科技部補助專題研究計畫成果報告
期末報告
各國能源法制與 WTO 規範之相容性問題：從加拿大再生能
源案談起
計 畫 類 別 ： 個別型計畫 計 畫 編 號 ： NSC 102-2410-H-004-118- 執 行 期 間 ： 102 年 08 月 01 日至 103 年 07 月 31 日 執 行 單 位 ： 國立政治大學法律學系 計 畫 主 持 人 ： 許耀明 計畫參與人員： 碩士班研究生-兼任助理人員：艾鶴軒 碩士班研究生-兼任助理人員：吳宜璇 報 告 附 件 ： 出席國際會議研究心得報告及發表論文 處 理 方 式 ： 1.公開資訊：本計畫可公開查詢 2.「本研究」是否已有嚴重損及公共利益之發現：否 3.「本報告」是否建議提供政府單位施政參考：是，經濟部國貿局與能源局中 華 民 國 103 年 10 月 27 日
中 文 摘 要 ： 本研究討論各國能源政策與法制與 WTO 相關規範之相容性問 題。首先，將針對相關國際間之能源規範加以檢視，並略述 在 WTO 目前已發生爭端之各國之相關能源政策或法制。其 次，本研究釐清所有可能適用於跨境能源貨物或服務移動之 WTO 相關規範，並討論前述能源政策或法制與 WTO 相關規範 之相容性。最後，本研究將從目前已有爭端解決小組報告與 上訴機構之加拿大再生能源案出發，綜整目前 WTO 相關能源 與貿易之案件，逐一檢視相關政策或法制，以求為我國相關 能源政策與法制建立或修改之參考。 中文關鍵詞： 世界貿易組織、能源政策與法制、再生能源、加拿大再生能 源案、規範相容性
英 文 摘 要 ： The study discusses the relevant norms of the national energy policies and norms and their compatibility to WTO. First, it reviews relevant international energy regulations, and outlines the energy policies or norms of the defendant parties in relevant WTO disputes.
Secondly, this study clarifies all the relevant WTO regulations, which may be applied to cross-border energy goods or services, and discusses the
compatibility of the aforementioned national energy policies or norms to WTO.
Finally, this study follows the Canada｀s renewable energy case, of which the Panel and Appellate Body reports were issued, and tries to synthesize others cases now in WTO relating to disputes between trade and energy on an ad hoc approach.
The result of this research may be served as a reference for the establishment or the revision of our energy policies and regulations in Taiwan.
英文關鍵詞： WTO, energy policy and legal norms, renewable energy, Canada renewable energy case, compatibility of norms
科技部補助專題研究計畫成果報告
（□期中進度報告/■期末報告）
各國能源法制與 WTO 規範之相容性問題：從加拿大再生能源案談起
計畫類別：■個別型計畫 □整合型計畫
計畫編號：MOST 102－2410－H－004 － 118 －
執行期間：102 年 8 月 1 日至 103 年 7 月 31 日
執行機構及系所：國立政治大學法律學系
計畫主持人：許耀明
共同主持人：無
計畫參與人員：政大法律研究所碩士生艾鶴軒、吳宜璇
本計畫除繳交成果報告外，另含下列出國報告，共 _1_ 份：
□執行國際合作與移地研究心得報告
■
出席國際學術會議心得報告
期末報告處理方式：
1. 公開方式：
■
非列管計畫亦不具下列情形，立即公開查詢
□涉及專利或其他智慧財產權，□一年□二年後可公開查詢
2.「本研究」是否已有嚴重損及公共利益之發現：■否 □是
3.「本報告」是否建議提供政府單位施政參考 □否 ■是， 經濟部國貿局、
經濟部能源局 （請列舉提供之單位；本部不經審議，依勾選逕予轉送）
中 華 民 國 103 年 10 月 26 日
1科技部補助專題研究計畫成果報告自評表
請就研究內容與原計畫相符程度、達成預期目標情況、研究成果之學術或應用價
值（簡要敘述成果所代表之意義、價值、影響或進一步發展之可能性）
、是否適
合在學術期刊發表或申請專利、主要發現（簡要敘述成果是否有嚴重損及公共利
益之發現）或其他有關價值等，作一綜合評估。
1. 請就研究內容與原計畫相符程度、達成預期目標情況作一綜合評估
■達成目標
□ 未達成目標（請說明，以 100 字為限）
□ 實驗失敗
□ 因故實驗中斷
□ 其他原因
說明：
2. 研究成果在學術期刊發表或申請專利等情形：
論文：■已發表 □未發表之文稿 □撰寫中 □無
專利：□已獲得 □申請中 □無
技轉：□已技轉 □洽談中 □無
其他：
（以 100 字為限）
(1) 中文論文於 102 年 11 月 1 日，發表於「中部地區財經法律學術研討會(10)」
（交通大學科技法律所主辦）
，題為「從加拿大再生能源案談貿易與能源之關
係」，預計修改後投稿相關國內中文期刊。
(2) 英文論文已經於 2014 年 4 月 25 日巴西聖保羅 3rd Conference of the
Postgraduate and Early Professional Academics Network of the Society of
International Economic Law Conference，發表為 Trade & Energy：Case
Canada-Feed-in Tariff Program/Renewable Energy in WTO 之研討會論文，預計
修改後投稿
3. 請依學術成就、技術創新、社會影響等方面，評估研究成果之學術或應用價
值（簡要敘述成果所代表之意義、價值、影響或進一步發展之可能性）
，如已
有嚴重損及公共利益之發現，請簡述可能損及之相關程度（以 500 字為限）
本文研究新近在世界貿易組織中，因各國因應各種新興能源需求與再生能源
發展必要所採取之各項措施，尤其是補貼，是否與 WTO 相關規範相容之問
題。此等研究，對於我國日後各種能源政策規劃，由於我國亦為 WTO 成員，
因此有參考之效。
2中、英文摘要及關鍵詞 (keywords)
中文摘要 本研究討論各國能源政策與法制與 WTO 相關規範之相容性問題。首先，將針對相關國際間之能 源規範加以檢視，並略述在 WTO 目前已發生爭端之各國之相關能源政策或法制。其次，本研究釐清 所有可能適用於跨境能源貨物或服務移動之 WTO 相關規範，並討論前述能源政策或法制與 WTO 相 關規範之相容性。最後，本研究將從目前已有爭端解決小組報告與上訴機構之加拿大再生能源案出 發，綜整目前 WTO 相關能源與貿易之案件，逐一檢視相關政策或法制，以求為我國相關能源政策與 法制建立或修改之參考。 關鍵詞：世界貿易組織、能源政策與法制、再生能源、加拿大再生能源案、規範相容性 SummaryThe study discusses the relevant norms of the national energy policies and norms and their compatibility to WTO. First, it reviews relevant international energy regulations, and outlines the energy policies or norms of the defendant parties in relevant WTO disputes.
Secondly, this study clarifies all the relevant WTO regulations, which may be applied to cross-border energy goods or services, and discusses the compatibility of the aforementioned national energy policies or norms to WTO.
Finally, this study follows the Canada's renewable energy case, of which the Panel and Appellate Body reports were issued, and tries to synthesize others cases now in WTO relating to disputes between trade and energy on an ad hoc approach.
The result of this research may be served as a reference for the establishment or the revision of our energy policies and regulations in Taiwan.
