Loading...
|
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/57945
|
| Title: | 從Mexico－Soft Drinks案分析WTO與NAFTA爭端解決機制之比較與管轄衝突
Analysis of the comparision of WTO and NAFTA dispute settlement mechanism and jurisdictional conflicts－From Mexico－Soft Drinks case analysis |
| Authors: | 胡美蓁 |
| Contributors: | 許耀明
胡美蓁 |
| Keywords: | 爭端解決機制
世界貿易組織
區域貿易協定
北美自由貿易協定
墨西哥飲料案
dispute settlement mechanism
WTO
RTA
NAFTA
Mexico－Soft Drinks |
| Date: | 2012 |
| Issue Date: | 2013-05-01 11:43:05 (UTC+8) |
| Abstract: | 近年來，國際法規範多元化擴展，除了原有之國際貿易協定組織如「世界貿易組織」（WTO）外，區域貿易協定（RTAs）也隨之蓬勃發展，一時間蔚為國際風潮。因為RTA之興起，爭端解決之機構也隨之大幅增加。RTAs雖是在關稅暨貿易總協定第24條規定下有條件建立的區域貿易體系，但大部分的RTAs有其自已的貿易爭端解決機制。一方面，在國際的貿易爭端，WTO與RTA均具有管轄權，也產生管轄衝突。另一方面，由於WTO之法律規範中，並未規定WTO－RTA爭端解決機制之互動關係，使得爭端解決機構在平行的爭端解決程序下審理同一或類似義務時，可能產生裁判衝突。因此，為了國際貿易關係的安全及可預測性，惟有正視並思考使二個爭端解決系統之間能夠兼容並存的互動，管轄權重疊的議題得以有效率的處理，始有助於避免在WTO和RTAs間爭端解決所引起的可能潛在問題。
在Mexico－Soft Drinks案中，同屬北美自由貿易協定(NAFTA)會員國之美國及墨西哥，因NAFTA協議衍生貿易紛爭，美國遂就該爭端向WTO提出控訴。由於墨西哥就兩國之爭端已先向NAFTA提出控訴，故墨西哥在WTO之爭端解決程序中主張WTO應不受理本案，而應由NAFTA爭端解決機構處理，才能使該案獲得澈底解決。惟WTO不僅受理本案之審理，且WTO小組及上訴機構之裁決，均一致地肯定WTO對本案之管轄權。從WTO對本案例的裁決，可觀察到WTO爭端解決機構均以WTO體系及「爭端解決程序與規則瞭解書」規範作為判斷基礎，並未考量WTO－RTA管轄權可能產生的衝突，以及因為衝突可能對全球貿易秩序所造成之影響。然在本案中，上訴機構提出「法律障礙」之概念，本文嘗試探討「法律障礙」能否成為WTO拒絕審理之事由，進而承認RTA之管轄，以減少WTO－RTA管轄衝突所造成之影響，使得WTO爭端解決機構採取開放與包容的態度，尊重RTA爭端解決機制之裁決，才能WTO與RTA爭端解決機制能相互尊重及兼容併存，確保國際貿易之安全及可預測性。
In recent decades, the norms of international law diversify,in addition to the previous WTO ,RTA also flourished and became the international trends.Because of RTA’s rising,dispute settlement bodies have increased significantly,but most of RTAs have their own dispute settlement mechanisms.On the one hand,WTO and RTA have jurisdiction also generate conflicts of jurisdiction in international trade disputes. On the other hand, WTO law does not provide the interaction rule to resolve the conflicts between WTO-RTA dispute settlement mechanisms,thus, the Dispute Settlement Body under the parallel trial of the same or similar obligations, referee conflicts may arise.Therefor, only to think about the interactive issues of overlapping jurisdiction of the two dispute settlement systems can helps to avoid the potential issues.
