Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://ah.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/94583
題名: GATS建制演進的政治經濟分析-以觀光服務貿易為例
作者: 周旭華
貢獻者: 鄧中堅<br>張新平
周旭華
關鍵詞: 世界貿易組織
服務貿易總協定
觀光
國際建制
相互利益
WTO
GATS
tourism
international regime
mutual interest
trade in services
日期: 2006
上傳時間: 6-五月-2016
摘要: 本文以GATS觀光建制演進為例,驗證以新自由制度主義為基礎所建立的基本假設。本文對GATS觀光建制演進所作之考察,驗證了經濟過程面、整體權力結構、議題權力結構、國際組織面等總體政治經濟結構面因素,在不同階段,單獨或合併對GATS觀光建制立法演進產生不同面向之影響。(見圖7-1)\r\n經濟與科技發展及變化,是GATS及觀光建制議題形成的主要動能。GATS建制之形成,最初之原動力來自於美國因經濟及科技發展,而產生將服務貿易納入多邊貿易體系之利益認知,進而透過議程設定以推動建制之形成。WTO設立後,面對全球觀光需求成長之趨勢,不同發展階段的國家,都看到許多觀光商機,皆對觀光服務貿易寄以厚望,因此產生了持續進行觀光自由化談判之動能。\r\n經濟與科技發展及變化,除了促成繼續推動模式二自由化承諾外,亦驅策已開發國家如美國所主張之模式三自由化,及開發中國家如印度所主張之模式四自由化。網路科技之進步,提高某些服務以模式一跨境提供的可行性,而產生模式一自由化之動機。但經濟與科技發展及變化,固然帶來了商機,也導致某些開發中國家所賴以維生之觀光產業,遭受跨國公司挾新科技之重大威脅。觀光附件立法之原始驅力,即來自於開發中國家面對經濟及科技變化所帶來之挑戰,期望透過立法途徑以有效減少利益漏失。\r\n經濟及科技變化因素產生了談判動機,但仍有賴足夠的權力才能推動談判,而將所欲談判之議題推上議程,並影響談判結果。GATS建制之形成,最初得力於美國運用其於冷戰時期的強大整體權力為後盾,排除議價障礙,而將服務貿易議題推上烏拉圭回合談判議程。但隨著冷戰結束,整體權力結構未必能支配個別議題權力結構,美國較難運用其整體權力以遂行其在經貿議題領域的主張。因此,在服務貿易議題領域,烏拉圭回合後期一再出現多數意見凌駕美國利益期待的重要決定,例如美國所主張之國民待遇與市場開放二大原則列入一般義務,以及以負面表列方式作承諾,均遭到多數意見反對而大幅修改。\r\n就權力結構面向觀察,當前WTO下的整體權力結構,係美國為首,EC協同領導,G-20具有關鍵反對地位的態勢。觀光議題權力結構,大致與WTO下的整體權力結構接近,亦是美歐主導,G-20具關鍵地位之態勢。整體權力結構因素,對於WTO建制整體推進與遲滯,例如杜哈議程的整體進展,影響較為直接。觀光特定承諾談判作為杜哈議程下服務貿易談判的一環,亦受整體進展之間接影響。美國所主張之旅館服務模式三自由化,以及「觀光談判九國立場文件」所主張之模式一及模式四自由化,皆因取得足夠的權力基礎,而較有機會進入談判議程。對觀光附件提案國言,觀光附件提案在杜哈議程展開後的政治經濟氣候下,迅速失去動能,與提案國勢單力薄,欠缺權力基礎不無關係。透過議題串連及或結盟可提高權力;觀光附件原始提案國多明尼加等,透過「觀光談判九國立場文件」提案,而與G-20主要成員議題結盟,不無強化提案之權力基礎,以提高競爭防護議題進入談判議程機會之意。\r\n議題權力結構對於觀光談判有其影響。雖然由於整體權力結構與觀光議題權力結構的落差不大,其權力基礎究係整體權力或議題權力,不易分辨。不過,印度在杜哈議程下大幅放寬對觀光旅遊服務模式三自由化之承諾,議題權力結構可以局部解釋此一立場大轉變之原因。觀光附件提案國整體權力甚弱,但因對觀光議題之重視,傾力推動,而使其在此議題之權力得以提升,而發揮影響議程之作用。\r\n在國際組織面因素方面,正式或非正式國際網絡、規範、制度,對權力行使所產生之約束力或助力,有時會造成與權力結構不盡一致的議價結果。昔日GATS形成之初,係在原GATT建制下進行談判,開發中國家得以利用GATT既有架構表達反對立場,而導致GATT秘書處無法於1980年代初期建立服務貿易討論的正式議程。其後,烏拉圭回合談判中,在強調「貿易體系整體需求」而不考慮個別國家利益下,限制了美國之權力運用,使其無法迫使他國接受其所擬訂的「服務貿易總協定」草案版本。國際組織面因素,對弱國的權力的行使常有頗大助力。尤其是GATS發展規範及其所衍生之規則,使權力相對弱勢之開發中國家取得更佳議價地位。開發中國家關於觀光議題之提案,無論是特定承諾談判或觀光附件相關議題之主張,發展規範及相關規則皆是重要後盾。反觀已開發國家受發展規範之拘束,卻又不能加以挑戰,只能於規則層次爭取有利之解釋。除發展規範外,WTO單一承諾談判制度及投票規則,乃至其他國際組織如世界觀光組織、UNCTAD,乃至NGOs的網絡關係或行為規範,亦對觀光建制演進有所影響。\r\n本文之考察,亦驗證了另一項結構面之基本假設:改變GATS建制內容的新主張能否推進,前提是會員對於在「促進經濟福祉」及「維護政策自主」二方面相互利益之強弱有無之認知。GATS建制之自由化、發展、國內管制等三大主要規範,均可辨認出此二類可期待之相互利益,作為合作之基礎。惟強弱有別;例如,發展規範對已開發國家眼前之直接利益顯然不大,故政治基礎較不穩定,從而出現透過政治運作而降低牽制之嘗試。基本上,國家恒常運用其權力以追求利益,倘若某一涉及建制演進之主張,並無足夠的相互利益可資期待,則難誘發其運用權力以推進該主張之動能。推動建制改變的提案主張,必須具有與權力結構大致相稱的相互利益,但發展規範的推進無此條件。因此,相較於自由化規範,發展規範之推進,更有賴權力較大之會員,著眼於長期整體利益,包括價值理念之維護,作出較多讓步。\r\n觀光特定承諾談判係以GATS自由化規範之相互利益為基礎,若能維持各提供模式自由化之均衡,兼顧發展規範,則其相互利益堪稱顯著,有助建制新內容之推進。例如,印度對觀光服務市場開放進一步放寬,除權力結構面因素外,顯著的「促進經濟福祉」預期相互利益之存在,亦有其解釋力。較大的挑戰是觀光附件提案;此一提案因係以發展規範為基礎,故其提案內容相互利益本即較不顯著,但不僅已開發國家無利益,連許多開發中國家所關心的政策自主利益亦遭威脅。此一提案雖一度獲得熱烈討論,卻於2002年杜哈議程展開後歸於沉寂,預期之相互利益不足乃是導致其失去動能的根本原因。在杜哈議程的政治現實下,原提案國改以「示範要求文件」,在特定承諾談判中,以實現觀光附件之目標,有其相互利益之考量。\r\n展望未來,觀光服務貿易對不同發展階段之國家,皆具有潛在利益。對於服務貿易普遍缺少競爭力的開發中國家來說,觀光服務貿易更提供了創造外匯及就業機會而消除貧窮的契機所在。隨著全球化之推進,國際觀光服務貿易的商機愈來愈多,但跨國公司運用新科技,並進行各種形態之企業整合,導致競爭更趨白熱化,因而開發中國家所擔心的經濟利益漏失亦可能加劇。不同發展階段的WTO會員,基於各自的利益認知,皆有意運用權力以影響觀光建制之演進,使其朝著有利於已的方向發展。因此,GATS觀光服務貿易建制下,無論是特定承諾談判,或如觀光附件之類的規則談判,經濟面向的動能未來將持續存在。