結論 - 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

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

第五章結論

由於全球逐漸注重環境保護、保護動植物及人類生命健康、促進公共衛生等概念，未來 WTO 各會員國基此可能制訂許多對於貿易造成障礙之法規，而此些措施是否對於貿易有不必要的限制，且各國為合法目的制訂政策之空間為何，皆為本文探詢之重點。由於 GATT 1994 第 20 條第 b 款文字與 TBT 協定第 2.2 條條文文字極為相似，皆涵蓋一措施是否具有「必要性」之概念，近期涉及 TBT 協定之案件報告皆以 GATT 第 20 條第 b 款必要性解釋方式套用至 TBT 協定第 2.2 條上。本文依循案件發生之時間順序，觀察 GATT 與 WTO 爭端解決機構過往對於 GATT 1994 第 20 條第 b 款及 TBT 協定第 2.2 條「必要性」要件之裁決，釐清 WTO 爭端解決機構對於解釋此二文之脈絡為何，並提出本文認為較妥適之必要性要件解釋方式。

自泰國香菸案起，小組便引用 1989 年美國 1930 關稅法第 337 條款案之小組報告裁決，將 GATT 1994 第 20 條之必要性判斷標準設為：若存在其他得合理採取、

且不違反 GATT 1994 相關規定之「替代措施」，則被控訴國之措施若違反 GATT 1994 條文，便不可謂此措施具有必要性。即使並無任何一項得以合理採納且不違反 GATT 1994 條文之替代措施，被告仍有義務於合理之措施中選用違反 GATT 1994 條款程度最低之措施。由 GATT 1994 時期之美國鮪魚案 I、美國鮪魚案 II 及 WTO 時期之美國石油案皆得了解小組一直依循此標準，即是否有其他合理可使用、

且違反 GATT 1994 規範程度最小之替代措施得以使用，予以判斷案件系爭措施是否具有 GATT 1994 第 20 條第 b 款所稱之必要性。於歐體石綿案後，小組除依循前述方式判斷必要性外，並另外加入「權衡方式」判斷措施之必要性。上訴機構強調，若措施對目標之貢獻度越高、或措施對貿易限制程度越小、或措施所欲保護之價值越高，則該措施越容易被認定為必要之措施。在之後的巴西輪胎案與中國

‧ 國

立政治大學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

原物料案中，爭端解決機構皆採納歐體石綿案之權衡標準。

近期因美國丁香菸案、美國鮪魚案 II 及美國肉品標示案等案件出爐，漸可探究 WTO 爭端解決機構對於 TBT 協定第 2.2 條有關「必要性」之判斷脈絡為何。爭端解決機構在解釋 TBT 協定第 2.2 條之上下文時，多引用 GATT 1994 第 20 條之「部分」法理，且將「保護程度」一詞引入至 TBT 協定第 2.2 條有關必要性之判斷。

於分析系爭措施是否具有必要性以前，必須認定該措施「欲達到的保護水準」為何，在確認過後，方引用過往案例所採之權衡方式，確認系爭措施是否對達到目的有實質上之貢獻，若有貢獻，則得以繼續檢視是否存在其他對於貿易限制較小之替代措施，而可達到相同之目的。

爭端解決機構於有關 TBT 協定之案件中雖認為 TBT 協定第 2.2 條與 GATT 1994 第 20 條第 b 款有所不同，但卻在最後判斷必要性要件之概念中，採用與先前爭端解決機構於涉及 GATT 1994 第 20 條第 b 款之必要性要件解釋方式，即皆採用權衡方式進行判斷。本文認為，此二條文雖皆為探討必要性之概念，但於條文結構上，不論是審查客體、舉證責任與政策目標皆有所不同。相較之下，SPS 協定第 5.6 條與 TBT 協定第 2.2 條應更為雷同，WTO 爭端解決機構應以判斷 SPS 協定第 5.6 條必要性之方式檢視 TBT 協定第 2.2 條。惟本文能體認爭端解決機構為求裁決之一致性，對於必要性概念上為免矛盾之情況發生，故將 GATT 1994 第 20 條第 b 款關於必要性之判斷方式沿用至 TBT 協定第 2.2 條上。惟 WTO 解決爭端解決機構雖體認到 GATT 1994 第 20 條第 b 款與 TBT 協定第 2.2 條的差異，卻未說明為何其皆以權衡法則檢視此二條文之必要性及不能沿用 SPS 協定第 5.6 條必要性法理至 TBT 協定第 2.2 條之原因為何，而僅以此非重要之問題帶過，實屬可惜。

