非違反協定控訴於“與貿易有關之智慧財產權協定”可適用性之研究

The Study on the Applicability of the Non-Violation Complaint in the TRIPS Agreement

10.6416/SLR.200710.0069

徐揮彥(William Hui-Yen Hsu)

非違反協定控訴 ； TRIPS協定 ； 智慧財產權 ； 公共衛生 ； 強制授權 ； 印度 ； non-violation complaint ； TRIPS Agreement ； intellectual property rights ； public health ； compulsory license ； India-Paten Case

東吳法律學報

19卷2期（2007 / 10 / 01）

69 - 108

繁體中文

WTO爭端解決程序所採取之非違反協定控訴，曾被學者認為係依據「外交官之法律觀」所創造出來之控訴制度。此控訴制度不僅在GATT時期具爭議性，在WTO爭端解決制度繼續沿用下，其爭議性更加明顯，特別將其適用在烏拉圭回合協商所創設的諸多新協定上。非違反協定控訴能否適用在與貿易有關之智慧財產權協定，即是此眾多爭論之一。然而，原生於貨品貿易協定，且為確保關稅互惠減讓之利益不被其他政府措施剝奪或減損（且無論此措施有無違反協定義務）的非違反協定控訴，能否順暢適用並解決TRIPS協定下爭端之問題，甚至無法在烏拉圭回合協商被解決，而在TRIPS協定第六十四條第二項暫停適用條款下，留待會員日後以協商解決，然此課題迄今仍未被完成。 因此，本研究之目的在探討非違反協定控訴可否適用於TRIPS協定下爭端之問題，包括應否適用、適用所可能產生之衝擊以及假設應適用的話要採如何方式。本研究分五部份，除第一部分為前言導論外，第二部份對非違反協定控訴制度之原本制度設計目的、功能及實踐為分析後，進入目前WTO會員及學者關於TRIPS協定應否適用非違反協定控訴之正反意見匯整及提出模式予以分析。第三部份則對探討TRIPS協定之性質與特徵，以及TRIPS協定與GATT兩者間之差異所在。第四部份則探討非違反協定控訴假設適用於TRIPS協定爭端的話，實施上是否可能，以及將產生如何之衝擊與問題，並提出可能之調整方案，第五部分就本研究為結論。

The non-violation complaint which originated in the framework of multilateral trading system has invited many issues in the WTO. One of them is whether this unique complaint can function well in the system of the TRIPS Agreement which has obviously different normative features and nature from the GATT system. The Objectives of this article are to study the possibilities and dangers of the application of the non-violation complaint to the TRIPS Agreement, and to develop possible adjusting approaches. Apart from the introduction part, the second of this article is to survey on the nature, original functions and practices of the non-violation complaint, the third part of this article is to analyze the features and nature of the TRIPS Agreement and its differences with the GATT, the fourth part is to analyze if the non-violation complaints were to be applied in the TRIPS Agreement, what impacts would possibly happen, and if there are still any solutions for this issue, the fifth part comes to the conclusion.

