論跨國爭端解決機制之設計與選擇—以澳洲菸草素面包裝法爭端案件為核心

The Design and Selection of International Dispute Settlement Mechanisms: A Case Study of Australia’s Tobacco Plain Packaging Act

盧思薇

全球化 ； 跨國爭端解決 ； 選購法庭 ； 菸草素面包裝法 ； FCTC ； globalization ； international dispute settlement ； forum shopping ； Tobacco Plain Packaging Act ； FCTC

清華大學科技法律研究所學位論文

2017年

碩士

林勤富

繁體中文

2011年，澳洲依菸草素面框架公約頒布菸草素面包裝法時，恐怕難以想像此部捍衛全球公共衛生之法律，竟涉及國際貿易與投資體系等法律義務違反，就此引爆多重跨國爭端。此起跨國爭端，反映跨國爭端解決機制擴增之諸多問題。有鑒於國際法默許跨國爭端解決機制之管轄權重疊，將可能產生矛盾裁判之碎裂化國際法疑慮；同時，跨國爭端解決機制擴增後，大幅提升當事方擇定不當機制之成本與風險。然而，既有文獻似乎尚未建構檢驗與選擇跨國爭端解決機制之制度，以致當前之機制漏洞可能不被察覺，當事方亦難以依機制功能尋覓合於需求之機制。為處理跨國爭端解決機制擴增所引致問題，本文欲以國際組織機構設計理論與選購法庭之觀點，構思跨國爭端解決機制設計暨選擇理論。此理論將拆解機制解決爭端所需之核心要素，並呈現採取各種機制對當事方之成本與效益。為檢驗此理論之適用性，本文將以澳洲菸草素面包裝法爭端案件為核心，先以爭端解決機制選擇理論為當事方分析可採機制有利於解決爭端之程度，再回歸至跨國爭端解決機制設計理論，分析本案牽涉之三大公約體系，如何改善其爭端解決機制設計。最後，本文試圖超脫當事方之利益考量，針對規範衝突與矛盾裁判衍生之國際法碎裂問題，提出調和之道。藉由跨國爭端解決機制設計與選擇理論，本文期待改善因跨國爭端解決機制擴增所致之國際法碎裂、跨國爭端解決之機制選擇，以及跨國爭端解決機制設計之三大問題。

The case of Australia’s Tobacco Plain Packaging Act (TPPA) concerns a number of legal issues as to TPPA’s compatibility with the World Health Organization (WHO) Agreement on Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC), the World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement), and Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of Hong Kong for the Promotion and Protection of Investments. This case is of extraordinary importance under the international legal framework with respect to problems resulted from the proliferation of international dispute settlement mechanisms. Similarly, it sheds light on issues regarding the selection and design of international courts. The existing literature primarily focuses on forum shopping before domestic courts, leaving out an equally important, yet less explored issue—forming shopping before international dispute mechanisms. In this Article, the author therefore presents a design and selection theory of international dispute settlement mechanisms. Moreover, the author seeks to apply this theory to the case of Australia’s Tobacco Plain Packaging Act, discussing the costs and benefits of using international trade, international investment, international health, and domestic court’s dispute settlement mechanisms, and specifically analyzing each regime’s design flaws. With a focus on the relationship between the increased international tribunals and transnational disputes with legal tricky issues, this article proposes “a rational design and selection of dispute settlement mechanisms” approach as a possible solution for the unsettled issues under the international framework.

1. 5. 林彩瑜（2014），〈國際投資仲裁程序與公共衛生之關聯：以菸品控制爭端為例〉，《臺大法學論叢》，43卷3期，頁550-85。
   連結：
2. 7. 經濟部智慧財產局（2007），《TRIPS逐條釋義》，台北經濟部智慧財產局。
   連結：
3. 1. Alvarez, José (2005), International Organizations as Law-Makers.
   連結：
4. 2. Brown, Chester (2009), A Common Law of International Adjudication.
   連結：
5. 3. Collier, John & Vaughan Lowe (2000), The Settlement of Dispute in International Law.