Keywords: WTO, energy policy and legal norms, renewable energy, Canada renewable energy case, compatibility of norms
一、 前言
貿易與環境之互動議題，一直是世界貿易組織(World Trade Organization, WTO)成立之初就已經重 視之議題，例如貿易與環境委員會(Committee on Trade and Environment)1於 WTO 成立時之設置，多哈
議程時對於多邊貿易體系與多邊環境體系之互動重視，以及相關 WTO 爭端解決機制中各類與環境相 關之案件2，例如 2006 年歐盟之生技產品案(Biotech Products)3。然而，由於近年來國際間對於氣候變
遷議題之重視4，貿易與環境互動之討論，連帶地也拉入各種能源安全、新興能源或再生能源之使用，
甚至綠色經濟或綠色成長等議題。例如在 2012 年六月之聯合國永續發展會議(United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development)之 Rio+20 會議中，WTO 秘書處即提出「為永續發展與綠色經濟所用之貿 易」(Harnessing Trade for Sustainable Development and a Green Economy)報告，討論了永續發展5、碳足
跡標示、生態標示、多邊環境公約、氣候變遷減緩措施等問題。而尤其是對抗氣候變遷之減緩，各種 傳統化石能源以外之能源利用形式，各種國內相關能源產業之發展以及相關能源之國際貿易問題，引 發了新興的國際貿易法爭議與討論。此外，2011-2012 年引發相當爭議之歐盟對於航空業碳排放之管制 政策，也有一定之貿易意涵6。
二、 研究目的
在 WTO 成立之籌備各項回合談判中，能源議題就已經被提出討論，諸如能源之雙重定價 (dual-pricing)、補貼政策、逆向傾銷(reverse dumping)、出口限制與出口稅等等，但由於能源主要出口 國與進口需求國之歧見，此等議題，並未專門被納入日後 WTO 之各主要協定。事實上，在能源議題， 有幾點是國際貿易所必須特別注意的，例如供給之穩定與安全、公共服務機構之義務、環境與發展之 共存等等。而其相關重大之私人投資，也牽涉到前述特點。 能源之相關政策與國際合作，目前乃透過國際間關於能源之國際組織或對話架構來進行主要規範， 約莫有下述：(1) 石油輸出國組織(the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, OPEC)：此為 1960 年各主要石油輸出國間為擺脫私人大集團對於石油之控制而成立，並對於全球 油價與相關政策進行宏觀調控。
(2) 國際能源署(International Energy Agency, IEA)：因應上一世紀七零年代之石油危機， 該組織之原始成立乃為協調各成員國間之可信賴的、可負擔的能源供給。其職能逐
1 官方網頁參見：http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/envir_e/wrk_committee_e.htm (2012/12/24 last visited)
2 詳盡之案例清單，參見 WTO 官網：http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/envir_e/edis00_e.htm (2012/12/24 last visited) 3 29 September 2006, Panel Report, European Communities — Measures Affecting the Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products. WT/DS/291,292 & 293. 該 案 詳 盡 資 料 ， 參 見 ：http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds291_e.htm
(2012/12/24 last visited)
4 氣候變化綱要公約第十八次締約方大會(COP 18)暨京都議定書第八次締約方大會(CMP8)於 2012 年 11 月 26 日到 12 月 7
日甫於卡達的杜哈召開，參見：http://unfccc.int/meetings/doha_nov_2012/session/7049.php (2012/12/25 last visited)
5 關於永續發展之新近討論，參見：Virginie Barral, Sustainable Development in International Law: Nature and Operation of an Evolutive Legal Norm, 23(2) EJIL 377 (2012).
6 新近討論文章可參見：施文真，初探納入航空業之歐盟排放權交易制度與其他國際法義務的互動關係，政大法學評論，
第 120 期，頁 271-337，2011 年 4 月；Lorand Bartels, The WTO Legality of the Application of the EU’s Emission Trading System to Aviation, 23(2) EJIL 429 (2012); Joanne Scott & Lavanya Rajamani, EU Climate Change Unilateralism, 23(2) EJIL 469 (2012).
4
漸擴張到各種能源之發展、能源市場之管制等等，其亦資助各種新興能源科技之發 展。
(3) 能源憲章條約(Energy Charter Treaty, ECT)：在上一世紀九零年代冷戰結束後，西歐 國家為參與東歐與前蘇聯國家之能源開發，因此簽訂此一條約，以求相關生產者與 消費者間之合作。此一多邊條約於 1998 年生效，有 51 會員國。此等條約對於相關 能源部門除有合作之計畫外，並規範相關能源供給之跨境移動，並引進 WTO 之不 歧視原則，甚至進一步要求會員國必須確保與促進此等能源之跨境移動。而對於外 國之能源投資，其亦提倡類同 WTO/TRIMs 之國民待遇原則。
(4) 國際能源論壇(International Energy Forum, IEF)：起始於 1991 年生產者與消費者對話 (Producer-Consumer Dialogue)，於 1999 轉化為國際能源論壇。其聚集已開發國家與 開發中國家，能源生產國與消費國之相關能源部長級人物，以及相關國際組織，以 求彼此間之對話。相關之討論議題包括：能源部門間之合作、市場進入、資源、科 技、相關財務機制、公平與透明公開之政策與法制等等。其注意到傳統之化石能源 在目前之重要性，但也注意到新興能源開發之必要。 然而，前述能源國際組織或論壇，並非專門處理能源之貿易問題。一旦能源開始進行國際移動， 則相關之貿易問題應當如何解決？從迄今 WTO 相關於能源之各案件中，約莫可見國際貿易規範對於 能源法制與政策之可能影響。
三、 文獻探討
目前國際間關於貿易與能源之關係，有不少非政府組織之研究報告，亦有 WTO 官方相關年度報 告之文件；此外，學者對於相關議題，國內外也均有研究，茲擇要分述如下： (1) 2007 ICTSD 報告國際貿易與永續發展中心(International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development , ICTSD)為成 立於 1996 年之國際非政府組織，其目的在於促進國際貿易與永續發展之持續對話。該組織於 2007 由 Julia Selivanova 主筆，公布了「WTO 與能源」之研究報告7。
本報告除了略述國際間相關能源之國際管制架構外，在本報告中指出，與能源之跨境移動直接相 關之 WTO 相關協定，有關稅與貿易障礙總協定(GATT)、服務貿易總協定(GATS)、技術性貿易障礙協 定(TBT)、與投資相關之貿易協定(TRIMs)、補貼與平衡稅協定(SCM)，以及政府採購協定(GPA)。 其並逐一分析 GATT 中最惠國待遇原則與國民待遇原則所謂之「同類」產品概念，認為同類能源 產品不能與其他進口產品或國內產品有差別待遇，而採取差別待遇措施之國家可以從 GATT 第 XX 條 試圖找出正當化事由，其中該條第 b 款為保護人類與動植物生命與健康以及第 g 款為保存可能枯竭之 自然資源，較有可能被證成。 然而，由於許多國家對於能源部門乃採取國營化之政策，因此 GATT 第 XVII 條亦有其適用，而亦
7 Julia Selivanova, The WTO and Energy: WTO Rules and Agreements of Relevance to the Energy Sector, ICTSD Trade and
Sustainable Energy Series Issue Paper No. 1, International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development, Geneva, Switzerland (2007)
5