In Mexico－Soft Drinks case, the United States and Mexico are both the Member States of North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), Mexico filed a complaint to NAFTA first, because of the disputes of NAFTA agreement,the United States then complaint to WTO in respect of the dispute. Therefore, Mexico argued that the case should not be accepted the case in WTO dispute settlement procedures, but by the NAFTA dispute settlement body, in order to make the case to get thoroughly resolved.But WTO did not accept Mexico’s claim, the rulings of WTO panel and Appellate Body were unanimously affirmed that WTO has the jurisdiction of the case.By this case,we knew that WTO identified as the jurisdiction of a dispute by “Understandin On Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes “(DSU) and Dispute Settlement Body(DSB), but did not consider the jurisdiction of WTO-RTA may arise conflicts, as well as the conflicts may be caused by the impact of the global trade order. However, in this case, the Appellate Body put forward the concept of "legal impediment", this article attempts to explore "legal impediment" where could make WTO reject the trial, and then recognize the the RTA jurisdiction, in order to reduce the impact of WTO-RTA jurisdictional conflicts.If WTO Dispute Settlement Body would like to have an open attitude to respect the ruling of RTA ,then, it is possible to make the mutual respect and co-exist between WTO and RTA dispute settlement mechanisms, and to ensure the security and predictability of international trade. |
| Reference: | 壹、中文部分
一、專書（以下均依作者姓氏筆劃排列）
林彩瑜，2011，《WTO制度與實務－世界貿易組織法律研究（三）》。台北：元照出版公司。
洪德欽，2005，《WTO法律與政策專題研究》。台北：新學林出版。
黃立、李貴英、林彩瑜，2005，《WTO國際貿易法論》。台北：元照出版公司。
羅昌發，2010，《國際貿易法》。台北：元照出版公司。
二、期刊論文
林彩瑜，2004，〈論WTO與區域貿易協定爭端解決機制之衝突與調和〉。《臺大法學論叢》第40卷第1期。
何志鵬、隽薪，2011，〈WTO與NAFTA爭端解決機制管轄權衝突研究〉。《世界貿易組織動態與研究》第18卷第2期。
王震宇，2001，〈WTO與區域貿易協定之締結與適用－從最高行政法院96年度判字第1986號判決談起〉。《月日法學雜誌》第195期。
王震宇，2012，〈區域貿易協定下反傾銷及平衡措施之實證研究〉。《台北大學法學論論叢》第81期。
洪德欽，2000，〈區域經濟整合與GATT/WTO〉。《國立臺灣大學法學論叢》第29卷第4期。
沈木珠、逯婷婷，2008，〈WTO多邊貿易體制與區域自由貿易協定的衝突與協調〉。《南京大財經大學學報》第149期。
紀文華、黃萃，2006，〈從案例看WTO如何處理RTA爭端管轄權問題〉。《河北法學雜誌》第24卷第11期。
施文真，2005，〈由智利-劍魚案論環保貿易措施所引發之爭端：管轄權衝突之探討〉。《政大法學評論》第86期。
柯春共，2005，〈區域自由貿易協定主要類型之研析〉。《問題與研究》第44卷第2期。
郭曉剛，2010，〈WTO與NAFTA爭端解決機制的比較〉。《山西大同大學學報(社會科學版)》第24卷第3期。
劉鐡錚，1997，〈論國際管轄權衝突之防止〉。《政大法學評論》第15期。
嚴蓉，2010，〈區域貿易協定與WTO解決機制的管轄權博奕〉。《國際經濟法學叢刊》第17卷第3期。
中華經濟研究院(台灣WTO中心)，2011，〈WTO與自由貿易協定爭端解決機制規範與實務運用之比較：主要國家之策略與經驗〉。《經濟部國際貿易局/外交部委託專題研究》(5)。
三、碩博士論文
吳岱蓉，2011，《WTO爭端解決機制之研究─以爭端解決規則與程序瞭解書(DSU)之改革為中心》。中正大學法律學研究所 碩士論文。
徐耀浤， 2004，《國際解決投資爭端中心管轄權問題及其改革之研究－兼論WTO納入投資人與地主國爭端解決機制之展望》。政治大學國際貿易研究所 碩士論文。
陳俊銘，2008，《世界貿易組織與區域貿易協定管轄權衝突之調和方式》。台灣大學法律學研究所 碩士論文。
趙堅集，2003，《論違反協定與未違反協定之控訴-以世界貿易組織之法制為中心》。中正大學法律學研究所 碩士論文。
四、網站資料
國家圖書館全球資訊網，http://www.ncl.edu.tw/.
