WTO對貿易報復的多邊控制─法律、實踐與挑戰

WTO's Multi-layered Control on Trade Retaliation

10.30392/TJWTOS.201309_(23).0004

劉筱萌(Xiao-Mong Liu)

世界貿易組織 ； WTO執行機制 ； DSU改革 ； 授權報復 ； WTO ； Dispute Settlement Body ； Appellate Body ； authorized retaliation mechanism

Taiwanese Journal of WTO Studies

23期（2013 / 09 / 01）

111 - 164

繁體中文

對於世界貿易組織（WTO）所建立的多邊爭端解決機制而言，執行是爭端解決的最後環節，同時也是爭端解決的關鍵環節，任何性質或形式的爭端解決方式，一旦不能執行到位，將使一切變得毫無意義。在整個WTO裁決執行的問題中，又尤以授權報復機制所受到的質疑和挑戰最多。本文試圖從目前WTO多邊體制下授權報復制度所面臨的問題入手，對其制度性缺陷進行深入分析，進而以關於授權報復改革的發展中國家提案為切入點，對WTO授權報復制度提出一些新的分析和思考，以期對WTO新授權報復制度的構建有所裨益。

For the multilateral dispute settlement system of World Trade Organization (WTO), implementation is the last part of the multilateral dispute settlement and is an essential element to settling disputes in the multilateral trading system. Without the implementation of the ruling, such a system would thus turn to be futile. In regard to the challenges relating to ruling’s implementation, perhaps the most controversial problem is the authorized retaliation mechanism.This article attempts to analyze in depth the challenges faced in the WTO’s authorized retaliation mechanism, particularly its institutional defects. The article starts with proposals made by developing nations to reform the authorized retaliation mechanism. Finally, this paper puts forth several new proposals for more favorable as well as efficient approaches towards the authorization of the retaliation mechanism in the WTO.

