論WTO與區域貿易協定爭端解決機制之衝突與調和

Conflict and Harmonization of Dispute Settlement Mechanisms between the WTO and Regional Trade Agreements

10.6199/NTULJ.2011.40.01.07

林彩瑜(Tsai-Yu Lin)

WTO ； 區域貿易協定 ； 爭端解決機制 ； 管轄權競合 ； 裁判衝突 ； WTO ； regional trade agreement ； dispute settlement mechanism ； overlapping jurisdiction ； conflicting rulings

臺大法學論叢

40卷1期（2011 / 03 / 01）

393 - 451

繁體中文

近年來國際法規範多元擴展與爭端裁決機構大幅增加使國際法律秩序可能面臨「破裂化」(fragmentation)成為普遍的關切。隨著區域貿易協定(regional trade agreements, RTA)及其爭端解決機制之大幅增加，管轄權衝突或裁判衝突之風險似亦存在於國際貿易法秩序之中。一方面，針對WTO-RTA法規競合的貿易爭端，WTO與RTA均具有管轄權，可能產生管轄權衝突。另一方面，由於WTO未規定WTO-RTA爭端解決機制之互動關係，爭端裁決機構在平行的爭端解決程序下審理同一或類似義務，亦可能產生裁判衝突。從WTO爭端實務Mexico-Soft Drinks、Argentina-Poultry、Brazil-Tyre等案件觀察，WTO爭端解決機制對RTA法律秩序之維持並未展現一致的司法調和。 本文認為，全球貿易秩序運作的可預測性與法律安定性有賴於WTO與RTA爭端解決機制間維持和諧之關係。未來小組或上訴機構能否或如何透過法律障礙概念、國際法原則與條約解釋或其他有助於融合的規範工具，務實回應減緩WTO-RTA司法衝突之需求，值得觀察。惟長遠觀之，WTO-RTA之融合，或應由會員於WTO架構下，透過談判之過程，從體制面設計若干基本原則以管理WTO-RTA爭端裁決機構之互動關係，並由兩貿易體系所共通適用。

The expansion of the coverage of international law and the increasing number of international tribunals have led to the issue of ”fragmentation” of international legal order becoming widespread concern in recent years. Given the proliferation of regional trade agreements (hereinafter RTA) as well as its dispute settlements, the risk ensuing from the conflicts of jurisprudences and rulings seems also to exist within international trade law. On the overlapping subject matter, the WTO and RTA share common jurisdiction. In addition, the lack of clear rule in regard to the interaction between WTO and RTA tribunals may also contribute to the occurrence of conflicting rulings given that each tribunal may adjudicate parallel or similar obligation in parallel dispute settlement procedures. In light of the cases of Mexico-Soft Drinks, Argentina-Poultry and Brazil-Tyre analyzed in this paper, we may find that the WTO adjudicators do not show judicial coherence towards the preservation of RTA legal order. In this paper, the author argues that the operation of the global trade order as well as its predictability and legal certainty depend on how WTO and RTA trading systems may create judicial accommodation and fit each other. In this sense, whether or how the future panel or the Appellate Body can pragmatically respond to the need of alleviating the WTO-RTA judicial conflicts through certain normative instruments found in the past practices, such as the concept of ”legal impediments”, the principles of international law or the tool of treaty interpretation is worth further observing. In the long term, it is suggested that WTO Members should devise a set of principles to manage the interaction between WTO and RTA tribunals, which is concurrently shared by both trading systems.