需遵守不歧視原則，相關原料之採購或銷售，亦須以公平競爭之方式進行。而在服務貿易部分，能源 之國際貿易議題究竟是否可以定位成服務，尚有爭議。但相關能源之國際貿易，的確可能有商業據點 呈現、跨境貿易與自然人移動等問題。 此外，於補貼部分，傳統一國常對於其能源產業與下游產業進行補貼，而為屢踐一國之能源政策， 此等措施亦有可能違反 WTO 之 SCM 協定，例如一國僅對於以出口為主之能源產業進行補貼，則此將 構成禁止性補貼。再者，相關能源產業常需要大量投資，但一國之能源產業發展政策，必須符合國民 待遇。
此份報告亦討論了關於非 WTO 成員與 WTO 成員間之協定締結問題，以及是否在 WTO 成員間 進行 WTO plus 之協定問題。
(2) 2009 世界能源理事會報告
依據世界能源理事會(World Energy Council, WEC)於 2009 年於 WTO 提出之報告「國際貿易與能源 之關係」(Relationship between International Trade and Energy)8，在當今，不管是貨物貿易或是服務貿易
中，能源皆有相當重要之角色。能源與貿易之關係，如同該報告所指出，「不僅是傳統的能源形式，如
碳氫化合物，也可再生能源形式，如生質燃料，風能，太陽能，但重要的是此範圍內的產品和服務本 身買賣及/或以其他方式之跨境活動。」而 WTO 自身之 2010 年年度報告(World Trade Report 2010)，也 以「自然資源中之貿易」(Trade in natural resources)為標題 9，此等自然資源之利用，亦高度與能源相關。
從歷史上看，無論是 GATT 或是 WTO 協定，均被認為與國際間之能源貿易沒有直接關係。在各 種烴類，裂變材料和跨境電力傳輸等，多半在多邊貿易體系以外而進行。而 GATS 涵蓋各種能源服務 有限，而並未處理所有能源部門之問題。能源貿易和 GATT / WTO 規則似乎在很大程度上彼此孤立的 另一個原因是，在大多數情況下，這些協議都是普遍適用的規則，而並非專門處理能源問題，雖然 GATS 也包括各種相關的能源服務市場准入問題。 然而，有兩個因素影響了國際貿易法與能源法之互動。首先，加入或即將加入之主要石油生產國， 例如沙烏地阿拉伯跟俄羅斯已經是世界貿易組織的成員，而利比亞，阿爾及利亞和其他石油生產國則 伺機而動，這些石油生產國的加入，可能會改變世界貿易組織。其次，由於氣候變遷議題之白熱化， 通過「聯合國氣候變化框架公約」(UNFCCC)和各國減少溫室氣體排放方面之相關措施，將直接影響 WTO 規則的應用。 因此，世界能源理事會為解決貿易規則和氣候變化之間的相互關係，不但邀請世界貿易組織秘書 長參與 2007 年之世界能源大會，也成立專案小組，於 2009 年 9 月，做出第一份專案報告。在該報告 中，為處理貿易與能源議題，提出三個方向： 第一， 依從「多哈發展議程」，能源產品與服務之開放貿易，乃達成經濟發展不可或缺的（特 別是為發展中國家）。 第二， 為滿足經濟發展目標，能源市場必須盡可能高效地運行。這需要一個以規則為基礎 的系統、確保市場機制的運作、不歧視原則（最惠國待遇與國民待遇）、監管的透明度和 公平公開、公正的裁決程序等等。這些權利和義務早已內化在 WTO 體系中，因此，世 界貿易組織和能源部門之利益乃相互趨同。
8 Timothy J. Richards & Lawrence Herman, Relationship between International Trade and Energy, http://www.wto.org/english/res_e/publications_e/wtr10_richards_herman_e.htm (2012/12/24 last visited)
9 World Trade Report 2010：Trade in natural resources, http://www.wto.org/english/res_e/publications_e/wtr10_e.htm (2012/12/24 last visited)
6
第三， 第三個原則是認識到能源部門的獨特結構性因素限制，可能限定 WTO 規則之全面 應用。其中最重要的是，能源資源屬於國家，許多國家已經乃透過國營企業經營石油和 電力行業。國家所有與主權利益使得能源產品或服務有別於典型國際貿易中的商品和服 務。此將影響 WTO 在相關能源貿易議題之介入程度。 (3) 相關研究書籍 目前直接相關於貿易與能源之研究書籍並不多（雖然有不少國際能源法之著作），新近直接與本研
究主題相關者，有 Yulia Selivanova 所編 REGULATION OF ENERGY IN INTERNATIONAL TRADE LAW: WTO, NAFTA AND ENERGY CHARTER一書10。該書主要著眼於討論相關能源規範與 WTO 規範之關係，並兼論
北美自由貿易協定與能源憲章條約之相關規範。該書收錄了相關於「WTO 規則與能源部門」、「能源移 轉」、「能源領域之出口限制」、「能源服務」、「國際貿易中之能源雙重定價：補貼與反傾銷議題」、「生 質能源與 WTO」、「能源與投資」、「國際能源管理」等文章。該書拋出幾個重要問題：第一，應在何種 程度跨境能源貿易進行監管？第二，一個真正有效的關於國際能源之生產與銷售的國際協議是可能的 嗎？該書認為，儘管各國間有明確的相互能源依存關係，就目前情況來看，能源消費國和生產國的利 益相當不同，因此使得此等具有國際約束力的國際能源銷售規則談判相當困難。而在目前，多邊的既 有 WTO 國際貿易法體系，可能是解決問題之途徑。 (4) 相關研究文章 相關中文文獻部分，於相關貿易與能源議題之實際操作上，施文真所著刊載於《政大法學評論》之 〈能源安全、GATT/WTO 與區域／自由貿易協定〉(2007)11對於本研究計畫之進行，有相當之助益。該 文提及能源為一國經濟發展之基礎，如何確保穩定的能源供給時為各國能源政策首要。內文針對能源 安全之定義、能源貿易之各類意涵以及其於 GATT / WTO 下之相關法律規定進行分析，並以 GATT / WTO 之出口管制為能源供給安全之主要規範加以深入討論，以瞭解 GATT / WTO 之出口管制規定是否 足以確保其會員之能源安全；該文接著以 NAFTA 下之能源專章以及 ECT 兩個具有強烈能源連結之區 域性或自由貿易協定，就其出口管制與跨境相關規範進行說明。 此外，同一作者之〈由交易單位之法律性質重新檢視排放權交易制度與 WTO 之關係(2008)12，透 過對於不同類型的排放權交易制度下，被交易單位的法律性質，特別是其於內國法律制度下的法律性 質進行分析，重新檢視排放權交易制度與 WTO 之間的關係。其分析結果發現，兩大類型的排放權交 易制度下之得交易單位——「核發量」以及「溢額」，無論其是否於市場上具有財產價值或流通性，其 交易單位均非 WTO 規範中的「貨品」或「服務」；因此，管制者對於交易單位的產生以及交易條件， 均應不受到 WTO 規範的影響；而此一市場中之交易單位，性質上類似於「流通證券」或「金融資產」， 故針對規範此類次級市場交易之契約的商業或金融法規，可能必須注意服務業貿易總協定（GATS）之 規範。 又，施文真所著〈關稅暨貿易總協定／世界貿易組織之邊境稅調整規範——兼論對能源稅與碳
10 YULIA SELIVANOVA (ED.),REGULATION OF ENERGY IN INTERNATIONAL TRADE LAW: WTO,NAFTA AND ENERGY CHARTER (2011) 11 施文真（2007）。〈能源安全、GATT/WTO 與區域／自由貿易協定〉，《政大法學評論》，99 卷，頁 241-319。 12 施文真（2008）。〈由交易單位之法律性質重新檢視排放權交易制度與 WTO 之關係〉，《政大法學評論》，105 卷，頁 121-215。 7
稅設計之啟示〉(2009)13乙文，探討於全球暖化之情況下，對於溫室氣體排放之管制政策，許多國家透 過開徵能源稅及碳稅作為手段。惟考慮國家之產業競爭能力，許多國家逐漸轉向考慮使用邊境稅調整 機制以減緩產業衝擊。該文以邊境稅調整機制與 GATT/WTO 下之規範現況分析為主要研究內容，探討 是否此種機制能達成減緩產業衝擊之壓力，以及應如何設計邊境稅調整機制始不違反 GATT/WTO 之規 定。 此外，施文真所著〈能源稅與碳稅之邊境稅調整措施--以 GATT/WTO 之合致性為主要討論對象〉 (2012)14對於本研究計畫之進行，亦有相當之助益。該文先簡單敘述能源稅與碳稅的觀念，並詳細分析 邊境稅調整機制於 GATT/WTO 下的規範現況，包括其緣由、相關條文與爭端解決案件、所引發之爭議 以及尚待解決之問題，最後並據以討論能源稅以及碳稅的邊境稅調整機制應如何設計以達到符合 GATT/WTO 下之相關規範，並列出重要之參考文獻。 又，於相關貿易與能源議題之實際操作上，唐旗所著之〈WTO 體制與能源貿易問題〉（2008）15， 刊載於武漢大學所出版之《法學評論》，對於本研究計畫之進行，也有相當之助益。該文指出，能源貿 易與其他一般商品貿易極為不同，現行 WTO 規則難以有效地調整 WTO 成員間的能源貿易關係。該文 就能源貿易之特殊性、多邊貿易體制下之能源問題之歷史溯源、現在 WTO 規則與能源貿易問題等等 分別為探討。