1. European Communities – Regime for the Importation, Sales and Distribution of Bananas, WT/DS27/52, 9 November 1999, p. 3
2. EC, TN/DS/W/1, p. 17 at para 25.
3. US-Byrd Amendment (Article 22.6 – US), paras 1.15-1.16，paras 3.20-3.30, 3.53, 3.54
4. UN 年度人類發展指數各國排名， http://www.sinovision.net/news.php?act=details&news_id=35335, 訪問日期2010 年12 月20 日
5. Dani Rodrik, The Global Governance of Trade as if Development Really Mattered, paper prepared for the UNDP, July 2001, p.33. Available at http://system2.net/ukpgh/wp-content/uploads/rodrikgovernance.PDF, visited on 8/12/2009
6. Brazil-Aircraft (Article 22.6- Brazil), paras 2.8-2.9., 2.4-2.6, 4.1
7. US-1916 Act (EC) (Article 22.6-US), para 2.1, paras 5.40-5.44
8. Office of the United States Trade Representative, Implementation of WTO Recommendations Concerning EC—Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones), Docket No. 301-62a, 1999.
9. Japan, TN/DS/W/32, p. 7 at para 6.
10. Recourse to Arbitration by the United States under Article 22:6 of the DSU - Decision of the Arbitrator, United States - Measures Affecting the Cross-Border Supply of Gambling and Betting Services (US -Gambling), WT/DS285/ARB, 21 December 2007, para 6.1
11. US-Byrd Amendment (EC) (Article 22.6-EC), para 2.2-2.10, paras 3.20-3.30, 3.53, 3.54, 3.22
12. Ecuador, TN/DS/W/33, p. 4.
13. Allan H. Meltzer, International Financial Institution Advisory Committee Report, March, 2000, available at http://www.house.gov/jec/imf/meltzer.htm, visited8/12/2009
14. Bridges Weekly Trade News Digest, With Negotiations Frozen, Potential WTO Disputes Looming, Vol.10 No.28 (2 August 2006) - available at http://www.ictsd.org/weekly/06-08-02/wtoinbrief.htm#1, visited 15 July 2010)
15. Negotiations on the Dispute Settlement Understanding Proposed by the LDC Group, TN/DS/W/17, October 2002.
16. US-Subsidies on Upland Cotton, Article 22.6 of the DSU and Article 4.11 of the SCM, paras.3.9, 3.22, 3.30-32, 3.37, 3.50, 3.52-62, 3.64，para.5.129.
17. United States - Measures Affecting the Cross-border Supply of Gambling and Betting Services, WT/DS285/4, 30 January 2004
18. DSU第3條第7款，Art. 22.3 (d ), 21.5, 22.3 (b), (c), 22.8
19. http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2009/02/weodata/weorept.aspx?sy=2006&ey=2009&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&c=111&s=NGDPD%2CNGDPDPC%2CPPPGDP%2CPPPPC%2CLP&grp=0&a=&pr.x=64&pr.y=8, 訪問日期2010 年12 月20 日
20. United States – Subsidies on Upland Cotton, Recourse to Arbitration by the United States under Article 22.6 of the DSU and Article 4.11 of the SCM Agreement, Decision by the Arbitrator, WTO Doc. WT/DS267/ARB/1 (Aug. 31, 2009)
21. EC-Hormones (Canada) (Article 22.6-EC), para 7, para 37, 68, 72-73 (11.3 million CDND per year)
22. US – FSC (Article 22.6-US), paras 6.2, 8.1 (an amount based on the amount expended by the US in granting subsidy
23. Section I.A.1.c (iii) above
24. Permanent Mission of Zambia on behalf of the LDC Group, Communication, TN/DS/W/17 (Oct.9, 2002)..
25. http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds267_e.htm , 訪問日期2010 年10 月20 日
26. Steve Charnovitz, The WTO's Problematic Last resort Against Noncompliance, 14 August 2003, at 8-16 available at http://www.worldtradelaw.net/articles/charnovitzlastresort.pdf [revised version of an article published in Aussenwirtschaft, (12/2002)].
27. EC Hormones (US) (Article 22.6-EC), paras 7-12, para 38, 78, para 9, paras 83-84 (116.8 million USD per year)
28. Negotiations on Improvements and Clarifications of the Dispute Settlement Understanding, Dispute Settlement Body Special Session, TN/DS/W/23, 4 November 2002, at p.5-6.
29. Decision by the Arbitrators, European Communities – Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas – Recourse to Arbitration by the European Communities under Article 22.6 of the DSU, WT/DS27/ARB, 9 April 1999, DSR 1999: II, p. 774、p. 725, para.6.16
30. EC-Bananas III (Article 22:6-Ecuador), Recourse to Arbitration by the European Communities under Article 22:6 of the DSU -Decision of the Arbitrator, European Communities - Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas (EC - Bananas III), WT/DS27/ARB/ECU, 24 March 2000, at para.173–74, paras 37-41 (in particular para 38), 59, 78, para 2.8, para 4.9, 7.8, para 3.7