   連結：
6. 4. Gaukrodger, David & Kathryn Gordon (2012), Investor-State Dispute Settlement.
   連結：
7. 6. Merrills, John (2011), International Dispute Settlement.
   連結：
8. 7. Pauwelyn, Joost (2008), Conflict of Norms in Public International Law: How WTO Law Relates to Other Rules of International Law.
   連結：
9. 8. Posner, Richard (2007), Economic Analysis of Law.
   連結：
10. 9. Redfern, Alan et al. (2004), Law and Practice of International Commercial Arbitration.
    連結：
11. 10. Reisman, Michael (1992), Systems of Control in International Adjudication and Arbitration: Breakdown and Repair.
    連結：
12. 11. Salles Luiz Eduardo (2014), Forum Shopping in International Adjudication.
    連結：
13. 12. Shaw, Malcolm Nathan (2014), International Law.
    連結：
14. 13. Sweet, Alec Stone (2000), Governing with Judges: Constitutional Politics in Europe.
    連結：
15. 16. WTO (2004), A Handbook on the WTO Dispute Settlement System.
    連結：
16. 3. Alemanno, Alberto & Enrico Bonadio (2010), The Case of Plain Packaging of Cigarettes, 1 European Journal of Risk Regulation 268.
    連結：
17. 6. Brewster, Rachel & Adam Chilton (2014), Supplying Compliance: Why and When the United States Complies with WTO Rulings, 39 Yale Journal of International Law 201.
    連結：
18. 12. Danner, Allison M. (2003), Enhancing the Legitimacy and Accountability of Prosecutorial Discretion at the International Criminal Court, 97 American Journal of International Law 510.
    連結：
19. 14. Dorward, Daniel J. (1998), The Forum Non Conveniens Doctrine and the Judicial Protection of Multinational Corporations from Forum Shopping Plaintiffs, 19 University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Economic Law 141.
    連結：
20. 15. Ehrenzweig, Albert A. (1956), The Transient Rule of Personal Jurisdiction: The “Power” Myth and Forum Conveniens, 65 Yale Law Journal 289.
    連結：
21. 16. Franck, Thomas M. (1988), Legitimacy in the International System, 82 American Journal of International Law 705.
    連結：
22. 18. Ghei, Nita & Francesco Parisi (2004), Adverse Selection and Moral Hazard in Forum Shopping: Conflicts Law as Spontaneous Order, 25 Cardozo Law Review 1367.
    連結：
23. 19. Gostin, Lawrence & Rebecca Katz (2016), The International Health Regulations: The Governing Framework for Global Health Security, 94 The Milbank Quarterly 264.
    連結：
24. 20. Gostin, Lawrence et al. (2015), The International Health Regulations 10 Years On: The Governing Framework for Global Health Security, Lancet (published online November 22, 2015).
    連結：
25. 22. Harvard Law Review Association (1990), Forum Shopping Reconsidered, 103 Harvard Law Review 1677.
    連結：
26. 25. Helfer, Laurence (2008), Redesigning the European Court of Human Rights: Embeddedness as a Deep Structural Principle of the European Human Rights Regime, 19 European Journal of International Law 125.
    連結：
27. 26. Helfer, Laurence & Anne-Marie Slaughter (1997), Toward A Theory of Effective Supranational Adjudication, 107 Yale Law Journal 273.
    連結：
28. 27. Helfer, Laurence & Anne-Marie Slaughter (2005), Why States Create International Tribunals: A Response to Professors Posner and Yoo, 93 California Law Review 899.
    連結：
29. 28. Hoekman, Bernard M. & Petros C. Mavroidis (2000), WTO Dispute Settlement, Transparency and Surviellance, 23(4) The World Economy 527.
    連結：
30. 29. Idleman, Scott C. (2001), The Emergence of Jurisdictional Resequencing in the Federal Courts, 87 Cornell Law Review 1.
    連結：
31. 33. Koremenos, Barbara (2007), If Only Half of International Agreements Have Dispute Resolution Provisions, Which Half Needs Explaining?, 36 Journal of Legal Studies 189.