1. Abbott, F. M.(2000).TRIPS in Seattle: The Not-So-Surprising Failure and the Future of the TRIPS Agenda.Berkeley Journal of International Law,18,165-179.
2. Abbott, F. M.,Ernst-Ulrich Petersmann (ed.)(1997).International Trade Law and GATT/WTO Dispute Settlement System, Studies in Transnational Economic Law.Deventer and Boston:Kluwer Law and Taxation.
3. Bronckers, M.,Quick, R. (eds)(2000).New Directions in International Economic Law: Essays in Honour of John H. Jackson.Hague:Kluwer Law International.
4. Cho, S.(1998).GATT Non-Violation Issues in the WTO Framework: Are They the Achilles` Heel of the Dispute Settlement Process?.Harvard International Law Journal,39(2),311-355.
5. Cottier, T.(2005).Trade and Intellectual Property Protection in WTO Law.London:Cameron May.
6. Cottier, T.,Schefer, K. N.,E.-U. Petersmann (ed.)(1997).International Trade Law and GATT/WTO Dispute Settlement System, Studies in Transnational Economic Law.Deventer and Boston:Kluwer Law and Taxation.
7. Durling, J. P.,Lester, S. N.(1999).Original Meaning and the FILM Dispute: The Drafting History, Textual Evolution, and Application of the Non-Violation Nullification or Impairment Remedy.George Washington Journal of International Law and Economics,32(2),211-269.
8. Evans, G. E.(2000).A Preliminary Excursion into TRIPS and Non-Violation Complaints.Journal of World Intellectual Property,3(6),867-888.
9. Geuze, M.,Wager, H.(1999).WTO Dispute Settlement Practice Relating to the TRIPS Agreement.Journal of International Economic Law,2(2),347-384.
10. Haochen Sun(2003).Reshaping the TRIPS Agreement Concerning Public Health: Two Critical Issues.Journal of World Trade,37(1),163-197.
11. Hudec, R. E.(1993).Enforcing International Trade Law: the evolution of the modern GATT legal system.Salem, NH:Butterworth.
12. Hudec, R. E.(1993).The GATT Legal System and World Trade Diplomacy.Salem, NH:Butterworth.
13. Larouer, C.(2006).WTO Non-Violation Complaints: A Misunderstood Remedy in the WTO Dispute Settlement System.Netherlands International Law Review,53(1),97-126.
14. Lee, K. D.,von Lewinski, S.,Friedrich-Karl Beier,Gerhard Schricker (Eds.)(1996).From GATT to TRIPS: The Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights.Munich:Wiley-VCH.
15. Mavroidis, P. C.(2000).Remedies in the WTO Legal System: Between a Rock and a Hard Place.European Journal of International Law,11(4),763-813.
16. Petersmann, E.-U.(1991).Violation-Complaints and Non-Violation Complaints in Public International Law.German Yearbook of International Law,34,175-229.
17. Petersmann, E.-U.(1997).The GATT/WTO Dispute Settlement System: International Law, International Organizations and dispute Settlement.Hague:Kluwer Law International.
18. Roessler, F.,Ernst-Ulrich Petersmann (ed.)(1997).International Trade Law and GATT/WTO Dispute Settlement System, Studies in Transnational Economic Law.Deventer and Boston:Kluwer Law and Taxation.
19. Samahon, T. N.(2000).TRIPS Copyright Dispute Settlement after the Transition and Moratorium: Nonviolation and Situation Complaints against Developing Countries.Law and Policy in International Business,31,1015-1075.
20. Spitzer, F.(2004).The Non-Violation in WTO Law.Berlin:Tenea.
21. Non-Violation Complaints and the TRIPS Agreement: Some Considerations for WTO Members
22. TRIPS and Non-violation Complaints-From a Public Health Perspective
23. Sun, H.(2004).The Road to Doha and Beyond: Some Reflections on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health.European Journal of International Law,15(1),123-150.
24. von Bogdandy, A.(1992).The Non-Violation Procedure of Article XXIII: 2, GATT: Its Operational Rationale.Journal of World Trade,26(4),95-111.
25. 徐揮彥、楊光華主編(2003)。WTO新議題與新挑戰。台北:元照出版公司。
26. 許忠信(2000)。WTO與貿易有關智慧財產權協定之研究－以專利實體法為中心。輔仁法學，23，439-470。
27. 馮震宇(2005)。台灣智慧財產權法制之發展與重要爭議問題探討。月旦民商法雜誌，9，62-88。
28. 黃慧嫺(2005)。落實TRIPS義務：印度修正專利法－全球藥品市場可能重新洗牌？。科技法律透析，17(7)，51-63。
29. 劉孔中(2005)。世界貿易組織與貿易有關智慧財產權協定權利落實規定之研究。全國律師，9(1)，37-47。
30. 蔡明誠(1999)。從WTO貿易智慧權協定觀點看國際智慧權保護標準之發展。律師雜誌，243，19-30。
31. 謝銘洋(2002)。智慧財產權在保護上之排他性。月旦法學，87，28-29。
32. 羅昌發(2002)。國際貿易法。台北:元照出版公司。