31. Article 22.3, Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes, “Same sector”, “Other sector”, “another covered agreement”. Available at http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/dsu_e.htm#22, visited on 5/12/2011
32. Canada - Aircraft Credits and Guarantees (Article 22.6 -Canada), para 4.1 ( 247,797,000 USD).
33. Anderson, Kym(2002).Peculiarities of Retaliation in WTO Dispute Settlement.World Trade Review,1,123.
34. Bagwell, Kyle,Mavroidis, Petros C.,Staiger, Robert W.(2003).NBER Working Paper No. 9920, JEL No.F1NBER Working Paper No. 9920, JEL No.F1,Cambridge, MA, United States:National Bureau of Economic Research.
35. Bartels, Lorand(2001).Applicable Law in WTO Dispute Settlement Proceedings.Journal of World Trade,35(3),499-519.
36. BHALA, RAJ(2001).INTERNATIONAL TRADE LAW: THEORY AND PRACTICE.Lexis Publishing.
37. Carmody, Chi(2002)。Remedies and Conformity Under the WTO Agreement。J. INT'L ECON. L.，5，309。
38. Charnovitz, Steve(2001).Rethinking WTO Trade Sanctions.AM. J. INT'L L.,95,809+831.
39. Corr, Christopher F.(1997).Trade Protection in the New Millennium: The Ascendancy of Antidumping Measures.NW. J. INT'L L. & BUS.,18,49.
40. Davey, William J.(2000).The WTO Dispute Settlement System.J. INT'L ECON. L.,3,15.
41. Diego-Fernandez, Mateo,Herran, Roberto Rios(2004).The Reform of the WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding: A Closer Look at the Mexican Proposal.MANCHESTER J. INT'L ECON. L.,1,14+23.
42. Hoekman, B.,Mavroidis, P. C.(1999).Enforcing Multilateral Commitments: Dispute Settlement and Developing Countries.The WTO/World Bank Conference on Developing Countries in a New Millennium,Geneva:
43. Jackson, John H.,Davey, William J.,Sykes, Alan O.(1995).Legal Problems of International Economic Relations: Cases, Materials and Text on the National and International Regulation of Transnational Economic.West Publishing Company.
44. Kennedy, Daniel L.M.(ed.),Southwick, James D.(ed.)(2002).THE POLITICAL ECONOMY OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE LAW.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
45. Medrado, Renê Guilherme S.(2004).Renegotiating Remedies in the WTO: A Multilateral Approach.WIS. INT'L L. J.,22,323.
46. Nzelibe, Jide(2005).The Credibility Imperative: The Political Dynamics of Retaliation in the World Trade Organizations Dispute Resolution Mechanism.THEORETICAL INQUIRIES LAW,6,215+217.
47. Nzelibe, Jide(2008).The Case Against Reforming the WTO Enforcement Mechanism.U. ILL. L. REV.,2008,322+335-336.
48. Pauwelyn, Joost(2000).Enforcement And Countermeasures in The WTO: Rules are Rules-Toward A More Collective Approach.AM. J. INT'L L.,94,336.
49. Rafiqul Islam, M.(2004).Recent EU Trade Sanctions on the US to Induce Compliance with the WTO Ruling in the Foreign Sales Corporation Revisited.Journal of World Trade,38(3),80.
50. Schwartz, Warren F.,Sykes, Alan O.(2002).The Economic Structure of Renegotiation and Dispute Resolution in the World Trade Organization.LEGAL STUD.,31,184.
51. Yenkong, Ngangjoh H.(2004).Collective Countermeasures and the WTO Dispute Settlement: Solidarity Measures Revised.Nordic Journal of Commercial Law,2
52. Yerxa, Refus(ed.),Wilson, Bruce(ed.)(2006).KEY ISSUES IN WTO DISPUTE SETTLEMENT: THE FIRST TEN YEARS.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
53. 毛驍驍(2008)。論WTO 框架下的授權報復程度問題。河北法學，2008(6)
54. 向淩(2005)。WTO 爭端解決機制中報復措施的缺陷及革新路徑探析。時代法學，2005(6)
55. 向雅萍(2008)。WTO 報復制度的缺陷與完善研究。理論月刊，2008(4)
56. 余敏友(2006)。論世貿組織法律救濟的特性。現代法學，2006(6)
57. 紀文華(2005)。WTO 爭端解決執行中的“順序”問題法律解讀。世界貿易組織動態與研究，2005(12)
58. 胡北平、李美紅(2005)。發展中國家對WTO 爭端解決機制的改革要求及改革前景。社會科學輯刊，2005(5)
59. 孫琬鐘編、余敏友編(2008)。WTO法與中國論叢。智慧財產權出版社。
60. 翁傑(2001)。WTO 體制下的報復權在實施中的若干問題。西安政治學院學報，2001(5)
61. 馬強(2008).WTO 爭端解決機制中報復措施問題研究.知識經濟,2008(2)
62. 張軍旗(2002)。論WTO爭端解決機制中的報復制度。上海財經大學學報，2002(1)
63. 傅星國(2009)。WTO 爭端解決中“交叉報復”的案例分析。國際經濟合作，2009(7)
64. 傅星國(2009)。WTO 爭端解決機制中的報復問題。國際經濟合作，2009(5)
65. 曾令良編、黃德明編(2009)。歐洲聯盟法治50年：回顧與展望。湖北人民出版社。
66. 楊鴻(2007)。從集體報復措施的設想看WTO 裁決的執行促進手段─結合相關修改提案進行的合理性與可行性分析。世界貿易組織動態與研究，2007(4)，38。