    連結：
32. 34. Koremenos, Barbara et al. (2001), The Rational Design of International Institutions, 55, International Organization 761.
    連結：
33. 35. Korn, Harold L. (1983), The Choice-of-Law Revolution: A Critique, 83 Columbia Law Review 772.
    連結：
34. 36. Lin, Ching-Fu (2017), Toward a More Rounded Strategy to Eliminate Illicit Trade in Tobacco Products, 51(2) Journal of World Trade.
    連結：
35. 39. Liu, Han-Wei & John Maughan (2012), China’s Rare Earths Export Quotas: out of the China-Raw Materials Gate, but past the WTO’s Finish Line?, 15(4) Journal of International Economic Law 971.
    連結：
36. 40. Liu, Han-Wei (2014), International Standards in Flux: A Balkanized ICT Standard-setting Paradigm and Its Implications for the WTO, 17 (3) Journal of International Economic Law 551.
    連結：
37. 43. Mackenzie, Ruth & Philippe Sands (2003), International Courts and Tribunals and the Independence of the International Judge, 44 Harvard International Law Journal 271.
    連結：
38. 44. Mattli, Walter (2001), Private Justice in a Global Economy: From Litigation to Arbitration, 55(4) International Organization 159.
    連結：
39. 45. Meron, Theodor (2005), Judicial Independence and Impartiality in International Criminal Tribunals, 99 American Journal of International Law 360.
    連結：
40. 46. Mitchell, Andrew D. & David M. Studdert (2012), Plain Packaging of Tobacco Products in Australia: A Novel Regulation Faces Legal Challenge, 373(3) Journal of the American Medical Association 261.
    連結：
41. 48. Pauwelyn, Joost (2015), The Rule of Law without the Rule of Lawyers? Why Investment Arbitrators are from Mars, Trade Adjudicators are from Venus, 109(4) American Journal of International Law 761.
    連結：
42. 52. Peters, Anne (2003), International Dispute Settlement: A Network of Cooperational Duties, 14 European Journal of International Law 1.
    連結：
43. 53. Petersmann, Ernst-Ulrich (2006), Justice as Conflict Resolution: Proliferation, Fragmentation, and Decentralization of Dispute Settlement in International Trade, 27 University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Economic Law 273.
    連結：
44. 54. Posner, Eric A. & John C. Yoo (2005), Judicial Independence in International Tribunals, 93 California Law Review 1.
    連結：
45. 55. Pulkowski, Dirk et al. (2005), Book Review of Pauwelyn, Joost: Conflict of Norms in Public International Law: How WTO Law Relates to Other Rules of International Law, 16 European Journal of International Law 153.
    連結：
46. 56. Raustiala, Kal (2005), Form and Substance in International Agreements, 99 American Journal of International Law 581.
    連結：
47. 57. Reisman, W. M. (1969), The Enforcement of International Judgments, 63 American Journal of International Law 1.
    連結：
48. 59. Romano, Cesare P. R. (1999), The Proliferation of International Judicial Bodies: The Pieces of the Puzzle, 31 New York University Journal of International Law and Politics 709.
    連結：
49. 60. Romano, Cesare P. R. (2007), The Shift from the Consensual to the Compulsory Paradigm in International Adjudication: Elements for a Theory of Consent, 39 New York University Journal of International Law and Politics 791.
    連結：
50. 62. Ryan, Antony L. (2000), Principles of Forum Selection, 103 West Virginia Law Review 167.
    連結：
51. 64. Samuel, Issacharoff (2011), Constitutional Courts and Democratic Hedging, 99 Georgetown Law Journal 961.
    連結：
52. 69. Voon, Tania (2013), Flexibilities in WTO Law to Support Tobacco Control Regulation, 39 American Journal of Law & Medicine 199.
    連結：
53. 70. Voon, Tania & Andrew D. Mitchell (2016), Philip Morris vs. Tobacco Control: Two Wins for Public Health but Uncertainty Remains, 182 Columbia FDI Perspectives.