在外文文獻部分，首先在基礎概念部分，Emily Barrett Lydgate 於 World Trade Review 所發表之 Sustainable Development in the WTO: from Mutual Supportiveness to Balancing (2012)16，就永續發展 (sustainable development)詳加探討。該文首先揭示永續發展為 WTO 之重要法律原則，後續定義永續發 展以及永續發展於 WTO 機制下之協商與爭端解決，並列出重要參考文獻。又，在 WTO 與環境之互動 議題上，Mark Liang 於 Chicago Journal of International Law 期刊上所發表之 Green Tax and the WTO: Creating Certainty for the Future (2009-2010)17，就 GATT 第 III:2 條之管轄權爭議、GATT 第 XX 條之例 外，尤其是(b)款與(g)款，以及第 XX 條之前言如何限縮例外之範圍、WTO 如何適用「預防原則」 (precautionary principle)等等之問題提出討論。內文並提出爭端解決小組於評估綠能稅(green tax)爭議時 應依循如何之檢驗步驟，以及 WTO 應以如何之態度面對綠能稅，並列出重要參考文獻。
其次，於 WTO 與能源之關係上，在 Sylvia Ostry 所著 Energy Security and Sustainable Development: the WTO and the Energy Charter Treaty (2010)18乙文中，其廣泛地回顧了貿易與環境從 GATT 時代、斯德 哥爾摩會議、WTO 諸回合談判、多哈議程等發展，並討論 WTO 下貿易與發展委員會以及貿易與環境 委員會之職能，以及後續可能之 WTO 改革議題中關於能源與永續發展之部分。此外，該文也討論了 國際間能源安全議題之發展過程，G8 對於此等議題之貢獻，以及能源憲章條約。
類似研究另有，Susan L. Sakmar 於 Indiana International & Comparative Law Review 期刊中發表之文
13 施文真（2009）。〈關稅暨貿易總協定／世界貿易組織之邊境稅調整規範——兼論對能源稅與碳稅設計之啟示〉，《台
灣科技法律與政策論叢》，6 卷 2 期，頁 1-96。
14 施文真（2012）。〈能源稅與碳稅之邊境稅調整措施--以 GATT/WTO 之合致性為主要討論對象〉，《貿易政策論叢》，
17 卷，頁 157-219。
15 唐旗（2008）。〈WTO 體制與能源貿易問題〉，《法學評論》，26 卷 4 期，頁 96-101。
16 Emily Barrett Lydgate, Sustainable Development in the WTO: from Mutual Supportiveness to Balancing, 11 (4) WORLD TRADE REVIEW 621 (2012).
17 Mark Liang, Green Tax and the WTO: Creating Certainty for the Future, 10 CHI.J.INT'L L. 359 (2009-2010)
18 Sylvia Ostry, Energy Security and Sustainable Development: the WTO and the Energy Charter Treaty, in MAKING GLOBAL ECONOMIC GOVERNANCE EFFECTIVE:HARD AND SOFT LAW INSTITUTIONS IN A CROWDED WORLD 131-138(JOHN J.KIRTON ED., 2010)
8
章 Bringing Energy Trade into the WTO: The Historical Context, Current Status, and Potential Implications for the Middle East Region (2008)19。該文之探討涉及石油之地緣政治學以及促使制定與能源相關之貿易 規範的市場驅動力。另簡述目前 WTO 關於能源議題之相關規範並進一步提及歐盟所提出關於能源之 新回合貿易談判之提議，並且認為能源憲章條約（Energy Charter Treaty，ECT）可能作為新回合談判 之基礎。此外，該文尚提及能源服務貿易議題以及這些提議對於中東與北非之產油地區所造成之潛在 影響。最後作者認為，世界能源市場之不確定性將使得能源安全（energy security）議題仍是焦點所在。 關於生質燃料之相關研究有，Paolo R. Vergano 與 Eugenia Laurenza 共同於 Global Trade and Customs Journal 發表之文章 Fossil fuel “grading” and sustainability criteria for biofuels and bioliquids under the EU Fuel Quality and Renewable Energy Directives: implications for international trade (2012)20；該文區 分化石燃料之類別以及生質能源與生質燃料之永續標準、對於國際貿易之影響，並分析 WTO 條文內 容；該文亦摘錄 WTO 案例加以說明評析。同樣針對生質燃料，Stephanie Switzer 與 Joseph A. McMahon 共同於 International & Comparative Law Quarterly 發表之文章 EU Biofuels Policy - Raising the Question of WTO Compatibility（2011）21，介紹歐盟生質燃料政策，並探討該政策與 WTO 不歧視原則與補貼相關 規範之相容性，最後作者並提供了合乎 WTO 規範之政策建議。另一篇則是 Emily Barrett Lydgate 於 Journal of International Economic Law 期刊中發表之文章 Biofuels, Sustainability, and Trade-Related Regulatory Chill（2012）22，該文點出歐盟生質燃料之永續性標準（sustainability criteria）與 WTO 規範 之寒蟬效應（chill effect）；此外，並指出生質燃料生產之擴大所帶來的兩個難題，其一為生質燃料取 代食物作物（food crops）進而影響食物價格之問題，這將牽涉複雜的經濟運算，而難以用特定規則規 範之；另一個難題是「間接土地用途變更」（Indirect Land Use Change，ILUC）的問題，亦即生質燃料 作物取代了受保護之生態系統，反而間接增加了溫室氣體之排放。最後探討 GATT 第 20 條例外條款之 問題。
針對 SCM 協定，Daniel Peat 於 Environmental Law and Management 發表之文章 The Wrong Rules for the Right Energy: the WTO SCM Agreement and Subsidies for Renewable Energy(2012)23 ，主要檢視 SCM 協定相關條文對於再生能源(renewable energy)之補貼，縱使非明顯之保護主義，所會遭遇到之法律上之 挑戰。該文就當代法律條文內容為說明、論及目前法律架構、所會遭遇之困境以及法律之選擇。內文 並就目前三個 WTO 與能源相關之案例加以分析說明，並列出重要參考文獻。此外，相關研究另有， Lauren Henschke 於 World Trade Review 上所發表之 Going it alone on climate change: a new challenge to WTO subsidies disciplines: are subsidies in support of emissions reductions schemes permissible under the
19 Susan L. Sakmar, Indiana, Bringing Energy Trade into the WTO: The Historical Context, Current Status, and Potential Implications for the Middle East Region, 18 IND.INT'L &COMP.L.REV. 89 (2008)
20 Paolo R. Vergano & Eugenia Laurenza, Fossil fuel “grading” and sustainability criteria for biofuels and bioliquids under the EU Fuel Quality and Renewable Energy Directives: implications for international trade, 7 (3)GLOBAL TRADE AND CUSTOMS
JOURNAL 92 (2012).
21 Stephanie Switzer & Joseph A. McMahon, EU Biofuels Policy - Raising the Question of WTO Compatibility, 60(3) I.C.L.Q. 713 (2011).
