| Abstract: | 討論國際經貿規範的法制化過程，無法規避國際法與國家間的權力運作問題，更不能忽視國際社會不存在最高權威之國際無政府狀態的事實。國際社會存在國家資源暨地位的不對稱差異，使強權得以操縱國際經貿議程，建構符合強權利益的國際經貿規範。形式上，國際經貿規範的法制化，係參與者基於對等地位，透過雙邊暨多邊談判後所建構而成的法律，但其實質內容，仍反映強權國家在不對等的基礎上，操縱談判議程，鑲嵌強權利益，扭曲平等正義，強化本國優勢，限制對手經貿發展機會之事實。
觀察國際經貿法中「市場擾亂」概念的法制化過程發現，強權通常透過「內生模式」的議程設定手段，在國際制度中植入符合強權利益的規範概念，並透過國際制度之正當程序，法制化該等利於強權的國際經貿概念。是項國際經貿規則，在程序上未必違反國際制度，但實質內涵，卻不必然切合國際制度的精神與宗旨。而當該等國際經貿概念面臨更迭甚或終止時，強權國家仍可藉議程設定手段，將之植入另一項國際制度，繼續運用於特定領域或特定國家，維繫並保障強權之特定利益。
It is hard to neglect neither the fact of power competition nor the anarchic character of the international society as scholar researches the context and the practice of international law. The asymmetric distribution of international resources enhances the possibility for powerful states to manipulate the agenda of International Economic law legalization processes, which are therefore constructed in according with the interests of the international Powers. Formally, international economic laws are instituted through bilateral or multilateral dialogue on basis of equality, but in reality, they reflect that under an unbalanced foundation, powerful states maneuvering agendas to strengthen self-interests. Observing the development of the Market Disruption rules demonstrates that powerful states could use agenda-setting strategy to fulfill their goal in the process of International Economic law. Powerful states initiated the agenda, presented the draft, legalized certain rules and leave no chance for others the possibility to modify or change the rules in their favor. The strategies, in theory, may not necessarily disobey international order, but in practice, they could disturb the dictum and spirit of international order. Furthermore, when the concept of international economy ceased to be, powerful states could still, through agenda-setting, continue to install the orders into different states or region, thus secure certain privileges of theIt is hard to neglect neither the fact of power competition nor the anarchic character of the international society as scholar researches the context and the practice of international law. The asymmetric distribution of international resources enhances the possibility for powerful states to manipulate the agenda of International Economic law legalization processes, which are therefore constructed in according with the interests of the international Powers. Formally, international economic laws are instituted through bilateral or multilateral dialogue on basis of equality, but in reality, they reflect that under an unbalanced foundation, powerful states maneuvering agendas to strengthen self-interests. Observing the development of the Market Disruption rules demonstrates that powerful states could use agenda-setting strategy to fulfill their goal in the process of International Economic law. Powerful states initiated the agenda, presented the draft, legalized certain rules and leave no chance for others the possibility to modify or change the rules in their favor. The strategies, in theory, may not necessarily disobey international order, but in practice, they could disturb the dictum and spirit of international order. Furthermore, when the concept of international economy ceased to be, powerful states could still, through agenda-setting, continue to install the orders into different states or region, thus secure certain privileges of theIt is hard to neglect neither the fact of power competition nor the anarchic character of the international society as scholar researches the context and the practice of international law. The asymmetric distribution of international resources enhances the possibility for powerful states to manipulate the agenda of International Economic law legalization processes, which are therefore constructed in according with the interests of the international Powers. Formally, international economic laws are instituted through bilateral or multilateral dialogue on basis of equality, but in reality, they reflect that under an unbalanced foundation, powerful states maneuvering agendas to strengthen self-interests. Observing the development of the Market Disruption rules demonstrates that powerful states could use agenda-setting strategy to fulfill their goal in the process of International Economic law. Powerful states initiated the agenda, presented the draft, legalized certain rules and leave no chance for others the possibility to modify or change the rules in their favor. The strategies, in theory, may not necessarily disobey international order, but in practice, they could disturb the dictum and spirit of international order. Furthermore, when the concept of international economy ceased to be, powerful states could still, through agenda-setting, continue to install the orders into different states or region, thus secure certain privileges of the powers. |