\r\n但談判能否推進,重要前提是提案內容是否在「促進經濟福祉」及「維護政策自主」二方面具有相互利益。觀光附件提案在杜哈發展議程中遭到冰存,主因之一是相互利益不足。隨著全球化持續推進,國際觀光所出現的經濟漏失可能更趨嚴重,倘若觀光附件內容加以修改,而能解決開發中國家既要防止經濟利益漏失,又要避免主權旁落之兩難困境,兼具經濟福祉及政策自主之相互利益,則不無可能重新取得大部分開發中國家之支持。假如進一步在內容設計上,兼顧已開發國家之立場,則立法阻力將可減少。必須注意的是,期待相互利益是某一主張被接受的基礎,然而若日後之實際相互利益,與期待利益落差過大,則可能侵蝕原先的合作基礎,而對建制造成危機。例如,國內管制規範的實踐經驗,即出現與預期相互利益不符之情形,造成規範弱化之挑戰。\r\n未來GATS建制演進之實際進展,主要仍受權力結構之支配。就整體權力結構觀察,美國在「一超多強」結構下,仍是軍事獨強,也是WTO下整體權力最強的會員。但EC在其會員擴增為25國且進一步整合後,或許更具與美國分庭抗禮的實力;「金磚四國」整體力量上升,除了已經在WTO內的中國、印度、巴西外,尚有俄羅斯即將加入,未來可能在農業G-20基礎上,展現其在WTO下更強的的結盟實力,但由於四國的基本利益並不一致,故其未來影響尚待觀察。就目前WTO會員之權力結構而言,美國與歐盟對建制的支持,是維繫及演進的關鍵所在。整體而言,多邊自由貿易建制合乎美國及歐盟的政治經濟利益,理當可獲其支持。 再就價值理念言,會員間除了權力與利益的理性計算外,也受到價值觀之制約,而多邊自由貿易建制,本質上係以西方式自由民主理念為價值基礎,對美國及歐盟具制約力。因此,在可見的未來,不易出現類似1970年代國際貨幣建制瓦解之情形。\r\n在觀光議題權力結構方面,從統計數字顯示的趨勢觀之,美國、EC將繼續居於主導地位。但開發中國家的權力持續上升,中國與印度皆因觀光消費能力增加而產生議題權力;中國之成長尤其值得注意。另一方面,國際觀光對「金磚四國」外匯收益及就業機會之提供日趨重要,增加其對觀光客來源國之經濟依賴。\r\n整體權力結構與觀光議題權力結構合併觀之,美國在可見的未來仍將是談判動能的主要來源,但美國必須獲得到EC的支持,並取得G-20之諒解,始能順利推動議程,在觀光服務模式三自由化之推動,此一權力基礎將繼續存在。從G-20在坎昆會議中面對美歐聯手所展現的對抗力量觀之,縱使推動議程的力量尚嫌不足,至少有力量阻滯議程,而迫使美國及EC重視其意見。G-20未來權力可能繼續上升,但對已開發國家的依賴將加深,且因各自與不同已開發國家間的權力關係不等距,而可能造成權力結構複雜化。 「觀光談判九國立場文件」所表達的模式四自由化,及限制觀光反競爭行為等立場,若開發中國家立場一致,則有機會獲得回應,但因權力結構日趨複雜,一切仍有變數。\r\n就國際組織面言,發展規範及其相關規則,可望繼續牽制已開發國家,而提供開發中國家,尤其低度開發國家助力,使其向已開發國家所提出之主張更具正當性。未來,只要美國無意改變其積極參與並領導WTO建制的基本政策,當不致一味推動自由化規範,而偏廢發展規範。觀察WTO近年來的演進脈絡,美國面對國際組織面向之牽制,傾向於切割開發中國家陣營,限縮發展規範的適用對象於低度開發國家,而將發展規範對其之牽制減至最低。其次,開發中國家所一再主張的GATS第4條落實或施行問題,攸關發展規範下的權利義務內容,影響議價態勢及結果,乃是開發中國家與已開發國家未來無法迴避的問題。此外,WTO決策規則及實踐,包括正式程序及非正式機制如「綠室會議」之運作,未來是否改變,對議價結果也會有影響。在司法層面,WTO爭端解決之決定,例如美墨電信案對參考文件及發展規範之見解,以及網路賭博案對國內管制例外之解釋,也可能對觀光建制演進產生影響。
參考文獻: 中文文獻\r\n官方文獻\r\n司法院大法官會議解釋文釋字第329號,2003年12月24日。\r\n交通部觀光局編著,《中華民國93年觀光年報》,2005年。\r\n行政院院會「我國加入WTO相關政策說明」報告案, 2002年1月2日,網址:\r\nhttp://www.gio.gov.tw/info/2002html/910221.htm (最後下載日:2006年5月) \r\n「臺灣、澎湖、金門及馬祖個別關稅領域(中華台北)服務貿易特定承諾表及最惠\r\n國待遇豁免表」,2001年11月7日。\r\n經濟部國際貿易局WTO入口網站,網址:http://cwto.trade.gov.tw\r\n經濟部國際貿易局新聞稿,經濟部國際貿易局網站,網址:http://www.trade.gov.tw/richnews/newsseemore.asp\r\n專書\r\n丘宏達(1995),《現代國際法》,台北,三民。\r\n吳武忠、范世平(2005),《台灣觀光旅遊導論》,台北,揚智。\r\n洪德欽(2002),《WTO法律與政策專題研究》,台北,學林文化。\r\n黃立、李貴英、林彩瑜(2002),《WTO國際貿易法論》,台北,元照。\r\n張新平(1996),《世界貿易組織下之服務貿易》,台北,月旦。\r\n彭心儀(2005),《WTO服務貿易與通訊科技法律》,台北,元照。\r\n期刊論文\r\n李明(2000),「新政府的外交政策動向與挑戰」,《遠景季刊》,第1卷第2期,頁173-201。\r\n林彩瑜(2001),「開發中國家與WTO『特殊且差異之待遇』條款」,《台大法學論叢》,第31卷第1期,頁289-336。 \r\n高朗(1996),「論我國經貿外交」,《理論與政策》,冬季號,頁22-31。\r\n楊光華(2001),「服務貿易總協定與我國入會承諾」,《月旦法學雜誌》,79期,頁28-46。\r\n顏慶章(2004),「從『七月套案』談我國參與杜哈回合服務貿易談判」,《貿易政策論叢》,第1期,全國工業總會貿易發展委員會國際經貿服務網,2004年9 月,頁1-19。 \r\n靖心慈(2005),「服務貿易談判之發展與前景」,《經濟前瞻》,2005年3月15日,頁48-54。\r\n彭心儀(2003),「論多邊架構下以特定服務部門為基礎之競爭規範:以GATS電信參考文件為核心」,《政大法學評論》,第76期,2003年12月,頁307-366。\r\n彭心儀(2005),「由美國禁止網路賭博爭端案論服務貿易市場開放及國民待遇之規範解釋與體系建構」,《政大法學評論》,第85期,2005年6月,頁146-211。\r\n周旭華(2005),「WTO與全球化的法律治理-以GATS觀光附件提案為例」,《問題與研究》,第44卷第5期,2005年9 月,頁143-173。\r\n周旭華(2005),「從坎昆部長會議看我國在WTO下的立法參與」,《中國國際法與國際事務年報》,第17卷,2005年12月,頁468-478。\r\n學位論文\r\n林石根(2002),《WTO/GATS規範下我國電信由管制走向競爭之法律分析》,國立\r\n臺灣大學法律研究所博士論文。\r\n申富鑫(2003),《WTO規範下保險服務貿易之自由化》, 國立政治大學國際貿易研究所碩士論文。\r\n陳秀滿(2004),《WTO/GATS架構下海運服務新回合談判之趨勢及影響》,國立海洋大學航運管理學系碩士論文。\r\n黃渝清(2005),《評安地瓜控告美國禁止網路賭博案---以服務貿易特定承諾與一般例外規定之關係為中心》,國立政治大學國際貿易研究所碩士論文。