從Mexico－Soft Drinks案分析WTO與NAFTA爭端解決機制之比較與管轄衝突

Abstract

近年來，國際法規範多元化擴展，除了原有之國際貿易協定組織如「世界貿易組織」（WTO）外，區域貿易協定（RTAs）也隨之蓬勃發展，一時間蔚為國際風潮。因為RTA之興起，爭端解決之機構也隨之大幅增加。RTAs雖是在關稅暨貿易總協定第24條規定下有條件建立的區域貿易體系，但大部分的RTAs有其自已的貿易爭端解決機制。一方面，在國際的貿易爭端，WTO與RTA均具有管轄權，也產生管轄衝突。另一方面，由於WTO之法律規範中，並未規定WTO－RTA爭端解決機制之互動關係，使得爭端解決機構在平行的爭端解決程序下審理同一或類似義務時，可能產生裁判衝突。因此，為了國際貿易關係的安全及可預測性，惟有正視並思考使二個爭端解決系統之間能夠兼容並存的互動，管轄權重疊的議題得以有效率的處理，始有助於避免在WTO和RTAs間爭端解決所引起的可能潛在問題。\n在Mexico－Soft Drinks案中，同屬北美自由貿易協定(NAFTA)會員國之美國及墨西哥，因NAFTA協議衍生貿易紛爭，美國遂就該爭端向WTO提出控訴。由於墨西哥就兩國之爭端已先向NAFTA提出控訴，故墨西哥在WTO之爭端解決程序中主張WTO應不受理本案，而應由NAFTA爭端解決機構處理，才能使該案獲得澈底解決。惟WTO不僅受理本案之審理，且WTO小組及上訴機構之裁決，均一致地肯定WTO對本案之管轄權。從WTO對本案例的裁決，可觀察到WTO爭端解決機構均以WTO體系及「爭端解決程序與規則瞭解書」規範作為判斷基礎，並未考量WTO－RTA管轄權可能產生的衝突，以及因為衝突可能對全球貿易秩序所造成之影響。然在本案中，上訴機構提出「法律障礙」之概念，本文嘗試探討「法律障礙」能否成為WTO拒絕審理之事由，進而承認RTA之管轄，以減少WTO－RTA管轄衝突所造成之影響，使得WTO爭端解決機構採取開放與包容的態度，尊重RTA爭端解決機制之裁決，才能WTO與RTA爭端解決機制能相互尊重及兼容併存，確保國際貿易之安全及可預測性。

In recent decades, the norms of international law diversify,in addition to the previous WTO ,RTA also flourished and became the international trends.Because of RTA’s rising,dispute settlement bodies have increased significantly,but most of RTAs have their own dispute settlement mechanisms.On the one hand,WTO and RTA have jurisdiction also generate conflicts of jurisdiction in international trade disputes. On the other hand, WTO law does not provide the interaction rule to resolve the conflicts between WTO-RTA dispute settlement mechanisms,thus, the Dispute Settlement Body under the parallel trial of the same or similar obligations, referee conflicts may arise.Therefor, only to think about the interactive issues of overlapping jurisdiction of the two dispute settlement systems can helps to avoid the potential issues.\nIn Mexico－Soft Drinks case, the United States and Mexico are both the Member States of North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), Mexico filed a complaint to NAFTA first, because of the disputes of NAFTA agreement,the United States then complaint to WTO in respect of the dispute. Therefore, Mexico argued that the case should not be accepted the case in WTO dispute settlement procedures, but by the NAFTA dispute settlement body, in order to make the case to get thoroughly resolved.But WTO did not accept Mexico’s claim, the rulings of WTO panel and Appellate Body were unanimously affirmed that WTO has the jurisdiction of the case.By this case,we knew that WTO identified as the jurisdiction of a dispute by “Understandin On Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes “(DSU) and Dispute Settlement Body(DSB), but did not consider the jurisdiction of WTO-RTA may arise conflicts, as well as the conflicts may be caused by the impact of the global trade order. However, in this case, the Appellate Body put forward the concept of "legal impediment", this article attempts to explore "legal impediment" where could make WTO reject the trial, and then recognize the the RTA jurisdiction, in order to reduce the impact of WTO-RTA jurisdictional conflicts.If WTO Dispute Settlement Body would like to have an open attitude to respect the ruling of RTA ,then, it is possible to make the mutual respect and co-exist between WTO and RTA dispute settlement mechanisms, and to ensure the security and predictability of international trade.