WTO 會員之爭訟中，儘管一國之管制措施具有正當合法之目的，但若與其他 WTO 會員之經貿發展相牴觸，便需判斷究竟法規目的之正當性或貿易自由化何者

‧ 國

立政治大學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

較為重要，然此爭議無絕對答案。在判斷涉及 TBT 協定第 2.2 條措施之必要性上，

因連續三件 TBT 案件出爐，似可認為 WTO 爭端解決機構對於此條文之必要性審查方式已定調，惟 WTO 爭端解決既無先例原則，恐仍需靜待日益增加之技術性貿易障礙案件，觀察爭端解決機構是否仍沿用 GATT 1994 第 20 條第 b 款之概念判斷 TBT 協定第 2.2 條之相關案件。尤其 TBT 協定第 2.2 條攸關於一國為達到合法目的，制訂可能造成貿易障礙之政策時其空間多大，本文盼未來爭端解決機構若仍將 GATT 1994 第 20 條第 b 款與 TBT 協定第 2.2 條採取相同之權衡方式判斷必要性時，能賦予更多信服之理由，以了解在結構不同之法條上採納相同解釋方式之法理為何。

‧ 國

立政治大學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

參考文獻

一、中文部分

（一）專書：

1. 羅昌發，國際貿易法，2010 年。

（二）期刊論文：

1. 牛惠之，環境保護與 GATT /WTO：由涉及環境議題之 GATT /WTO 爭端解決小組報告，論相關於環境之片面貿易措施之適用範圍與限制，經社法制論叢，23 期，1999 年。

二、英文部分

（一）專書：

1.MITSUO MATSUSHITA, THOMAS J.SCHEONBAUM &PETROS C.MAVROIDIS,THE

WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION:LAW,PRACTICE, AND POICY (2003).

2. ERNST-ULRICH PETERSMANN, INTERNATIONAL AND EUROPEAN TRADE AND

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AFTER THE URUGUAY ROUND (1996).

3.DIANA RIDLEY, THE LITERATURE REVIEW: A

S

TEP

-

-S

TEP

G

UIDE FOR

S

TUDENTS

(2008).

4. GEORGE A.BERMANN &PETROS C.MAVROIDIS

,

TRADE AND HUMAN HEALTH AND

SAFETY

(2006).

（二）期刊文章：

1.Gabrielle Marceau & Joel P. Trachtman, The Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement,

the Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures Agreement, and the General Agreement on

Tariffs and Trade, in 36(5) J

OURNAL OF WORLD TRADE (2002).

‧

2. Kohei Saito, Yardsticks for "Trade and Environment": Economic Analysis of the WTO

Panel and the Appellate Body Reports regarding Environment-oriented Trade Measures, in T

HE JEAN MONNET WORKING PAPERS, available at

http://centers.law.nyu.edu/jeanmonnet/archive/papers/01/013701-03.html (2001).

3. Daniel Drache, The Short but Significant Life of the International Trade Organization:

Lessons for Our Time, in C

ENTRE FOR CANADIAN STUDIES,YORK UNIVERSITY,CSGR WORKING PAPER NO.62/00, available at

http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/2063/1/WRAP_Drache_wp6200.pdf (2000).

4. Danielle Spiegel Feld & Stephanie Switzer, Whither Article XX? Regulatory

Autonomy under Non-GATT Agreements after China-Raw Materials, in Y

ALE JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW ONLINE (2012).

5. Jennifer Schultz, The GATT/WTO Committee on Trade and the Environment--Toward

Environmental Reform, in 89(2) T

HE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, 423-439 (1995).

6. Michael Ming Du, Domestic Regulatory Autonomy under the TBT Agreement: From

Non-discrimination to Harmonization, in 6(2) C

HINESE JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL

LAW,269–306 (2007).