\r\n\r\n蕭兆辰(2004),《GATS金融審慎措施之研究》,東吳大學法律學系碩士論文。\r\n劉漢威(2005),《GATS自然人移動之重要議題及我國重要對策分析》,國立政治大學法律學系碩士論文。\r\n蘇妍旭(2002),《空運服務與WTO相關規範之研究》,國立政治大學法律學系碩士論文。\r\n研究報告\r\n張新平(2001),《加入WTO與開放外國專技人員政策之研究》,行政院經濟建設委員會委託研究計畫。\r\n楊光華(2001),《WTO 新回合服務貿易談判對我國之影響及因應措施》,行政院\r\n經濟建設委員會委託研究計畫。\r\n其他\r\n鄧中堅(2003),「參與經貿聯合國的新策略」,中國時報,2003年9月17日。\r\n顏慶章(2003),「WTO 坎昆會議之我見我思」,自由時報,2003年9月21日。\r\n蔡宏明(2003),「坎昆會議的啟示:結盟」,中國時報,2003年9月16日,第15\r\n版。\r\n靖心慈、許楓靈(2004),「WTO新回合談判分析(五)--服務貿易」,台灣WTO中心,轉引自《經貿快訊》,全國工業總會貿易發展委員會國際經貿服務網,2004年7月28日,網址:http://www.cnfi.org.tw/wto/all-news.php(最後下載日:2006年5月)\r\n羅昌發(2002),「WTO下之『Doha發展議程』與我國參與」,台灣WTO新紀元─貿易之開放與防衛研討會論文,國立政治大學商學院國際經貿組織暨法律研究中心,2002年4月13日。\r\n蕭振寰(2004),「多哈發展議程: WTO設立後第一次回合談判的回顧與展望」,第四屆國際經貿法學發展學術研討會論文,政大商學院國際經貿組織暨法律研究中心,2004年3月6日。\r\n國立政治大學國際經貿組織暨法律研究中心網頁,網址:http://www.tradelaw.nccu.edu.tw \r\n國立臺灣大學法律學院WTO研究中心網頁,網址:\r\nhttp://ccms.ntu.edu.tw/~wtocenter\r\n \r\n\r\n英文文獻\r\n官方文獻\r\n(1)GATT/WTO官方文獻及出版品 \r\nGATT, “Ministerial Declaration on the Uruguay Round,” 20 September 1986.\r\nMTN.GNS/W/61, 4 July 1990.\r\nMTN.GNS/TOUR/W/1/Rev. 1, 23 October 1990.\r\nMTN.GNS/W/120, 10 July 1991.\r\nFinal Act Embodying the Results of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations.\r\nMarrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, Apr. 15, 1994.\r\nS/WPPS/W/12/Rev.1, 20 May 1997.\r\nS/C/W/51, 23 September 1998.\r\nS/CSS/8, 11 October 2001.\r\nS/C/W/149, 23 May 2000.\r\nS/CSS/M/3, 26 June 2000\r\nS/CSS/M/5, 1 December 2000.\r\nS/CSS/M/9, 22 June 2001.\r\nS/CSS/M/12, 28 November 2001.\r\nS/CSS/M/13, 26 February 2002.\r\nS/CSS/W/5, 28 September 2000.\r\nS/CSS/W/31. 18 December 2000.\r\nS/CSS/W/40, 22 December 2000.\r\nS/CSS/W/42, 22 December 2000.\r\nS/CSS/W/54/Rev.1, 4 May 2001.\r\nS/CSS/W/79, 4 May 2001.\r\nS/CSS/W/107, 26 September 2001.\r\nS/CSS/W/122, 27 Nov 2001.\r\nS/CSS/W/125, 29 Nov 2001.\r\nS/CSS/W/128, 30 Nov. 2001.\r\nS/L/64, 17 December 1998.\r\nS/L/70, 28 April 1999.\r\nS/L/80, 29 October 1999. \r\nS/L/84, 18 April 2000.\r\nS/L/91, S/L/92, 23 March, 2001.\r\nS/L/93, 29 March 2001.\r\nTN/S/M/10, 18 May 2004\r\nTN/S/O/EEC, 10 June 2003.\r\nTN/S/O/IND, 12 January 2004.\r\nTN/S/O/IND /Rev.1, 24 August 2005.\r\nTN/S/O/USA , 9 April 2003.\r\nTN/S/W/1, 14 May 2002.\r\nTN/S/W/14, 3 July 2003.\r\nTN/S/W/19, 31 March 2004.\r\nTN/S/W/23, 29 September 2004.\r\nWT/COMTD/W/143/Rev.1, 22 November 2005\r\nWT/DS2/AB/R, 1996.\r\nWT/DS10/AB/R, WT/DS11/AB/R, 1996.\r\nWT/DS8/11, WT/DS10/11, WT/DS11/8, 8 November 1996.\r\nWT/DS27/AB/R, 9 September 1997; WT/DS27/R, 22 May 1997.\r\nWT/DS31/AB/R, 30 June 1997; WT/DS31/R, 14 March 1997.\r\nWT/DS50/AB/R, 19 December, 1997.\r\nWT/DS58/AB/R, 12 October 1998. \r\nWT/DS108/AB/RW, 14 January 2002.\r\nWT/DS139/AB/R, 19 June 2000; WT/DS139/R, 11 February 2000.\r\nWT/ DS204/R, 2 April 2004.\r\nWT/DS285/AB/R, 7 April 2005; WT/DS285/R, 10 November 2004.\r\nWT/GC/W/133, 25 January 1999.\r\nWT/GC/W/189, 2 June 1999.\r\nWT/GC/W/224, 2 July 1999.\r\nWT/GC/W/295, S/C/W/119, 5 August 1999.\r\nWT/GC/W/333, 23 September 1999.\r\nWT/GC/W/372, S/C/W/127, 14 October 1999.\r\nWT/L/161, 25 July 1996.