22 Emily Barrett Lydgate, Biofuels, Sustainability, and Trade-Related Regulatory Chill, 15(1) JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC LAW 157（2012）
23 Daniel Peat, The Wrong Rules for the Right Energy: the WTO SCM Agreement and Subsidies for Renewable Energy, 24 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND MANAGEMENT 3 (2012)
9
WTO(2012)24 ；該文主要探討政府對於碳排放交易方案（carbon trading scheme）之允許排放（emission permit）條文約款，與 WTO 之 SCM 協定之關係與挑戰。該文強調對於 SCM 協定下之無形商品之特性 (characterization)之定義之需要，以及其重要性、當涉及允許排放時，SCM 協定對於控訴會員之費用「分 配正義（distributive justice）」有極大的偏袒。該文就是否允許排放屬於 SCM 協定下之補貼、是否有 SCM 協定第 1.1 條(b)款之利益、評估不利反應與計算利益等問題提出意見，並提出重要 WTO 案例加 以闡釋說明。
甚者，Stormy-Annika Mildner 與 Gitta Lausterck 於 Goettingen Journal of International Law 期刊上共 同發表之文章 Settling Trade Disputes over Natural Resources: Limitations of International Trade Law to Tackle Export Restrictions25，也探討當前 WTO 規則對於自然資源之出口限制，以及其界限何在、是否 優惠項貿易安排(Preferential Trade Agreement)是否能更有效的用以防止因出口限制而產生之貿易扭曲 (trade distortion)效果等問題，並以自由貿易協定(Free Trade Agreements)加以分析闡釋。最後，Luca Rubini 於 Journal of International Economic Law 期刊中發表之文章 Ain’t Wastin’ Time No More: Subsidies for Renewable Energy, the SCM Agreement, Policy Space, and Law Reform（2012）26該文認為，WTO 協定之 不確定性導致各國對於能源議題難以做出穩固的決策；具體而言，GATT 第二十條之例外條款與 SCM 協定之相關規範之含糊性，無法具體明確地規定以何等程度支持再生能源產業之補貼措施是被法律所 保護或允許的，導致無法提供一個使各國政府皆能滿意的法律庇護所，準此，該文作者認為 WTO 相 關規範之修訂是必要的解決問題之方法。
四、 研究方法
本計畫主要採用文獻研究法與案例研究法，針對相關主題，蒐集相關文獻與 WTO 案例加以分 析，並輔以學說評述，以求得相關主題之全貌。五、 結果與討論（含結論與建議）
1. 本研究對於加拿大再生能源設備案之初步研究成果與評釋，如後所附文章。 2. 對於我國日後相關能源法制之規劃，建議需注意不得違反國民待遇原則、最惠國待遇原則。而由於 就既有 WTO 爭端解決機制之案例報告來看，傳統能源與再生能源是否屬於同類產品？是否在同一 市場競爭？相干對於再生能源之發展獎勵政策，是否該當補貼與平衡稅協定中可控訴之補貼？尚屬 未明。因此建議相關政策與法制擬定時，需多方審酌。24 Lauren Henschke, Going it alone on climate change: a new challenge to WTO subsidies disciplines: are subsidies in support of emissions reductions schemes permissible under the WTO, 11(1) WORLD TRADE REVIEW 27 (2012).
25 Stormy-Annika Mildner & Gitta Lausterck, Settling Trade Disputes over Natural Resources: Limitations of International Trade Law to Tackle Export Restrictions, 3 GÖTTINGEN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 251 (2011)
26 Luca Rubini, Ain’t Wastin’ Time No More: Subsidies for Renewable Energy, the SCM Agreement, Policy Space, and Law Reform, 15 (2) JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC LAW 525（2012）
10
1
3rd Conference of the Postgraduate and Early Professionals/Academics Network of the Society of International Economic Law (PEPA/SIEL)
Trade and Energy: Reflections from Case Canada-Feed-in Tariff
Program in WTO
DRAFT
Yao-Ming Hsu
Associate Professor, College of Law, National Cheng-Chi University, Taipei, Taiwan Doctor of Center of EU Law and International Law, Université Aix-Marseille, France
Introduction
Energy security is becoming an important issue in every country, especially for those countries who do not have enough natural resources in their territories. Besides, relating to the effects of climate change, all the world is trying to find some affirmative ways to mitigate possible disasters and to adapt to possible influences from climate change1. Thus, the development of renewable energy seems to be of great importance in recent decades.
However, because of the limits of technologies, efficiencies and production scale of this kind of new energy production for electricity, till now, it seems that if without policy encouragement or financial aids from governments in many countries, the price of this green energy still remains high and would not be possible to compete with conventional productions of energy by for example fossil-base production.
All these scenarios contribute to the dilemma we face now. Especially, in the epoch of global trade, it’s very possible that when one country promotes its own renewable energy production by providing advantages according to certain domestic requirements to domestic producers, conflicts between domestic policies and laws and international trade norms (esp. WTO) emerge2. For example, for the policies and laws about the climate change or in a broader sense about the environmental protection, the possible application of GATT, TBT and SCM agreements of WTO will constitute debatable interactions
1 The newest scientific, adaptation and mitigation report from Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) were just released and could be reached at
http://www.ipcc.ch/ (19 April 2014 last visited). The final synthesis report is envisaged to be released by 21 October 2014.
2 See in general for example, Paolo D. Farah & Elena Cima, Energy Trade and the WTO: Implications for Renewable Energy and the OPEC Cartel, 16(3)JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC LAW 707 (2013).
2
among trade, energy, environment and development3. It’s just the situation what Canada face in cases Canada- Renewable Energy4 and Canada- Feed-in-Tariff Program5.
I. Reflections on Canada Renewable Energy/FIT Program Case
1. Backgrounds and relevant arguments by parties
For encouraging the production of electricity by renewable energy and for reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases, the Canadian Province of Ontario created the feed-in tariff (FIT) Programme for certain wind and solar photovoltaic ("PV") electricity generation projects. Besides, this FIT program also required renewable energy producers to comply with minimum domestic content requirement for the generation equipments they use (from 2012, for projects over 10kW, solar PV 60% and wind power 50%) for getting the long term guaranteed purchase contract by Ontario Power Authority.
In these disputes, the complaints Japan and the European Union (EU) argued that the FIT program in which the Ontario Province of Canada provided long term guaranteed pricing for electricity produced by wind power and solar technology constituted “benefit” in sense of article 1.1(b) of the Subsidies and Countervailing Measures Agreement of WTO (SCM) and violated articles 3.1 (b) and 3.2 as prohibited subsidy. Besides, the complaints also argued that the minimum domestic content requirements in FIT program violated national treatment obligations articulated in GATT art.III:4 and Agreement on Trade-Related Investment Measures (TRIMs) art.2.1.
Conversely, at first Canada argued that the FIT program belonged to the government procurement exception prescribed in article III:8 of GATT. Furthermore, Canada proposed a defense that no “benefit” in sense of art.1.1(b) of SCM existed because the market of electricity produced by wind power and solar technology constituted an individual market and could not be compared in the wholesale market of electricity together with conventional production of electricity.
3 Nilmini Silva-Send, Climate Change Disputes at the World Trade Organisation: National Energy Policies and International Trade Liability, 4 SAN DIEGO J.CLIMATE &ENERGY L. 195, 199 (2012-2013)
4 Canada — Certain Measures Affecting the Renewable Energy Generation Sector, WT/DS412. Request for consultation on 13 Sep. 2010, Panel Report circulated on 19 Dec. 2012, Appellate Body Report adopted on 24 May 2013.
5 Canada — Measures Relating to the Feed-in Tariff Program, WT/DS426. Request for consultation on 11 Aug. 2011, Panel Report circulated on 19 Dec. 2012, Appellate Body Report adopted on 24 May 2013.
3
2. Panel Report & Appellate Body Report
a. Violation of National Treatment of GATT III:4 and TRIMs 2.1
At first, for the domestic content requirements embodied in FIT program, the Panel finds that even though the FIT Programme constitute "procurement", it is undertaken "with a view to commercial resale", so that the exception of art.III:8 of GATT could not be allowed and the FIT program should still be scrutinized by art.III:46. In addition, the Panel finds that “compliance with the "Minimum Required Domestic Content Level" not only involves the "purchase or use" of products from a domestic source, …, but also that such compliance "is necessary" for electricity generators using solar PV and windpower technologies to participate in the FIT Programme,…. We are therefore satisfied that the challenged measures are TRIMs falling within the scope of Paragraph 1(a) of the Illustrative List, and that in the light of Article 2.2 and the chapeau to Paragraph 1(a) of the Illustrative List, they are inconsistent with Article III:4 of the GATT 1994, and thereby also inconsistent with Article 2.1 of the TRIMs Agreement.”7
Even though the Appellate Body slightly reversed some reasoning of the Panel for the legal nature of domestic content requirements, it still finds that the FIT program is not covered by art.III:8 and is not consistent with national treatment obligation prescribed in GATT art. III:4 and TRIMs art.2.18.
b. No “benefit” evidence in SCM Agreement
Art. 1.1 (b) of the SCM Agreement prescribed that “a subsidy shall be deemed to exist if… a benefit is thereby conferred.” The complainants presented their benefit arguments by relying on the “competitive wholesale electricity market as a whole” in Ontario as relevant market for the benefit analysis.