7. Benn Mcgrady, Necessity Exceptions in WTO Law: Retreaded Tyres, Regulatory

Purpose and Cumulative Regulatory Measures, in 12(1) J

OURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL

ECONOMIC LAW, 153-173 (2008).

8. Sanford Gaines, The WTO's Reading of the GATT Article XX Chapeau: A Disguised

Restriction on Environmental Measures, in U.

PA.1.INT'L ECON.L (2000).

9. Alan 0. Sykest, The Least Restrictive Means, in70(1)THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO

LAW REVIEW,403-419 (2003).

10. Robert Galantucci, Compassionate Consumerism within the GATT Regime: Can

Belgium's Ban on Seal Product Imports be justified under Article XX?, in C

ALIFORNIA

WESTERN INTERNATIONAL LAW JOURNAL (2009).

11. Mads Andenas & Stefan Zleptnig, Proportionality: WTO Law: in Comparative

Perspective, in 42

TEXAS INTERNATIONAL LAW JOURNAL,371.

‧

12. Axel Desmedt, Proportionality in WTO Law, in JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL

ECONOMIC LAW (2001).

13. Meinhard Hilf, Power, Rules and Principles- Which Orientation for WTO/GATT

Law?, in J

OURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC LAW (2001).

14. Carrie Ross, In the Hot House: Will Canada's WTO Challenge Slaughter U.S.

COOL Regulations?, in B

ROOKLYN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW (2010).

15. Gisele Kapterian, A Critique of the WTO Jurisprudence on ‘Necessity’, in 59(1) INTERNATIONAL AND COMPARATIVE LAW QUARTERLY, 89-127(2010).

16. Thomas J. Schoenbaum, International Trade and Protection of the Environment:

The Continuing Search for Reconciliation, in T

HE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF

INTERNATIONAL LAW (1997).

17. Kazumochi Kometani, Trade and Environment: How Should WTO Panels Review

Environmental Regulations under GATT Article III and XX?, in N

ORTHWESTERN

JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW AND BUSINESS (1996).

18. Jan Neumann &Elisabeth Turk, Necessity Revisited: Proportionality in World Trade

Organization Law after Korea-Beef, EC-Asbestos and EC-Sardines, in

JOURNAL OF

WORLD TRADE (2003).

19. Gabrielle Marceau, The New TBT Jurisprudence in US - Clove Cigarettes, WTO US

- Tuna II, and US - COOL, in A

SIAN JOURNAL OF WTO&INTERNATIONAL HEALTH

LAW &POLICY (2013).

20. Lawrence A. Kogan, Reach Revisited: A Framework for Evaluating Whether a

Non-Tariff Measure Has Matured into an Actionable Non-Tariff to Trade, in A

MERICAN

UNIVERSITY INTERNATIONAL LAW REVIEW (2013).

（三）GATT / WTO 文件：

1. Annual Review of the Implementation and Operation of the Agreement, G/TBT/7, G/TBT/8, G/TBT/10, G/TBT/11, G/TBT/12....

2. WTO, MTN/3E/W/26(Oct. 1974), TRE/W/21(Jan. 17, 1994).

3. Panel Report, Thailand — Restrictions on importation of and internal taxes on

‧ 國

立政治大學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

cigarettes, BISD 37S/200 (adopted Nov. 7 1990).

4. Panel Report, United States – Restrictions on imports of tuna, BISD 39S/155 (Sept. 3 1991).

5. Panel Report, United States – Restrictions on imports of tuna, BISD 29/R (June 16 1994).

6. Appellate Body Report, United States — Standards for Reformulated and

Conventional Gasoline, WT/DS2/AB/R (adopted May 20, 1996).

7. Appellate Body Report, European Communities — Measures Affecting Asbestos and

Products Containing Asbestos, WT/DS135/AB/R (adopted Apr. 5, 2001).

8. Appellate Body Report, Brazil－Measures Affecting Imports of Retreaded Tyres, WT/DS332/AB/R (adopted Dec. 17, 2007).

9. Appellate Body Report, China — Measures Related to the Exportation of Various

Raw Materials, WT/DS394/AB/R (adopted Feb. 22, 2012).