\r\nWT/L/540, 1 September 2003.\r\nWT/L/579, 1 August 2004.\r\nWT/MIN (01)/DEC/1, 20 November 2001.\r\nWT/MIN (01)/DEC/2, 20 November 2001.\r\nWT/MIN (01)/17, 20 November 2001. \r\nWT/MIN (05)/DEC, 22 December 2005.\r\nWT/TPR/G/126, 17 December 2003.\r\nWTO, PRESS/118, 14 December 1998.\r\nWTO (2005), Understanding the WTO, at http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/tif_e.htm (last accessed: May 2006) \r\nWTO (1998), Services: GATS, Training Package Module 6. \r\nWTO, “Work on Special and Differential Provisions,” at http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/devel_e/dev_special_differential_provisions_e.htm#legal_provisions (last accessed: May 2006)\r\nWTO, WTO Analytical Index : Guide to WTO Law and Practice at http://www.wto.org/english/res_e/booksp_e/analytic_index_e/analytic_index_e.htm (last accessed: May 2006)\r\nWTO (1998), A Training Package, Services: GATS, 15 December 1998,\r\nat http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/eol/e/wto06/wto6.pdf (last accessed: May 2006)\r\nWTO, Special Studies 6, Market Access: Unfinished Business,\r\nat http://www.wto.org/english/res_e/booksp_e/special_study_6_e.pdf (last accessed: May 2006)\r\n(2)其他官方文獻\r\nFederal Depository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive, at http://permanent.access.gpo.gov \r\nEuropean Communities, Review of the Dispute Settlement Understanding, Discussion Paper from the European Communities, Brussels, 21 October 1998.\r\nEuropean Court of Justice, Case 120/78, Rewe-ZentralAG v. Bundesmonolverwaltungfur Branntwein, 1979 ECR 649.\r\nEuropean Court of Justice, Case 205/84, Commission of the European Communities v. Federal Republic of Germany, 1986, ECR 3755. \r\nInternational Court of Justice, Basic Documents, at http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/ibasicdocuments/ibasictext/ibasicstatute.htm\r\nOfficial Website of Government of India, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Department of Commerce, at http://commerce.nic.in\r\nUnited Nations Official Website, at http://www.un.org\r\nUnited States Trade Representative Official Website, at http://www.ustr.gov \r\nWorld Tourism Organization Official Website at www.world-tourism.org \r\nWorld Travel & Tourism Council, WTTC 2005 Tourism Satellite Accounting, at http://www.wttc.org/2005tsa/pdf/Executive%20Summary%202005.pdf (last accessed: May 2006)\r\n專書\r\nAllison, Graham and Philip Zelikow (1999), Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis, New York: Longman.\r\nBarton, John, Judith Goldstein, Timothy Josling and Richard Steinberg (2006), The Evolution of the Trade Regime: Politics, Law and Economics of the GATT and WTO, Princeton: Princeton University Press.\r\nByers, Michael (ed.) (2000), The Role of Law in International Politics, New York: Oxford University Press.\r\nDougherty, James E. and Robert L. Pfaltzgraff (2001), Contending Theories of International Relations, New York: Longman. \r\nFeketekuty, Geza (1988), International Trade in Services: An Overview and Blueprint for Negotiations, Cambridge, Massachusetts: Ballinger Publishing Company.