    連結：
54. 71. Whytock, Christopher A. (2008), The Arbitration-Litigation Relationship in Transnational Dispute Resolution: Empirical Insights from the U.S. Federal Courts, 2 World Arbitration and Mediation Review 39.
    連結：
55. 72. Whytock, Christopher A. (2009), Domestic Courts and Global Governance, 84 Tulane Law Review 67.
    連結：
56. 73. Whytock, Christopher A. (2011), The Evolving Forum Shopping System, 96 Cornell Law Review 481.
    連結：
57. 74. Winter, Steven L. (1988), The Metaphor of Standing and the Problem of Self-Governance, 40 Stanford Law Review 1371.
    連結：
58. 75. Yoo, John (1999), Globalism and the Constitution: Treaties, Non-Self-Execution, and the Original Understanding, 99 Columbia Law Review 1955.
    連結：
59. 76. Zeiler, Kathryn (2010), Cautions on the Use of Economics Experiments in Law, 166 Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics 178, 184.
    連結：
60. 1. Evans, Simon & Jason Bosland (2012), Plain Packaging of Cigarettes and Constitutional Property Rights, in Public Health and Plain Packaging of Cigarettes 48 (Tania Voon et al. eds.).
    連結：
61. 2. Gaukrodger, David & Kathryn Gordon (2012), Investor-State Dispute Settlement: A Scoping Paper for the Investment Policy Community, in Oecd Working Papers on Internationl Investment.
    連結：
62. 4. Helfer, Laurence R. (2006), Why States Create International Tribunals: A Theory of Constrained Independence, in International Conflict Resolution 253 (Stefan Voigt et al. eds.).
    連結：
63. 7. Lin, Ching-Fu (2016), The WHO in Global Food Safety Governance: A Preliminary Mapping of Its Normative Capacities and Activities, in International Food Law and Policy (Gabriella Steier & Kiran Patel eds.).
    連結：
64. 8. Lin, Ching-Fu (2016), The Limit of Regulatory Borrowing: ‘Cocktail Therapy’ Reforms of Food Safety Law in Taiwan, in Legal Thoughts between the East and the West in the Multilevel Legal Order (Chang-fa Lo et al. eds.).
    連結：
65. 10. Lock, Tobias (2017), The Not so Free Choice of EU Member States in International Dispute Settlement, in The European Union and International Dispute Settlement (Marise Cremona et al. eds.).
    連結：
66. 13. Voon, Tania & Andrew Mitchell (2012), International Investment Law and Plain Tobacco Packaging: Lessons from the Hong Kong-Australia BIT, in Public Health and Plain Packaging of Cigarettes 137 (Tania Voon et al. eds.).
    連結：
67. 1. David Gaukrodger & Kathryn Gordon, Investor-State Dispute Settlement: A Scoping Paper for the Investment Policy Community, in OECD Working Papers on Internationl Investment (2012).
    連結：
68. 3. High Court of Australia, Annual Report 2012-2013.
    連結：
69. 4. Raul A. Torres, Use of The WTO Trade Dispute Settlement Mechanism by the Latin American Countries: Dispelling Myths and Breaking Down Barriers, WTO (2012), available at: https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/reser_e/ersd201203_e.pdf (last visited 27 June 2016).
    連結：
70. 1. G.A. Res. 25/2625, Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations (Oct. 24, 1970).
    連結：
71. 1. Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade, Apr. 15, 1994, Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, Annex 1A, 1867 U.N.T.S. 3.
    連結：
72. 2. Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, Apr. 15, 1994, Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, Annex 1C, 1867 U.N.T.S. 3.
    連結：
73. 3. Charter of the United Nations, open for signature 26 June 1945, 3 Bevans 1153 (enter into force 24 October 1945).
    連結：
74. 4. General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, Oct. 30, 1947, 55 U.N.T.S. 194.
    連結：
75. 5. High Court of Australia (Fees) Regulations 2004 (Austl.).
    連結：
76. 9. U.N. Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards art. III, June 10, 1958, 21 U.S.T. 2517, 330 U.N.T.S. 38 (entered into force on Dec. 29, 1970).
    連結：
77. 10. Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes, Apr. 15, 1994, Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, Annex 2, 1869 U.N.T.S. 401.