法源法律網，http://www.lawbank.com.tw/index.php/.
月旦法學資識庫，http://www.lawdata.com.tw/.
世界貿易組織官方網站，http://www.wto.org/.
貳、西文部分
Andrew D Mitchell,The Legal Basis for Using Principles in WTO Disputes,Journal of International Econmic Law,795-835,doi:10-1093/jiel/jgn037.
Andrew D Mitchell,Good Faith in WTO Dispute Settlement,Melbourne Journal of Internaional Law,Vol.7,(2006).
A.L.C de Mestral,NAFTA Dispute Settlement：Creative Experim Or Comfusion,Draft,2005-06-08.
David A. Gantz,Dispute Settlement Under The NAFTA And The WTO：Choice Of Form Opportunities And Risks For The NAFTA Parties, Aerican University Inernational Law Review,14,4（1999）.
David Morgan,Dispute Settlement under PTAs:Political or Legal?,Printed Material-Free Trade Agreements,Melbourne Law School(2007)261.
Henry Gao and C. L. Lim, Saving The WTO From The Risk Of Irrelevance: The WTO Dispute Settlement Mechanism As A ‘Commongood’ For RTA Disputes, Journal of International Economic Law, 1–27,doi:10.1093/jiel/jgn036.
Joost Pauwelyn & Luiz Eduardo Salles,Forum Shopping Before International Tribunals(Real)Concerns,(Im) Possible Solutions,42 CORNELL INT’L L. J. (2009).
Joost Pauwelyn,Going Globa,Regional,or Both?Dispute Settlement in the South American Development Community(SADC)and Overlaps with the WTO and Other Jurisdictions,Minnesota Journal of Global Trade 231,(2003).
Julia Ya Qin,Managing Conflicts between Rullings of WTO and Tribunals:Reflections on the Brazil-Tyres Case, Wayne State Univ. L. Sch. Legal Studies Research Paper Series No.09-24, (2009).
Kyung Kwak and Gabrielle Marceau,Overlaps and Conflicts of Jurisdiction between the WTO and RTAs,Conference on Regional Trade Agreements World Trade Organization,26,April,2002.
Lorand Bartels,The Separation of Power in the WTO:How to Avoid Judical Activism,53 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 861,(2004).
Mexico－Tax Measures On Soft Drinks And Other Beverages,WTO Panel Report, WT/DS308?R,7 October 2005 .
Mexico－Tax Measures On Soft Drinks And Other Beverages,WTO Appellate Body Report,WT/DS308/AB/R.6 March 2006.
Nguyen Tan Son,Twords a Compatible Interaction between Dispute Settlement Under the WTO and Regional Trade Agreement,MqJBL(2008)Vol.5.
Tim Graewert,Conflicting Laws and Jurisdictions in the Dispute Settlement Process of Regional Trade Agreement and the WTO,1(2)CONTEMP.ASIA.ARB.J.287(2008).
William J. Davey & Andre’ Sapir , The Soft Drinks Case : The WTO and Regional Agreements ,8 WORLD TRADE REV.(2009).
World Trade Report 2011,The WTO and preferential trade agreements:From co-existence to coherence, http://www.wto.org/english/res_e/booksp_e/anrep_e/world_trade_report11_e.pdf,17 Mar. 2013.
Yulia Ya Qin,Managing Conflicts Between Rulling Of WTO And RTA Tribunals:Reflections On The Brazil Case,Wayne State University Law School Legal Studies Reasearch Paper Series ,No. 09-24,,(2009).
Yuval Shany,The Competing Jurisdictions of International Courts and Tribunals ,(2003). |
| Description: | 碩士
國立政治大學
法學院碩士在職專班
99961039
101 |
| Source URI: | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0099961039 |
| Data Type: | thesis |
| Appears in Collections: | [法學院碩士在職專班] 學位論文
|
Files in This Item:
| File |
Size | Format | |
|---|
| 103901.pdf | 750Kb | Adobe PDF2 | 1739 | View/Open |
|
All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.
|