\r\nGilpin, Robert (2001), Global Political Economy, Princeton: Princeton University Press.\r\nHeld, David and Anthony McGrew (eds.)(2000), Global Transformations Reader: An Introduction to the Globalization Debate, Cambridge: Polity.\r\nHeld, David and Anthony McGrew (2002), Governing Globalization: Power, Authority, and Global Governance, Cambridge; Malden, MA: Polity. \r\nHenkin, Louis (1968), How Nations Behave : Law and Foreign Policy, London : Pall Mall P.\r\nHoekman, Bernard and Michel Kostecki (2001), The Political Economy of the World Trading System:The WTO and Beyond, Oxford: Oxford University Press.\r\nHoekman, Bernard and Michel Kostecki (1995), The Political Economy of the World Trading System: From GATT to WTO, Oxford: Oxford University Press.\r\nJackson, John H. (1997), The World Trading System, Cambridge: MIT.\r\nJackson, John H. (2000), The Jurisprudence of GATT and the WTO, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.\r\nKennedy, Daniel and James Southwick (eds.) (2002), Political Economy of International Trade Law, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.\r\nKeohane, Robert O. (1989), International Institutions and State Power, Boulder, CO: \r\nWestview Press.\r\nKeohane, Robert O. and J. Nye Jr. (2001), Power and Interdependence(3rd. ed.), New York: Longman.\r\nKrasner, Stephen D. (ed.) (1983), International Regimes, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.\r\nMowforth, Martin and Ian Munt (2003), Tourism and Sustainability, Development and New Tourism in the Third World, NY: Routledge.\r\nOdell, John (1982), U.S. International Monetary Policy: Markets, Power, and Ideas as Sources of Change, Princeton: Princeton University Press.\r\nRawls, John (1971), A Theory of Justice, Cambridge, Mass. : Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.\r\nRosenau, James (1981), The Study of Political Adaptation, London: Frances Pinter.\r\nSauve, Pierre and Robert Stern (eds.) (2000), GATS 2000: New Directions in Services Trade Liberalization, Washington D.C.: The Brookings Institution.\r\nSchott Jeffrey (ed.) (2000), The WTO after Seattle, Washington D.C. : Institute for International Economics.\r\nTrebilcock, Michael J. and Robert Howse (1999), The Regulation of International Trade, London and New York: Routledge.\r\nVayrynen, Raimo (ed.) (1999), Globalization and Global Governance, Boston: Rowman & Littlefield. \r\nWahab, Salah and Chris Cooper (eds.)(2001), Tourism in the Age of Globalization, London: Routledge.\r\nYoung, Oran R. (1999), Governance in World Affairs, Cornell University Press.\r\nZacher, Mark and Brent Sutton (1996), Governing Global Network: International Regimes for Transportation and Communications, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.\r\n專書論文\r\nFeketekuty, Geza (2000), “Assessing and Improving the Architecture of GATS,” in Pierre Sauve and Robert Stern (eds.), GATS 2000: New Directions in Services Trade Liberalization, Washington D.C.: Brookings Institution.\r\nFinlayson, Jack and Mark Zacher (1983), “The GATT and the Regulation of Trade Barriers: Regime Dynamics and Functions,” in Stephen D. Krasner (ed.), International Regimes, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.