    連結：
78. 11. WHO, WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (2005), available at: http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/42811/1/9241591013.pdf.
    連結：
79. 2. Australian Government, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, http://dfat.gov.au/pages/default.aspx (last visited 7 Mar 2017).
    連結：
80. 6. Sara Dezalay, The Social and Professional Structure of International Justice: from Scholarly Insiders to the Pull of Multinational Corporate Law Firms, 27 (2016), available at: SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2848962 (last visited 6 Feb 2017).
    連結：
81. 一、 中文文獻
82. (一) 專書與期刊論文
83. 1. WTO 秘書處（編），索必誠（譯）（2003）， 《WTO爭端解決程序》，北京：法律出版社。
84. 2. 李貴英（2004），《國際投資法專論》，台北：元照。
85. 3. 林彩瑜（2006），《WTO貿易救濟與爭端解決之法律問題》， 台北：元照。
86. 4. 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。
87. 6. 林鈺雄（2015），《刑事跨國爭端解決案件法下冊七版》，頁499，台北：元照出版有限公司。
88. 二、 外文文獻
89. (一) 專書
90. 5. Lowe, Vaughan (2007), International Law.
91. 14. Vicuña, Francisco Orrego (2004), International Dispute Settlement in an Evolving Global Society.
92. 15. Voon, Tania et al. (2012), Public Health and Plain Packaging of Cigarettes (Tania Voon et al. eds., 2012).
93. 17. WTO (2012), The WTO Dispute Settlement Procedures.
94. 18. WTO (2012), the WTO Dispute Settlement Procedures: A Collection of the Relevant Legal Texts.
95. (二) 期刊論文
96. 1. Alcalá, Juan M. (2012), Transnational Disputes in a Global Economy, 75 Texas Bar Journal 512.
97. 2. Alemanno, Alberto (2012), Out of Sight Out of Mind: Towards a New EU Tobacco Products Directive, Columbia Journal of European Law 197.
98. 4. Alter, Karen J. (2008), Delegating to International Courts: Self-Binding vs. Other-Binding Delegation, 71 Law and Contemporary Problems 37.
99. 5. Born, Gary (2012), A New Generation of International Adjudication, 61 D Duke Law Journal 775.
100. 7. Cannon, Kathleen W. (2009), Trade Litigation Before the WTO, NAFTA, and U.S. Courts: A Petitioner's Perspective, 17 Tulane Journal of International and Comparative Law 389.
101. 8. Chen, Tsai-Fang (2012), The Standard of Review and the Roles of ICSID Arbitral Tribunals in Investor-State Dispute Settlement, 5(1) Contemporary Asia Arbitration Journal 23.
102. 9. Chen, Tsai-Fang (2015), Deterring Frivolous Challenges in Investor-State Dispute Settlement, 8(1) Contemporary Asia Arbitration Journal 61.
103. 10. Cogan, Jacob Katz (2008), Competition and Control in International Adjudication, 48 Virginia Journal of International Law 411.
104. 11. Cooper, Jessica B. (1998), Environmental Refugees: Meeting the Requirements of the Refugee Definition, 6 New York University Environmental Law Journal 480.
105. 13. Danner, Allison M. (2006), When Courts Make Law: How the International Criminal Tribunals Recast the Laws of War, 59 Vanderbilt Law Review 1.
106. 17. Frankel, Susy & Daniel Gervais (2013), Plain Packaging and the Interpretation of the TRIPs Agreement, 46 Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 1149.
107. 21. Guzman, Andrew T. (2008), International Tribunals: A Rational Choice Analysis, 157 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 171.
108. 23. Harvard Law Review Association (2008), The Alien Tort Statute, Forum Shopping, and the Exhaustion of Local Remedies Norm, 121 Harvard Law Review 2110.
109. 24. Harvard Law Review Association (2011), (In)Efficient Breach of International Trade Law: The State of the “Free Pass” After China's Rare Earths Export Embargo, 125 Harvard Law Review 602.
110. 30. Jacob, Gregory F. (2004), Without Reservation, 5 Chicago Journal of International Law 287.