The majority of the Panel, siding with Canada, rejected to use the market as a whole as the appropriate benchmark for analysis of benefit, also by persisting that “a benefit (could only exist) by examining whether the rates of return associated with the FIT and microFIT Contracts are significantly above the average cost of capital in Canada for projects having a comparable risk profile.”9 Nevertheless, one member if the Panel
6 Panel Report, para. 7.152.
7 Ibid., para. 7.166.
8 Appellate Body Report, para.5.85. 9 Panel Report, para. 7.324.
4
dissented and argued that facilitating the entry of certain technologies into a market by a financial contribution did constitute a benefit10.
More deliberately, the Appellate Body rejected this approach and based on its examination on both demand-side and supply-side factors for the determination of market. Especially, the Appellate Body observed that “windpower and solar PV producers of electricity cannot compete with other electricity producers because of differences in cost structures and operating costs and characteristics”11. Besides, it also argued that “the definition of a certain supply-mix by the government cannot in and of itself be considered as conferring a benefit within the meaning of Article 1.1(b) of the SCM Agreement”12. It thus concluded that “benefit comparison under Article 1.1(b) should not be conducted within the competitive wholesale electricity market as a whole, but within competitive markets for wind- and solar PV-generated electricity, which are created by the government definition of the energy supply-mix”13.
At last, after taking into account of the factual evidences, the Appellate Body regrets that “we do not consider that there are sufficient factual findings by the Panel and uncontested evidence on the Panel record that would allow us to complete the legal analysis and conduct a benefit benchmark comparison between the prices of wind-generated electricity under the FIT Programme and the prices for wind-wind-generated electricity under the RES initiative. Consequently, we cannot determine whether the challenged measures confer a benefit within the meaning of Article 1.1(b) of the SCM Agreement.”14
3. Comments
Basically, in this case, the violation of national treatment obligation of the minimum domestic content requirements in FIT program is less disputed and less discussed by scholars. However, the benefit analysis by the Appellate Body for the possible application of the SCM agreement, especially the definition of market as benchmarks, has many implications.
10 Dissenting Opinion of One Member of the Panel, Panel Report, para 9.3. 11Appellate Body Report, para. 5.174.
12 Ibid., para. 5.175. 13 Ibid., para. 5.178. 14 Ibid., para. 5.246.
5
First of all, it seems that the Appellate Body has relied on the analysis of benefit in case EC and certain member States- Large Civil Aircraft15 for the interpretation of “benefit” in casu. However, is it really the same for the analysis of “benefit” in art.1.1(b) SCM in Canada FIT program as in art.6(3)(a) and 6(3)(b) SCM (serious prejudice) in which the Appellate Body acknowledged to read the “market” together with the concept of “like products” in EC Civil Aircraft case? Some criticizes that in the text of art.1.1(b) SCM, neither “market” nor “like product” appears16; even we admit the necessity of introducing the “market” for interpreting “benefit”, whether the suppliers receiving the financial contribution has obtained any advantageous position in selling their product should be determined in the market in which they sell their product; there’s no basis for concluding that supply-side would overweigh the demand-side factors. Even, why shouldn’t we conclude a reverse finding with same factual evidences17? For me personally, this critique misunderstood the arguments the Appellate Body proposed. Because of both demand-side and supply-side matters, that’s why the market of electricity generated by renewable ways differ from the conventional electricity market. Some are also afraid that by the benefit analysis of this case, in the future there would be more and more discriminatory policies or laws, according to different production technologies, and they could easily be justified by asserting they are in another market. Would it be possible that the Appellate Body decision potentially removes a wide range of trade distorting government support programs from the regulatory scope of the SCM agreement? For example, it seems to be more difficult for WTO members to succeed to contesting each other’s climate projects18. From an environmentalist point of view, it could be the time of dawn, but for advocates of free trade, it could be the time of dusk. More analyses would be of great interest about the concept of “like products”. According to jurisprudences of WTO, a non-exclusive list of criteria for judging “like products” includes (1) physical properties, nature and quality of products (2) end uses of products (3) tariff classification of products. Besides, it’s sometimes arguable if consumers’ preferences could be one of elements for differentiating products. If the
15
European Communities — Measures Affecting Trade in Large Civil Aircraft, WT/DS316. Request for consultation on 6 Oct. 2004, Panel Report circulated on 30 Jun. 2010, Appellate Body Report circulated on 18 May 2011.
16 Rajib Pal, Has the Appellate Body’s Decision in Canada-Renewable Energy / Canada-Feed-in Tariff Program Opened the Door for Production Subsidies? 17(1)JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC LAW 125, 128 (2014)
17 Ibid., at 131 & 132.
18 Sherzod Shadikhodjave, First WTO Judicial Review of Climate Change Subsidy Issues, 107 A
M J.INT’L L.
6
Appellate Body considers that supply substitutability matters for defining market, could it be also possible that we urge that the electricity generated from renewable technology is not “like product” as electricity generated from traditional ways19? It also triggers again the long-debating concerns about the criteria of process and production method (PMP) for defining like product.
II. Further Implications from Canada Renewable Energy/FIT
Program Case
Even though the Panel and the Appellate Body in Canada Renewable Energy /FIT Program both holds that the minimum domestic content requirement violates GATT art. III:4 in which national treatment is obliged, further environment-friendly discussions deserve our attention by introducing the possible application of GATT art.XX exception clauses as justification for these measures (1). Moreover, a harmonized treaty interpretation techniques set by Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) and admitted by the DSU and DSB jurisprudence US-Gasoline20 would be another way for some better integration between different international law regimes, to be precise, the conciliation between international trade needs, energy security and environmental protection (2).
1. Another way out? Possible Applicability of Art. XX of GATT
In fact, it’s of disputes that if the general exceptions clauses set in art.XX of GATT could be used as justification in SCM Agreement. Maybe it’s just the reason why Canada did not make any arguments justifying Ontario’s FIT program under these general exception clauses. However, two provisions in GATT art.XX attract our attention: paragraph (b) for protecting human, animal or plant life of health and paragraph (g) relating to conservation of exhaustible natural resources. However, the chapeau of art. XX, also demanding that the measure at issue should not be an “arbitrary or unjustifiable
19 Ibid., at 875. See also: Kerina Lee, An Inherent Conflict between WTO Law and a Sustainable Future? Evaluating the Consistency of Canadian and Chinese Renewable Policies with WTO Trade Law, 24 Geo. Int’l Envt’l L. Rev. 57,63 (2011)
7
discrimination” or a disguised restriction on international trade, still remains a hurdle21, as we could see in US-Gasoline, US-Shrimp22 and Brazil-Retreated Tyres23 cases24. At first, on one hand, those who against the beyond-the-GATT applicability of GATT art.XX insist that this applicability would undermine the “inner balance of the rights and obligations” of the SCM agreement, in which a special consideration about the environment (non-actionable subsidy) is already justified25. However, the exemption of non-actionable subsidy just terminated in 2000. Shouldn’t we take other considerations into account for the better application of SCM? For those who prefer the other-than-the-GATT applicability for other-than-the-GATT art.XX to other branches of trade agreements relating to goods, the expansion of GATT art.XX could be justified because of the single undertakings spirit in WTO and there are no textual barriers about that applicability26. Certainly, to be modest, the applicability of GATT art.XX for the SCM agreement could be of ad hoc basis, an instrument-by-instrument and provision-by-provision application.
2. Treaty Interpretation for harmonization between Trade and Energy
(1)Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) and admitted by the DSU 3.2 DSB is to clarify the existing provisions of those agreements in accordance with customary rules of interpretation of public international law.
