政大機構典藏-National Chengchi University Institutional Repository(NCCUR):Item 140.119/109673
English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  全文笔数/总笔数 : 114105/145137 (79%)
造访人次 : 52215900      在线人数 : 876
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
搜寻范围 查询小技巧：
  • 您可在西文检索词汇前后加上"双引号"，以获取较精准的检索结果
  • 若欲以作者姓名搜寻，建议至进阶搜寻限定作者字段，可获得较完整数据
    •  进阶搜寻


    请使用永久网址来引用或连结此文件: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/109673


    题名: 公共道德在WTO規範中之角色
    作者: 許耀明
    贡献者: 法律系
    关键词: 公共道德;技術性貿易障礙;製程與生產方式;關稅暨貿易總協定第二十條;前言;同類商品
    Public Moral;TBT;Process and Production Methods (PPM);GATT XX;chapeau;Like Products
    日期: 2016
    上传时间: 2017-05-17 15:11:03 (UTC+8)
    摘要: 本計畫主要著重於探討「公共道德」在WTO法律制度下所可能扮演之角色。近來，歐盟因為施行禁止進口加拿大與挪威以非人道方式獵捕之海豹相關商品之相關規則，而被加拿大與挪威控告違反最惠國待遇原則以及技術性貿易障礙協定。惟，歐盟基於動物福祉考量所施行之規則，尤以該規則係針對特定之「製程與生產方式」為規範對象時，是否應屬技術性貿易障礙下之技術性規範？甚者，動物福祉之促進與保障豈非本應優於貿易利益之考量？在上訴機構尚未對該案於2014年5月為判決之前，各方學者針對上述重要爭點做出諸多討論，然而上訴機構最後則認為相關問題並未被小組與相關當事人充分探討，且就公共道德之考量得否作為製程與生產之要素之一，亦未給予解答。除此之外，上訴機構肯認保障動物福祉確屬公共道德之其中一種態樣，但認為歐盟未能證明其相關規則符合關稅暨貿易總協定第二十條前言之必要性要求。耐人尋味者，亦如在美國線上賭博服務案與中國視聽服務案中，無論係限制人民賭博或者會員國對保護內國視聽產品之公共政策，皆無疑被認定屬公共道德之範疇，然上述二案亦被認定其並未達到關稅暨貿易總協定第二十條前言之必要性要求。由此三案以觀，是否意謂以公共道德作為貿易限制措施之合法化主張係屬可能，但要更進一步通過前言之必要性審查卻有其難度而難以實現？ 甚至，我們是否應同意公共道德得以「消費者偏好」之姿，作為辨別同類商品(Like Products)之可能標準？若允之，是否更有助於我們掌握WTO制度下未來之道德倫理、環境保護與動物福祉之意涵？總言之，上述所論之「公共道德」三種可能之角色，亦即公共道德是否可能作為製程與生產方式之要素、作為關稅暨貿易總協定下之一般例外以及是否可能作為辨別同類產品之標準等議題，於本計畫中詳加的分析與研究。
    This project focuses on possible roles of “Public Morals”in WTO legal regime. Recently, the European Union’s ban on certain inhumane-captured seal products from Canada and Norway triggers trade complaints about the violation of most-favored-nation treatment and TBT agreement. However, should the measure taken by the EU, based on considerations of animal welfare, be a technical regulation in sense of
    TBT? Especially some kind of process and production methods? Even, the promotion of animal welfare, shouldn’t it trump trade interest? Before the final decision of the Appellate Body (AB) for EC-Seal Products in May 2014, scholars quarreled with these crucial points. However, the AB just ruled that “this question had not been sufficiently explored by the Panel and the participants”and the question that whether moral consideration should be considered as an element of PPM is still unanswered.
    Besides, even the AB accepted that animal welfare is definitely a kind of public moral, it still declared that the EU “had not demonstrated that the EU Seal Regime meets the requirements of the chapeau of Article XX”. It’s
    quite interesting that both in the US-Gambling case and China-audiovisual case, the moral considerations, either refraining people from gambling or guaranteeing Member’s own national public policy for audiovisual products, could certainly be a kind of public morals, but the respondents also both failed in the justification of necessity test prescribed in the chapeau. So, does it mean that eventually any argumentation of public moral for justification of some trade-restrictive measures is possible, yet its implementation appears impossible to pass the examination according to the chapeau? Even, should we accept that public moral is a possible element for distinguishing “like products” in sense of“consumers’ preference”? Would we make it clearer for the future moral, environmental protection and animal welfare in WTO regime? In sum, the above-mentioned three different roles of“public moral” in WTO, i.e. possible element of PPM, possible justification for general exception to GATT, and possible criteria for distinguishing like products, have been thoroughly investigated in this article.
    關聯: MOST 104-2410-H-004-069
    数据类型: report
    显示于类别:[法律學系] 國科會研究計畫

    文件中的档案:

    档案 描述 大小格式浏览次数
    104-2410-H-004-069.pdf6750KbAdobe PDF2567检视/开启


    在政大典藏中所有的数据项都受到原著作权保护.


    社群 sharing

    著作權政策宣告 Copyright Announcement
    1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏，無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用，惟仍請適度，合理使用本網站之內容，以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用，則請先取得著作權人之授權。
    The digital content of this website is part of National Chengchi University Institutional Repository. It provides free access to academic research and public education for non-commercial use. Please utilize it in a proper and reasonable manner and respect the rights of copyright owners. For commercial use, please obtain authorization from the copyright owner in advance.

    2.本網站之製作，已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益，如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者，請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw)，維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
    NCCU Institutional Repository is made to protect the interests of copyright owners. If you believe that any material on the website infringes copyright, please contact our staff(nccur@nccu.edu.tw). We will remove the work from the repository and investigate your claim.
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - 回馈