111. 31. Juenger, Friedrich K. (1989), Forum Shopping, Domestic and International, 63 Tulane Law Review 553.
112. 32. Kingsbury, Benedict (1999), Is the Proliferation of International Courts and Tribunals a Systemic Problem?, 31 New York University Journal of International Law and Politics 679.
113. 37. Lin, Ching-Fu (2011), Global Food Safety: Exploring Key Elements for an International Regulatory Strategy, 51(3) Virginia Journal of International Law 637.
114. 38. Lin, Ching-Fu (2012), SPS-Plus and Bilateral Treaty Network: A ‘Global’ Solution to the Global Food Safety Problem? 29(4) Wisconsin International Law Journal 694.
115. 41. Liu, Han-Wei (2009) Harmonization for Internal Market or Public Health? Revisiting Case C-491/01 (British American Tobacco) and Case C-380/03 (Tobacco Advertising II), 15 Columbia Journal of European Law Online 41 (2009).
116. 42. Lo, Chang-Fa (2006), Establishing Global Governance in the Implementation of FCTC: Some Reflections on the Current Two-Pillar and One-Roof Framework, 1(2) Asian Journal of WTO & International Health Law and Policy 569.
117. 47. Norwood, Kimberly Jade (1996), Shopping for a Venue: The Need for more Limits on Choice, 50 University of Miami Law Review 267.
118. 49. Pauwelyn, Joost & Luiz Eduardo Salles (2009), Forum Shopping Before International Tribunals: (Real) Concerns, (Im)Possible Solutions, 42 Cornell International Law Journal 77.
119. 50. Peng, Shin-Yi (2008), How Much Time Is Reasonable?: The Arbitral Decisions Under Article 21.3(C) of the DSU, 26 Berkeley Journal of International Law 323.
120. 51. Perkins, John A. (1997), The Changing Foundations of International Law: From State Consent to State Responsibility, 15 Boston University International Law Journal 433.
121. 58. Ritwik, Ankita (2013), Tobacco Packaging Arbitration and the State's Ability to Legislate, 54 Harvard International Law Journal 523.
122. 61. Ross, Bertrall L. & Su Li (2016), Measuring Political Power: Suspect Class Determinations and the Poor, 104 California Law Review 323.
123. 63. Sabater, Anibal (2005), National Courts, Supranational Courts and Arbitral Tribunals in International Litigation, 14 International Trade Law Journal 3.
124. 65. Sohn, Louis B. (1982), The New International Law: Protection of the Rights of Individuals Rather than States, 32 American University Law Review 1.
125. 66. Sommer, Joseph H. (1990), The Subsidiary: Doctrine Without a Cause?, 59 Fordham Law Review. 227.
126. 67. Sy, Deborah (2011), Warning: Investment Agreements are Dangerous to Your Health, 43 George Washington International Law Review 625.
127. 68. Taylor, Chantell (2000), NAFTA, GATT, and the Current Free Trade System: A Dangerous Double Standard for Workers' Rights, 28 Denver Journal of International Law and Policy 401.
128. (三) 專書文獻
129. 3. Gostin, Lawrence (2014), The Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, in Global Health Law 205 (2014).
130. 5. Jennings, Robert (1997), Presentation by Sir Robert Jennings, in Increasing the Effectiveness of the International Court of Justice 78 (C. Peck & R. S. Lee eds.).
131. 6. Keohane, Robert et al. (2007), Legalized Dispute Resolution: Interstate and Transnational, in International Law and International Relations 131 (Beth A. Simmons & Richard H. Steinberg eds.).
132. 9. Lipson, Charles (2007), Why are Some International Agreements Informal?, in International Law and International Relations 293 (Beth A. Simmons & Richard H. Steinberg eds.).
133. 11. Strong, Stacie (2016), Global Developments in Trust Arbitration, in Arbitration of Trust Disputes: Issues in National and International Law 3 (Strong, S.I. ed.).