(2) DSB jurisprudence US-Gasoline – the Appellate Body has ruled that VCLT can serve as “a point of reference for discerning the applicable customary rules”27.
21 Elizabeth Whitsitt, A Modest Victory at the WTO for Ontario’s FIT Program, 20 U.C.DAVIS J.INT’L L.& POL’Y 75, 98 (2013)
22 WT/DS58 23 WT/DS332
24 These cases, see in details: Hajin Kim, Do Trade Liberalization and International Trade Law Constrain Domestic Environmental Regulation? 43 ENT’L L.REP.NEWS &ANALYSIS 10823, 10837 (2013)
25 Luca Rubini, Ain’t Wastin’ Time No More: Subsidies for Renewable Energy, the SCM Agreement, Policy Space, and Law Reform, 15(2)JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC LAW 525, 562 (2012)
26 Ibid., at 562-3.
8
(3) Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties art.31(3)(c) -- There shall be taken into account, together with the context: … any relevant rules of international law applicable in the relations between the parties.
Conclusion
A harmonization among free trade, environment protection and energy security is needed and desirable. A treaty revision approach seems less possible; another proposal for reinforcing the competence of CTE from the Doha assignment (preventing green protectionism and win-win-win strategy) also appears to be illusive. Finally, a legal interpretation approach will be more practical.
1
行政院國家科學委員會補助國內專家學者出席國際學術會議報告
103 年 4 月 30 日 報告人姓名 許耀明 服務機構 及職稱 國立政治大學法律學系 時間 會議 地點 2013/4/22-4/29 巴西聖保羅 本會核定 補助文號 NSC 102-2410-H-004 -118 - 會議 名稱 (中文) 第三屆國際經濟法學會學士後與青年專業學術網路會議(英文) 3rd Conference of the Postgraduate and Early Professional Academics Network of the Society of International Economic Law Conference
發表 論文 題目
(中文)貿易與能源：從加拿大補貼電價/再生能源案談起
(英文) Trade & Energy：Case Canada-Feed-in Tariff Program/Renewable Energy in WTO
2 報告內容應包括下列各項： 一、參加會議經過 本人搭乘飛機於 103 年（下同）4 月 22 日晚間出發，經首爾、阿布達比轉機，於 23 日 上午抵達巴西聖保羅。 4 月 24 日，參加會議第一日。（會議議程如附件） 4 月 25 日，參加會議第二日並發表論文。 4 月 26 日，週末於聖保羅參訪。 4 月 27 日晚間搭機返國，經阿布達比、首爾，於 4 月 29 日傍晚抵台。 二、與會心得 「國際經濟法學會」籌備於 2006 年，第一次會議於 2008 年舉辦，為國際間專門針 對國際經濟法與國際貿易法之專門性學會。其會之活動規劃，亦包括獎勵學士後與年輕 學人之附屬會議。本年度為該附屬會議之第三次。本次會議參加者約來自於十餘國約五 十人，討論主題涵蓋全球經濟與社會治理、貿易法、貿易政策、國際投資、環境法、個 案研究、爭端解決以及貿易與能源等場次。 本次會議中，本人發表於貿易與能源場次，負責報告 WTO 迄今唯一已經跑完爭端 解決程序之加拿大再生能源案，獲會場參與人士熱烈回應與討論，並受到美國明尼蘇達 教授 Greg Schaffer 之討論肯定。 本次會議議程參見附件一，本文發表論文參見附件二。 三、考察參觀活動(無是項活動者省略) 略 四、攜回資料名稱及內容 會議議程、資料（已放於學會網路）與會者名片 五、其他 各國有許多博士生業已參與，建議多提供補助給國內相關研究博士生有機會參與此一會 議，本會議 2015 年預計於義大利米蘭舉行。 附件一 會議議程 （如後） 附件二 本人發表論文（如後） 附件三 會議活動相片
3
rdPEPA/SIEL
3
rdConference of the Postgraduate and
Early Professionals/Academics Network of
the Society of International Economic Law
(PEPA/SIEL)
São Paulo, Brazil
April 24
thand 25
th, 2014
Rua Rocha, 233 – São Paulo-SP
Conference Co-Chairs: Michelle Ratton Sanchez Badin, Vera
Thorstensen, José Caiado, Freya Baetens and Adriane Sanctis.
Sponsorship:
3
rdPEPA/SIEL
2PROGRAMME
THURSDAY – 24 APRIL 08:30 - 09:00 Registration 09:00 - 10:15Opening - Michelle Ratton & José Caiado
(Auditorium, 2nd S)
Global economic governance: what levels for appropriate coordination and world social and economic development?
Alberto do Amaral Junior (FD/USP, Brazil)
Michael Ewing-Chow (National Univesity of Singapore)
10:30 - 12:00 I. GLOBAL ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL GOVERNANCE (Room 801, 8th floor) Commentators:
Alberto Amaral Jr. (FD/USP, Brazil)
Michael Ewing-Chow (National Univesity of Singapore)
II. TRADE LAW
(Room 601, 6th floor) Commentators:
Ricardo de La Rosa (ITAM, México)
Carolina Saldanha-Ures (GO Associados)
12:00 - 13:00 Lunch (Brunch DireitoGV) (Auditorium, 2nd S)
13:00 - 14:00
Round Table - Methodology on IEL
(Auditorium, 2nd S)
Chair: André Corrêa (DireitoGV, Brazil) José Augusto Fontoura Costa (FD/USP, Brazil) José Caiado (University of Hamburg, Germany) Stephan Wittig (ILE, Hamburg, Germany)
14:00 - 15:30
III. TRADE POLICY
(Room 801, 8th floor) Commentators:
Gustavo Ribeiro (Uniceub, Brazil)
Arthur Capella (Mackenzie, Brazil)
IV. INVESTMENT 1
(Room 601, 6th floor) Commentators:
Fabio Morosini (FD/UFRGS, Brazil)
Michelle Ratton (Direito GV, Brazil)
15:30 - 15:45 Coffee Break (Auditorium, 2nd S)
16:00 - 17:30
V. ENVIRONMENTAL LAW
(Room 801, 8th floor) Commentators: José Augusto Fontoura (FD/USP, Brazil)
Vera Kanas (Tozzini Law Firm, Brazil)
VI. TRADE CASE STUDIES
(Room 601, 6th floor) Commentators:
Umberto Celli (FD-RP/USP, Brazil)
Cristiane Lucena (IRI/USP, Brazil)
19:00 - 22:00 Social Activity (Pizzaria Prestissimo*)
3
rdPEPA/SIEL
3
FRIDAY – 25 APRIL
8:00 – 8:15 Welcome Coffee (Auditorium, 2nd S)
8:15 – 9:15
Challenges to IEL after the crisis
(Auditorium, 2nd S)
Vera Thorstensen (FGV-EEESP, Brazil) Chair: Umberto Celli (FD-RP/USP)
09:15 - 10:30
Roundtable - Teaching and Research on IEL
(Auditorium, 2nd S)
Chair: Umberto Celli (FD-RP/USP) Fabio Morosini (FD/UFRGS, Brazil) Gustavo Ribeiro (Uniceub, Brazil) Ricardo de La Rosa (ITAM, México)
10:30 – 12:00 VII. INVESTMENT 2 (Room 801, 8th floor) (Skype) Commentator: Michael Ewing-Chow
Rabih Ali Nasser (Nasser Law Firm, Brazil)
VIII. TRADE AND ENERGY
(Room 502, 5th floor) Commentators:
José Caiado (University of Hamburg, Germany) Arthur Capella (Mackenzie, Brazil)
12:00 - 13:15 Lunch (Paulista Wall Street*)
13:30 - 15:00
IX. TRADE IN SERVICES
(Room 801, 8th floor) Commentator: Umberto Celli Junior (FD/USP, Brazil)
Nora Rachman (DireitoGV, Brazil)
X. ENERGY
(Room 502, 5th floor) Commentators:
Salem Nasser (DireitoGV, Brazil) Carolina Lembo (FIESP, Brazil) 15:00 - 16:30 XI. FINANCE (Room 801, 8th floor) Commentators:
Camila Duran (FD/USP, Brazil)
Bruno Salama (DireitoGV, Brazil)
XII. DISPUTE SETTLEMENT
(Room 502, 5th floor) Commentator:
Paula Almeida (Direito Rio, Brazil)
Stephan Wittig (ILE, Hamburg, Germany)
16:30 - 16:45 Coffee Break (Auditorium, 2nd S)
17:00 - 18:00
Key note speaker: Greg Shaffer
(Auditorium, 2nd S) Chair: Michelle Ratton
20:00 Informal social activity for those staying until Saturday
* Dinner, April 24th at Pizzaria Prestissimo, Rua Joaquim Eugênio de Lima, 1135. * Lunch, April 25th at Paulista Wall Street, Rua Itapeva, 636.