1. Bartels, L.(Ed.),Ortino, F.(Ed.)(2006).Regional trade agreements and the WTO legal system.New York:Oxford University Press.
2. Bhala, R.,Gantz, D. A.(2007).WTO case review 2006.Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law,24(2),299-387.
3. Bown, C. P.,Trachtman, J. P.(2009).Brazil-Measures affecting imports of retreaded tyres: A balancing act.World Trade Review,8(1),85-135.
4. Brownlie, I.(1990).Principles of public international law.New York, NY:Oxford University Press.
5. Chairman of the Study Group of the International Law Commission(2006).Report of the study group of the International Law CommissionReport of the study group of the International Law Commission,未出版
6. Cho, S.(2006).Defragmenting world trade.Northwestern Journal of International Law & Business,27,39-88.
7. Davey, W. J.,Sapir, A.(2009).The soft drinks case: The WTO and regional agreements.World Trade Review,8(1),5-23.
8. Graewert, T.(2008).Conflicting laws and jurisdictions in the dispute settlement process of regional trade agreements and the WTO.Contemporary Asia Arbitration Journal,1(2),287-334.
9. Henckels, C.(2008).Overcoming jurisdictional isolationism at the WTO-FTA nexux: A potential approach for the WTO.The European Journal of International Law,19(3),571-599.
10. Hillman, J.(2009).Conflicts between dispute settlement mechanisms in regional trade agreements and the WTO: What should the WTO do?.Cornell International Law Journal,42,193-208.
11. International Law Commission(2006).Fragmentation of international law: Difficulties arising from the diversification and expansion of international law.General Assembly Official Records,Sixty-third Session(Supplement No. 46)
12. Janow, M. E.(Eds),Donaldson, V.(Ed.),Yanovich, A.(Ed.)(2008).The WTO: Governance, dispute settlement & developing countries.Huntington:Juris Publishing.
13. Jimenez, A. A.(2006).The WTO AB report on Mexico-Soft Drinks, and the limits of the WTO dispute settlement system: WTO, report of the appellate body, 6 March 2006, Mexico-Tax measures on soft drinks and other beverages.Legal Issues of Economic Integration,33(3),319-333.
14. Lavranos, N.(2008).The Solange-method as a tool for regulating competing jurisdictions among international courts and tribunals.Loyola of Los Angeles International and Comparative Law Review,30(3),275-334.
15. Lo, C.-F.(2010).WTO-Plus in free trade agreements.Taipei:Angle.
16. Marceau, G.(2002).WTO dispute settlement and human rights.European Journal of International Law,13(4),753-814.
17. Marimon, Ramon,Mathis, James H.,Abbott, Roderick E.,Petersmann, Ernst-Ulrich,Lavranos, Nikos(2009).European University Institute Max Weber Programme Working PaperEuropean University Institute Max Weber Programme Working Paper,未出版
18. McGrady, B.(2008).Fragmentation of international law or "systemic integration" of treaty regimes: EC-Biotech products and the proper interpretation of Article 31(3)(c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.Journal of World Trade,42(4),589-618.
19. Mitchell, A. D.(2006).Good faith in WTO dispute settlement.Melbourne Journal of International Law,7,339-373.
20. Mitchell, A. D.(2007).The legal basis for using principles in WTO disputes.Journal of International Economic Law,10(4),795-835.
21. Morosini, F. C.(2008).The MERCOSUR and WTO retreaded tires dispute: Rehabilitating regulatory competition in international trade and environmental regulation.SIEL Inaugural Conference Working Paper No. 42/08
22. Pauwelyn, J.(2003).How to win a World Trade Organization dispute based on non-World Trade Organization law? Questions of jurisdiction and merits.Journal of World Trade,37(6),997-1030.
23. Pauwelyn, J.(2003).Conflict of norms in public International law: How WTO law relates to other rules of international law.New York:Cambridge University Press.
24. Pauwelyn, J.,Salles, L. E.(2009).Forum shopping before international tribunals: (Real) Concerns, (Im) possible solutions.Cornell International Law Journal,42,77-118.
25. Qin, J. Y.(2009).Wayne State University Law School Legal Studies Research Paper Series No. 09-24Wayne State University Law School Legal Studies Research Paper Series No. 09-24,未出版
26. Romano, C. P. R.(2007).The Shift from the consensual to the compulsory paradigm in international adjudication: Elements for a theory of consent.New York University Journal of International Law and Politics,39(4),791-872.
27. Sá Cabral, J. G.,de Salvia, G. G. L.(2008).Considerations on the MERCOSUR dispute settlement mechanism and the impact of its decisions in the WTO dispute resolution system.Journal of World Trade,42(6),1013-1040.
28. The Study Group of the International Law Commission(2006).Report of the study group of the International Law CommissionReport of the study group of the International Law Commission,未出版
29. Tiny, N''G. N.(2005).Judicial accommodation: NAFTA, the EU and the WTO.Jean Monnet Working Paper,04-05.
30. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development(2003).Dispute settlement: Regional approach, 6.2 MERCOSUR.New York:United Nations.