\r\nGowlland-Debbas, Vera (2000), “The Functions of the United Nations Security Council in the International Legal System,” in Michael Byers (ed.), The Role of Law in International Politics, New York: Oxford University Press.\r\nHurrell, Andrew (2002), “Norms and Ethics in International Relations,” in Walter Carlsnaes, Thomas Risse and Beth A. Simmons (eds.), Handbook of International Relations, London: Thousand Oaks. \r\nKurdle, Robert T. (1999), “Three Types of Globalization: Communication, Market, and Direct,” in Raimo Vayrynen (ed.), Globalization and Global Governance, Boston: Rowman & Littlefield.\r\nOdell, John (2002), “The Seattle Impasse and its Implications for the World Trade Organization,” in Daniel Kennedy and James Southwick (eds.), Political Economy of International Trade Law, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.\r\nRuggie, John (1983), “International Regimes, Transactions, and Change: Embedded Liberalism in the Postwar Economic Order,” in Stephen D. Krasner, (ed.), International Regimes, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.\r\nSnyder, Francis (2003), “Economic Globalisation and the Law in the 21st \r\nCentury,” in Austin Sarat (ed.), The Blackwell Companion to Law and Society, New York and Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.\r\nSteger, Debra (2002), “The Appellate Body and its Contribution to WTO Dispute Settlement,” in Daniel Kennedy and James Southwick (eds.), Political Economy of International Trade Law, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.\r\nStern, Brigitte (2000), “How to Regulate Globalization” in Michael Byers (ed.), The Role of Law in International Politics, New York: Oxford University Press.\r\n6, Perri (2002), “Global Digital Communications and the Prospects for Transnational Regulation,” in David Held and Anthony G McGrew (eds.), Governing Globalization: Power, Authority, and Global Governance, Cambridge; Malden, MA : Polity. \r\n期刊論文\r\nAbbott, Kenneth W. (1989), “Modern International Relations Theory: A Prospectus for International Lawyers,” Yale Journal of International Law, Vol. 14, 335.\r\nChakraborty, Debashis (2005), “India’s Participation in WTO Negotiations: The Changes in Attitude and Emphasis,” Taiwanese Journal of WTO Studies, Vol. 3, 153.\r\nCharnovitz, Steve (2000), “Opening the WTO to Non-governmental Interests,” Fordham International Law Journal, Vol. 24, 173.\r\nDrake, William and Kalypso Nicolaidis (1992), “Ideas, Interests, and Institutionalization: ‘Trade in Services’ and the Uruguay Round,” International Organization, Vol. 46, 1.\r\nGuzman, Andrew T. (2002), “A Compliance-Based Theory of International Law,” California Law Review, Vol. 90, 1823.\r\nHoekman B. and P. Sauve (1994), “Liberalization of Service Markets: Complements or Substitutes ?” Journal of Common Market Studies, Vol. 32, No 3.\r\nJackson, John H. (2002), “Perceptions about the WTO Trade Institutions,” World Trade Law Review, Vol. 1, No. 1, 101.