3
rdPEPA/SIEL
4
SESSIONS PARTICIPANTS I. GLOBAL ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL GOVERNANCE
National judges and courts as institutions for global
economic governance
Camilla Capucio Uni. of Sao Paulo, Brazil
Morality in international trade: striking the right balance between WTO members’ pursuit of non-trade objectives and the fear of opening the floodgates
Regis Y. Simo Bocconi Uni., Italy
Consumer Protection in the WTO Law
Sawmiya Rajaram Jawaharlal Nehru Uni., India
II. TRADE LAW
Agreements and Disputes over Non-Tariff Measures David De Remer
Uni. Brussels, Belgium
Towards a typology of WTO-Plus Commitments: Evidence of a Two-Tier Membership Dylan Geraets KU Leuven, Belgium
The no-harm principle: of any relevance for the WTO?
Jelena Bäumler Uni. Of Potsdam, Germany
III. TRADE POLICY
Resource Nationalism, Climate Change and Energy Export Restrictions: the challenges ahead for the WTO
Ilaria Espa WTI, Switzerland
MERCOSUR going deeply political: bilateral options ahead Clarita Maia/ AlinePeixoto
Uni. of Brasilia, Brazil
The Resurrection of Industrial Policy: the 2008 financial crisis and its consequences to the subsidies and the national treatment debate
Daniel Ramos
Uni. Sao Paulo, Brazil
IV. INVESTMENT 1
Performance Requirement Prohibitions: the Next Frontier for Most-Favored Nation treatment clauses in investment treaties?
Alexandre Genest Uni. of Ottawa, Canada
Investor’s Rights in International Investment Agreements: A Theory of Dependent Right?
Junianto James Losari National Uni.,
Singapore
States facing grave economic crises: which legal framework for foreign investments? A focus on the current EU situation
Federica Cristani Uni. of Verona, Italy
3
rdPEPA/SIEL
5
V. ENVIRONMENTAL LAW
Keeping up with the changing climate: The WTO’s evolutive approach in response to the trade and climate conundrum
Vyoma Jha and Avidan Kent NYU, USA and Cambridge, UK
International Economic law and International Environmental law – towards greater convergence
Beatriz Stevens Georgetown Uni., USA
Revisiting the Protection Standards of International Intellectual Property based on climate friendly technology transfer
Jiani Jiang Beijing Normal University, China
VI. TRADE CASE STUDIES
China and the WTO: Will the Market Economy
Status make any difference after 2016? Francisco Urdinez IRI – USP, Brazil
The ‘External Dimension’ of the European Union’s Raw Materials initiative and international economic law
Lars Schönwald Universität Passau
Public Private Partnership at WTO Dispute Settlement Mechanism: India’s Case Study Amrita Bahri Birmingham Law School VII. DISPUTE SETTLEMENT
David’s Sling or Blunt Knife? – How to Make Use of the Authorization to Cross-Retaliate as a Small Market Economy?
Johannes Norpoth Ruhr-Uni. Bochum, Germany
Strategic litigation in the WTO: winners and losers Tilman Krüger Uni. of Bremen, Germany Awarding Damages or Authorizing Retaliation? Protecting Entitlements in international
economic law
Geraldo Vidigal Uni. of Cambridge, UK
VIII. TRADE AND ENERGY
European Union in relation to renewable energy and biofuels Vinicius Diniz Vizzotto UFRGS, Brazil
Transparency in the Energy Sector and International Trade Rules: A comparative study of Italy and Brazil
Alessia Vacca / Gabriel Lochagin
Uni. Of Sassari, Italy / USP, Brazil
Trade and Energy: Reflections from Case
Canada-Feed-in Tariff Yao-Ming Hsu National Cheng-Chi Uni., Taiwan
3
rdPEPA/SIEL
6
Global energy governance in the intergovernmental organizations Matheus Linck Bassani UFRGS, Brazil
Energy Subsidies and WTO Dispute Settlement: Why only Renewable Energy Subsidies are challenged?
Henok Birhanu Asmelash Bocconi Uni., Italy
State-owned enterprises as investors in the nuclear energy industry: ICSID and non ICSID Jurisdictional Conundrums
Odysseas Repousis Uni. of Hong Kong
XI. FINANCE
Banking Secrecy and Global Governance: Incorporation of the F.A.T.C.A. (Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act)
Carolina Coelho Uni. Center of Brasilia,
Brazilv.
The emerging trends (legal and institutional) in
the proposed BRICS partnership
Ajoku Ogechukwu
Kaduna State, Nigeria
Law and Macroeconomics: a case study of the management of public finance in Brazil in the 21th century
Flávio Prol USP/Yale
XII. INVESTMENT 2
Methods of dispute resolution for foreign direct
investments: an overview of Brazil´s legal System
Ana Paula Yurgel UFRGS, Brazil
Friends of the Environment? Amici Curiae in Investor-State Arbitration
Wei-Chung Lin University of Nottingham, UK
Rebalancing International Investment Law and the Application of the principle of proportionality in the Quantum Phase
Sondra Faccio Uni. Verona, Italy
IX. TRADE IN SERVICES
Services PTAs: what is the driving force behind recent rise?
Daria Shirokova Uni. St. Gallen, Switzerland
Water supply in brazil and the GATS
Beatriz Granziera/Lucas Pires
Catholic Uni. Sao Paulo/FGV, Brazil From Free Trade Zone to “Pilot” Free Trade
Zone: the New Legal Experiment of china Zhu Feng Peking Uni., China
1
3rd Conference of the Postgraduate and Early Professionals/Academics Network of the Society of International Economic Law (PEPA/SIEL)
Trade and Energy: Reflections from Case Canada-Feed-in Tariff
Program in WTO
DRAFT
Yao-Ming Hsu
Associate Professor, College of Law, National Cheng-Chi University, Taipei, Taiwan Doctor of Center of EU Law and International Law, Université Aix-Marseille, France
Introduction
Energy security is becoming an important issue in every country, especially for those countries who do not have enough natural resources in their territories. Besides, relating to the effects of climate change, all the world is trying to find some affirmative ways to mitigate possible disasters and to adapt to possible influences from climate change1. Thus, the development of renewable energy seems to be of great importance in recent decades.
However, because of the limits of technologies, efficiencies and production scale of this kind of new energy production for electricity, till now, it seems that if without policy encouragement or financial aids from governments in many countries, the price of this green energy still remains high and would not be possible to compete with conventional productions of energy by for example fossil-base production.
All these scenarios contribute to the dilemma we face now. Especially, in the epoch of global trade, it’s very possible that when one country promotes its own renewable energy production by providing advantages according to certain domestic requirements to domestic producers, conflicts between domestic policies and laws and international trade norms (esp. WTO) emerge2. For example, for the policies and laws about the climate change or in a broader sense about the environmental protection, the possible application of GATT, TBT and SCM agreements of WTO will constitute debatable interactions
1 The newest scientific, adaptation and mitigation report from Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) were just released and could be reached at
http://www.ipcc.ch/ (19 April 2014 last visited). The final synthesis report is envisaged to be released by 21 October 2014.
2 See in general for example, Paolo D. Farah & Elena Cima, Energy Trade and the WTO: Implications for Renewable Energy and the OPEC Cartel, 16(3)JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC LAW 707 (2013).
