Loading...
|
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/45948
|
| Title: | WTO服務貿易經濟整合之規範 |
| Authors: | 楊光華
Yang, Connie Guang-Hwa |
| Keywords: | 經濟整合;大多數服務部門;更廣泛之經濟整合過程;國民待遇;Economic integration;Substantial sectoral coverage;A wider process of economic integration;National treatment |
| Date: | 2008-12 |
| Issue Date: | 2010-10-06 11:17:52 (UTC+8) |
| Abstract: | 服務貿易總協定（GATS）第五條是服務貿易有關經濟整合之最基本規範，師法貨品貿易對於關稅同盟／自由貿易區協定之規定（GATT第二十四條），確立經濟整合必須是促進締約方彼此間之貿易，而非增加非締約方之貿易障礙的基本原則。
儘管參考了GATT第二十四條之規定，但鑑於服務貿易與貨品貿易之不同，GATS第五條仍針對服務貿易之特質訂出與前者並不完全相同之規範：如在貿易的涵蓋上，第五條使用了GATT所無的「服務部門」、「服務提供模式」的概念以為衡量指標；且不再區分「關稅同盟」、「自由貿易區」，而改以「經濟整合」統稱。另一方面，由於服務貿易之規範發展較晚，若未提供相當的彈性，勢必降低各國參與之意願，是以本條不但較GATT第二十四條所訂之標準更為寬鬆，如在經濟整合應涵蓋之貿易範圍標準上，使用了「大多數」而非「大體上所有（“substantially all”）」——即「絕大多數」的文字；同時增添了GATT第二十四條所沒有之因素，如在評估經濟整合是否符合自由化之要求時，得考量更廣泛之經濟整合過程以降低符合之門檻。
此外，由於在服務貿易方面沒有類似貨品貿易之「授權條款」，因此第五條亦增設了開發中國家在經濟整合得享有之特殊及差別待遇，包括不必消弭絕大部分違反國民待遇之歧視、且可採取較具保護色彩的「原產地規則」——即不依GATS第二十八條有關法人之所屬國的一般定義，而僅限由經濟整合締約國之自然人所擁有或控制之法人享有經濟整合協定之優惠。
關於GATS第五條之執行，與GATT相同，理論上，WTO會員可透過WTO「區域貿易協定委員會」之審查、或是訴諸WTO爭端解決加以確保，不過至今仍尚無這樣的先例。
儘管有學者以為由於GATS第五條的規範較GATT多了許多彈性（如：涵蓋範圍之要求、得考慮更廣泛之經濟整合過程），故其符合之難度遠低於GATT第二十四條；但或許不應或忘的是管制措施不易量化、服務貿易統計欠缺的問題，同樣影響服務貿易經濟整合協定對外障礙水準之判斷，若無法有效解決，GATS第五條規範之落實恐不易檢驗。
Article V of the General Agreement on Trade in Services is the most fundamental rule for economic integration of service trade under the WTO, modeled from Article XXIV of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, which provides for Customs Unions/Free Trade Areas, and sets forth the basic principle that economic integration shall promote inter-trade among parties to the integration agreement and may not increase trade barriers to non-parties.
Despite the fact that it takes the provisions of GATT: XXIV for reference, given the difference between trade on goods and services, GATS: V still has some provisions specific to the features of service trade and is not entirely the same as the provisions of GATT: XXIV, for example, in term of coverage, GATS: V employs for measurement of trade the concepts of “service sectors” and “modes of supply of servic-es,” which are never used in the GATT. In addition, it does not distin-guish Custom Unions from Free Trade Areas; rather it addresses them as a whole by the term “economic integration.” On the other hand, due to the brief history of the rule development for service trade, if there is no substantial flexibility, WTO Members may be less willing to participate. Therefore, GATS: V not only has lax requirements (e.g., requiring “substantial” sectoral coverage instead of “substantially all” the trade as the GATT does), but also allows some considerations that GATT: XXIV does not provide for (e.g., “a wider process of economic integration” to be taken into account so that the liberalization requirement can be met more easily).
Moreover, because there is nothing in the GATS similar to the “Enabling Clause” under the GATT, GATS:V also provides additionally the special and differential treatment that developing countries are eligible for in economic integration. Under this S&D clause, developing countries are not required to eliminate substantially all discrimination, and are allowed to take a more protective rule of origin by deviating from the general definition of “juridical persons of another Member” provided for in GATS: XXVIII to grant the benefits derived from eco-nomic integration only to juridical persons owned or controlled by natu-ral persons of the parties to such economic integration agreement.
In terms of the implementation of GATS:V, as is the case with GATT, WTO Members theoretically can challenge the rule-consistency of an economic integration agreement either in the Committee of Re-gional Trade Agreement or before a dispute settlement panel of the WTO. Nevertheless, there has been no such precedent yet.
It is said that because GATS:V provides more flexibility than GATT (e.g., on the requirement of coverage, giving consideration to a wider process of economic integration), the difficulty in complying with it is much lower than in complying with GATT: XXIV. However, one should not overlook the difficulties in quantifying regulatory measures and in the lack of sufficiently detailed statistics of service trade, which both affect the evaluation of the external barriers of an economic inte-gration agreement for trade on services. If the problem cannot be effec-tively resolved, then the compliance of GATS: V will not be examined easily. |
| Relation: | 政大法學評論,112,201-248 |
| Data Type: | conference |
| Appears in Collections: | [國際經營與貿易學系 ] 會議論文
|
Files in This Item:
| File |
Description |
Size | Format | |
|---|
| 201-248a.pdf | | 651Kb | Adobe PDF2 | 1905 | View/Open |
|
All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.
|