134. 12. Voon, Tania & Andrew Mitchell (2012), Implications of WTO Law for Plain Packaging of Tobacco Products, in Public Health and Plain Packaging of Cigarettes 109 (Tania Voon et al. eds.).
135. (四) 外國政府、國際組織出版物及資料
136. 2. European Commission, Concept Paper: Investment in TTIP and Beyond: the Path for Reform (2015), available at: http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2015/may/tradoc_153408.PDF (last visited 10 Feb 2017).
137. (五) 決議
138. (六) 條約
139. 6. Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) (Austl.). available at: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ja1903112/.
140. 7. Tobacco Plain Packaging Regulations 2011 (Cth) (Austl.).
141. 8. Treaty of Amity, Commerce and Navigation, signed 19 November 1794 (GB-US), 12 Bevans 13 (entered into force 28 October 1795).
142. (七) 網站
143. 1. Australian Government, Attorney-General’s Department, https://www.ag.gov.au/tobaccoplainpackaging (last visited 7 Mar 2017).
144. 3. High Court of Australia, http://www.hcourt.gov.au (last visited 7 Mar 2017).
145. 4. The Central Intelligence Agency, The World Factbook, https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/as.html (last visited 7 Mar 2017).
146. 5. Project on International Courts and Tribunals, The International Judiciary in Context, available at: http://www.pict-pcti.org/publications/synoptic_chart/synop_c4.pdf (last visited 7 Mar 2017).
147. (八) 網路文獻
148. 1. Benjamin Mason Meier et al., Bridging International Law and Rights-Based Litigation: Mapping Health-Related Rights Through the Development of the Global Health and Human Rights Database (2012), available at: http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1955&context=facpub (last visited 26 Feb 2017).
149. 2. Chester Brown, The Proliferation of International Courts and Tribunals: Finding Your Way Through the Maze, 8 (2002), available at: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/MelbJIL/2002/21.pdf (last visited 21 May, 2017).
150. 3. Christina L. Davis, The Effectiveness of WTO Dispute Settlement: An Evaluation of Negotiation Versus Adjudication Strategies, (2008) available at: https://www.princeton.edu/~cldavis/files/WTOeffectiveness_DavisAPSA08.pdf. (last visited 16 May 2016).
151. 4. Christopher A. Whytock, Domestic Courts and Global Governance: The Politics of Private International Law, 4 (2007) (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Duke University), available at: http:// dukespace.lib.duke.edu/dspace/handle/10161/452 (last visited 27 Jan 2017).
152. 5. Lukasz Gruszczynsk, The WTO and FCTC Dispute Settlement Systems: Friends or Foes? (2016), available at: SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2862929 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2862929 (last visited 8 Feb 2017).
153. 7. Stephan W. Schill, The European Commission’s Proposal of an “Investment Court System” for TTIP: Stepping Stone or Stumbling Block for Multilateralizing International Investment Law? (2016), available at: https://www.asil.org/insights/volume/20/issue/9/european-commissions-proposal-investment-court-system-ttip-stepping (last visited 10 Feb 2017).
154. 8. Peter Martin, Australia Faces $50m Legal Bill in Cigarette Plain Packaging Fight with Philip Morris, Sydney Morning Herald (July 9, 2017), http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/philip-morris-ordered-to-pay-australia-millions-in-costs-for-plain-packaging-case-20170709-gx7mv5.html.
155. 9. Samantha Donovan, Philip Morris Ordered to Pay Australia's Costs in Plain Packaging Case, ABC News (July 10, 2017), http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-07-10/philip-morris-ordered-to-pay-australias-costs-in/8694002.
156. 10. Shehab Khan, Philip Morris Told to Pay Tens of Millions of Dollars to Australian Government After Losing Plain Packaging Case, Independent (July 10, 2017), http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/philip-morris-plain-packaging-court-case-loses-pay-millions-dollars-australian-government-tobacco-a7833021.html.
157. 11. Christopher Knaus, Philip Morris Cigarettes Charged Millions After Losing Plain Packaging Case Against Australia, the Guardian (July 10, 2017), https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jul/10/philip-morris-cigarettes-charged-millions-after-losing-plain-packaging-case-against-australia.