\r\nKeohane, Robert O. (1997), “International Relations and International Law: Two Optics,” Harvard International Law Journal, Vol. 38, 487. \r\nKeohane, Robert O. (2001), “Governance in a Partially Globalized World,” American Political Science Review, Vol. 95. No. 1. \r\nPauwelyn, Joost (2001), “The Role of Public International Law in the WTO: How Far Can We Go?” American Journal of International Law, Vol. 95, 535. \r\nPauwelyn, Joost (2005),“Distinguishing Domestic Regulation from Market Access in GATT and GATS, Rien ne Va Plus ?” World Trade Review, Vol. 4, No. 2, 131.\r\nSapir, Andre (1999), “The General Agreement on Trade in Services: From 1994 to the Year 2000,” Journal of World Trade, Vol. 33, 51.\r\nShell, G. Richard (1995), “Trade Legalism and International Relations Theory: An Analysis of the World Trade Organization,” Duke Law Journal, Vol. 44, 829.\r\nSlaughter, Anne-Marie, Andrew S. Tulumello and Stepan Wood (1998), “International Law and International Relations Theory: A New Generation of Interdisciplinary Scholarship,” American Journal of International Law, Vol. 92, 367.\r\nSteinberg, Richard H. (2002), “In the Shadow of Law or Power? Consensus-Based \r\nBargaining and Outcomes in the GATT/WTO,” International Organization,\r\nVol. 56, No. 2, 339.\r\nSteinberg, Richard H. (2004), “Judicial Lawmaking at the WTO: Discursive, \r\nConstitutional and Political Constraints,” American Journal of\r\nInternational Law, Vol. 98, No 2, 247.\r\nTallberg , Jonas ( 2002), “Paths to Compliance: Enforcement, Management, and the European Union,” International Organization, Vol. 56, 3.\r\nTrachtman, Joel P. (1995), “Trade in Financial Services under GATS, NAFTA, and the EC: A Regulatory Jurisdiction Analysis,” Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, Vol. 34, 37.\r\nWendt, Alexander (1992), “Anarchy is What States Make of it: the Social Construction of Power Politics,” International Organization, Vol. 46, No.2, 391.\r\nZoduc, Werner (1999), “WTO Dispute Settlement Practice Relating to GATS,” Journal of International Economic Law, Vol. 2, No. 2, 295.\r\n其他\r\nAustralian Fair Trade and Investment Network (AFTINET), “WTO Panel Rules against Special and Differential Treatment for Developing Countries,”\r\nAFTINET Bulletin 94, 26 May 2004, at http://www.aftinet.org.au (last accessed.. May 2006)\r\nBerkey, Judson O. (2002), “A Framework Agreement for Electronic Commerce Regulation Under the GATS,” Institute of International Finance, December 2001, at http://www.cid.harvard.edu/cidtrade/Papers/eserv_frame.pdf.(last accessed: August 2005)\r\nCharnovitz, Steve (2005), \"International Standards and the WTO,\" George Washington University Law School, Legal Studies Research Paper No. 133. March 29, 2005, at http://ssrn.com/abstract=694346(last accessed: May 2006)\r\nDunlop, Adam (2003), “Tourism Services Negotiation Issues: Implications for Cariforum Countries,” Studies and Technical Papers for the Caribbean Regional Negotiating Machinery, at http://www.crnm.org/studies.htm(last accessed: May 2006)\r\nFont, Xavier and Jem Bendell, “Standards for Sustainable Tourism for the Purpose of Multilateral Trade Negotiations,” The World Tourism