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 and WT/DS386/AB/R (adopted

July 23, 2012).

13. Panel Report, United States－Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, L/6439 (Nov. 7, 1989).

14. Appellate Body Report, Korea – Measures Affecting Imports of Fresh, Chilled and

Frozen Beef , ¶ 5.26, WT/DS161/AB/R (adopted Jan. 10, 2001).

15. Panel Report, European Communities－Regime for the Importation, Sale and

Distribution of Bananas, WT/DS27/AB/R (adopted Sept. 25, 1997).

‧ 國

立政治大學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

16. Appellate Body Report, Australia — Measures Affecting Importation of Salmon, WT/DS18/AB/R (adopted Nov. 6, 1998).

17. Appellate Body Report, Japan — Measures Affecting Agricultural Products, WT/DS76/AB/R (adopted Mar. 19, 1999).

18. Appellate Body Report, Australia — Measures Affecting the Importation of Apples

from New Zealand, WT/DS367/AB/R (adopted Dec. 17, 2010).

19. Panel Report, European Communities－Trade Description of Sardines, WT/DS231/R (adopted Oct. 23, 2002).

20. Appellate Body Report, United States－Measures Affecting the Cross-Border Supply

of Gambling and Betting Services, WT/DS285/AB/R (adopted Apr. 20, 2005).

21. Appellate Body Report, China — Measures Affecting Trading Rights and

Distribution Services for Certain Publications and Audiovisual Entertainment Products,

WT/DS363/AB/R (adopted Jan. 19, 2010).

在文檔中 TBT協定第2.2條與GATT 1994第20條下「必要性」要件之分析 - 政大學術集成 (頁 68-75)

結論

國

立 政 治 大 學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

第五章 結論

‧ 國

立 政 治 大 學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

‧ 國

立 政 治 大 學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

‧ 國

立 政 治 大 學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

參考文獻

S

-

-S

G

S

(2008).

,

(2006).

the Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures Agreement, and the General Agreement on

Tariffs and Trade, in 36(5) J

‧

Panel and the Appellate Body Reports regarding Environment-oriented Trade Measures, in T

Lessons for Our Time, in C

Autonomy under Non-GATT Agreements after China-Raw Materials, in Y

Environmental Reform, in 89(2) T

Non-discrimination to Harmonization, in 6(2) C

Purpose and Cumulative Regulatory Measures, in 12(1) J

Restriction on Environmental Measures, in U.

Belgium's Ban on Seal Product Imports be justified under Article XX?, in C

Perspective, in 42

‧

Law?, in J

COOL Regulations?, in B

The Continuing Search for Reconciliation, in T

Environmental Regulations under GATT Article III and XX?, in N

Organization Law after Korea-Beef, EC-Asbestos and EC-Sardines, in

- Tuna II, and US - COOL, in A

Non-Tariff Measure Has Matured into an Actionable Non-Tariff to Trade, in A

‧ 國

立 政 治 大 學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

cigarettes, BISD 37S/200 (adopted Nov. 7 1990).

Conventional Gasoline, WT/DS2/AB/R (adopted May 20, 1996).

Products Containing Asbestos, WT/DS135/AB/R (adopted Apr. 5, 2001).

Raw Materials, WT/DS394/AB/R (adopted Feb. 22, 2012).

of Clove Cigarettes, WT/DS406/AB/R (adopted Apr. 24, 2012).

Marketing and Sale of Tuna and Tuna Products, WT/DS381/AB/R (adopted June 13,

(COOL) Requirements, WT/DS384/AB/R and WT/DS386/AB/R (adopted

Frozen Beef , ¶ 5.26, WT/DS161/AB/R (adopted Jan. 10, 2001).

Distribution of Bananas, WT/DS27/AB/R (adopted Sept. 25, 1997).

‧ 國

立 政 治 大 學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

from New Zealand, WT/DS367/AB/R (adopted Dec. 17, 2010).

of Gambling and Betting Services, WT/DS285/AB/R (adopted Apr. 20, 2005).

Distribution Services for Certain Publications and Audiovisual Entertainment Products,

立政治大學

第五章結論

立政治大學

立政治大學

立政治大學

立政治大學

立政治大學