究，第3 期，頁 130，2003 年。
部門中對服務貿易的限制措施82。
因此，會員國實施規制的權力和自由並不是絕對的，是受到GATS第6條有關國內規 制的一般性紀律約束的。於此有個備受爭議的問題，即是GATS第6條和GATS第16、17 條的關係。究竟一個國家被挑戰的規範是屬於GATS第16、17條的禁止規範下，抑或歸 屬GATS第6條限制實施的範圍？
有關於此問題，法理上可做概念的區分，即屬於特定承諾表的限制規範就歸屬GATS 第16、17條所規定，不屬於特定承諾表的限制規範就應該歸由GATS第6條管轄，兩者是 互不重疊、互相排他的，GATS專業服務工作小組同此見解83。但實質上，一個被挑戰的 規範究竟是屬於特定承諾表還是全面性的一般規範，有時候很難界定。
例如，US-Gambling案中，美國大力主張其對網路賭博的限制規範不是屬於特定承 諾表市場進入下所謂「量的管制」，而是一般管制下的「質的管制」。既然不是「量的管 制」，當然沒有必要載明於承諾表上，更不會違背GATS第16條。
畢竟，此問題過於棘手，最後專家小組和上訴機構以零配額概念認定美國系爭措施 由於構成零配額而應被GATS第16條所禁止。由此可見GATS第6條與第16、17條的關係 為何，專家小組和上訴機構均不願多表意見，而至今仍由學者們各說各話。
目前會員國似乎有共識認為GATS第16、17條具有位階上之優勢84，一旦可被劃定為 GATS第16、17條即應該優先適用GATS第16、17之規定。亦有學者建議，當不知道系爭 法規究竟屬於GATS第16、17條或第6條之歸屬時，一律先認定屬於GATS第16、17條，
而記載於承諾表上，如此會比較保險85，避免事後的爭議產生。然而此種見解只具有事 前預防效果，而且會造成承諾表的過度龐大，並不能真正解決疑問。
就訴訟上之攻防而言，本點雖然模糊，但也是有力的爭執空間。原被告視其所需，
可盡量把爭議法規解釋成GATS第16、17所規範的範圍，抑或屬於GATS第6條的國內規 章，僅受GATS第6條較輕微的管制。
82 同前註。
83 WTO Doc, S/L/92, Job No.6496:
In the course of work to develop multilateral disciplines on domestic regulation in the accountancy sector, pursuant to paragraph 4 of Article VI of the GATS, the WPPS addressed a wide range of regulatory measures which have an impact on trade in accountancy services. In discussing the structure and content of the new disciplines, it became clear that some of these measures were subject to other legal provisions in the GATS, most notably Articles XVI and XVII. It was observed that the new disciplines developed under Article VI:4 must not overlap with other provisions already existing in the GATS, including Articles XVI and XVII, as this would create legal uncertainty. For this reason, a number of the suggestions for disciplines were excluded from the text.
84 同註 22，頁 59。
85 Markus Krajewski, National Regulation and Trade Liberalization in Services: The Legal Impact of the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) on National Regulatory Autonomy, The Hague, London, New York: Kluwer Law International, p103, 2003.