Organization, at http://www.world-tourism.org/quality/E/docs/trade/sustnbstnds.pdf\r\n (last accessed: May 2006)\r\nGATSWATCH website, at http://www.gatswatch.org\r\nGollub, James (et. al.), “Using Cluster-based Economic Strategy to Minimize Tourism Leakages,” The World Tourism Organization, at\r\nhttp://www.world-tourism.org/quality/E/docs/trade/trsmleaks.pdf \r\n(last accessed: May 2006)\r\nGuzman, Andrew T. (2002), “Global Governance and the WTO,” UC Berkeley School of Law Public Law and Legal Theory Research Paper No. 89. \r\nKumar, Krishna (2003), “International Tourism in India: Strategic Significance, Gaps and Vulnerabilities,” Working Paper IIM Lucknow, Indian Institute of Management, Lucknow.\r\nMartin, Lisa L. (2001), “Governance Patterns in Tourism: The Leverage of Economic Theories”, Working Paper Draft Prepared for University of California, San Diego(UCSD) Conference on Globalization and Governance, March 2001, at http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu./~llmartin/tourism.html (last accessed: August 2005)\r\nPauwelyn, Joost (2002), “The Nature of WTO Obligations,” Jean Monnet Working Paper 1/02, New York University School of Law, at http://www.jeanmonnetprogram.org/papers/02/020101.rtf (last accessed: May 2006)\r\nPauwelyn, Joost (2004), “Non-traditional Patterns of Global Regulation: Is the WTO ‘Missing the Boat’?” Conference Paper on Legal Patterns of Transnational Social Regulations and Trade at European University Institute, September.\r\nPublic Citizen (2005), “Final WTO Panel Upholds Ruling Against U.S. Internet Gambling Ban in Explosive Decision With Broad Political, Policy Implications,” April 7, 2005, at http://www.citizen.org/pressroom/release.cfm?ID=1915(last accessed: May 2006)\r\nSmithies, Richard (2001), “Airline Views on the Proposed Tourism Annex to the GATS,” Paper presented in Symposium on Tourism Services, 22-23 February 2001, WTO, Geneva, at http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/serv_e/symp_tourism_serv_feb01_e.htm (last accessed: May 2006)\r\nSouty, Francois, “Passport to Progress: Competition Challenges for World Tourism and Global Anti-competitive Practices in the Tourism Industry,” The World Tourism Organization, at http://www.world-tourism.org/quality/E/docs/trade/passprttoprog.pdf \r\nSteinberg, Richard H.(2003), “Judicial Law-Making, International Transparency, and \r\nExternal Transparency: Recent Institutional Development at the WTO,”\r\nUniversity of California, Berkeley School of Law, International Legal Studies Working Paper Series at http://www.law.berkeley.edu/cenpro/ils/publications.html (last accessed: May 2006)\r\nSunsonline (1989), “U.S. ‘GATS’ Draft, a TNC Charter of Extra-territoriality” Oct. 21, 1989, at http://www.sunsonline.org/trade/areas/services/10210089.htm (last accessed: May 2006)
描述: 博士
國立政治大學
外交學系
90253502
資料來源: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0902535022
資料類型: thesis
Appears in Collections:學位論文

Files in This Item:
File SizeFormat
index.html115 BHTML2View/Open
Show full item record

Google ScholarTM

Check


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.