學術產出-NSC Projects
Article View/Open
Publication Export
-
題名 公共道德在WTO規範中之角色 作者 許耀明 貢獻者 法律系 關鍵詞 公共道德; 技術性貿易障礙; 製程與生產方式; 關稅暨貿易總協定第二十條; 前言; 同類商品
Public Moral; TBT; Process and Production Methods (PPM); GATT XX; chapeau; Like Products日期 2016 上傳時間 17-May-2017 15:11:03 (UTC+8) 摘要 本計畫主要著重於探討「公共道德」在WTO法律制度下所可能扮演之角色。近來，歐盟因為施行禁止進口加拿大與挪威以非人道方式獵捕之海豹相關商品之相關規則，而被加拿大與挪威控告違反最惠國待遇原則以及技術性貿易障礙協定。惟，歐盟基於動物福祉考量所施行之規則，尤以該規則係針對特定之「製程與生產方式」為規範對象時，是否應屬技術性貿易障礙下之技術性規範？甚者，動物福祉之促進與保障豈非本應優於貿易利益之考量？在上訴機構尚未對該案於2014年5月為判決之前，各方學者針對上述重要爭點做出諸多討論，然而上訴機構最後則認為相關問題並未被小組與相關當事人充分探討，且就公共道德之考量得否作為製程與生產之要素之一，亦未給予解答。除此之外，上訴機構肯認保障動物福祉確屬公共道德之其中一種態樣，但認為歐盟未能證明其相關規則符合關稅暨貿易總協定第二十條前言之必要性要求。耐人尋味者，亦如在美國線上賭博服務案與中國視聽服務案中，無論係限制人民賭博或者會員國對保護內國視聽產品之公共政策，皆無疑被認定屬公共道德之範疇，然上述二案亦被認定其並未達到關稅暨貿易總協定第二十條前言之必要性要求。由此三案以觀，是否意謂以公共道德作為貿易限制措施之合法化主張係屬可能，但要更進一步通過前言之必要性審查卻有其難度而難以實現？ 甚至，我們是否應同意公共道德得以「消費者偏好」之姿，作為辨別同類商品(Like Products)之可能標準？若允之，是否更有助於我們掌握WTO制度下未來之道德倫理、環境保護與動物福祉之意涵？總言之，上述所論之「公共道德」三種可能之角色，亦即公共道德是否可能作為製程與生產方式之要素、作為關稅暨貿易總協定下之一般例外以及是否可能作為辨別同類產品之標準等議題，於本計畫中詳加的分析與研究。
This project focuses on possible roles of “Public Morals”in WTO legal regime. Recently, the European Union’s ban on certain inhumane-captured seal products from Canada and Norway triggers trade complaints about the violation of most-favored-nation treatment and TBT agreement. However, should the measure taken by the EU, based on considerations of animal welfare, be a technical regulation in sense ofTBT? Especially some kind of process and production methods? Even, the promotion of animal welfare, shouldn’t it trump trade interest? Before the final decision of the Appellate Body (AB) for EC-Seal Products in May 2014, scholars quarreled with these crucial points. However, the AB just ruled that “this question had not been sufficiently explored by the Panel and the participants”and the question that whether moral consideration should be considered as an element of PPM is still unanswered. Besides, even the AB accepted that animal welfare is definitely a kind of public moral, it still declared that the EU “had not demonstrated that the EU Seal Regime meets the requirements of the chapeau of Article XX”. It’squite interesting that both in the US-Gambling case and China-audiovisual case, the moral considerations, either refraining people from gambling or guaranteeing Member’s own national public policy for audiovisual products, could certainly be a kind of public morals, but the respondents also both failed in the justification of necessity test prescribed in the chapeau. So, does it mean that eventually any argumentation of public moral for justification of some trade-restrictive measures is possible, yet its implementation appears impossible to pass the examination according to the chapeau? Even, should we accept that public moral is a possible element for distinguishing “like products” in sense of“consumers’ preference”? Would we make it clearer for the future moral, environmental protection and animal welfare in WTO regime? In sum, the above-mentioned three different roles of“public moral” in WTO, i.e. possible element of PPM, possible justification for general exception to GATT, and possible criteria for distinguishing like products, have been thoroughly investigated in this article.關聯 MOST 104-2410-H-004-069 資料類型 report dc.contributor 法律系 dc.creator (作者) 許耀明 zh_TW dc.date (日期) 2016 dc.date.accessioned 17-May-2017 15:11:03 (UTC+8) - dc.date.available 17-May-2017 15:11:03 (UTC+8) - dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 17-May-2017 15:11:03 (UTC+8) - dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/109673 - dc.description.abstract (摘要) 本計畫主要著重於探討「公共道德」在WTO法律制度下所可能扮演之角色。近來，歐盟因為施行禁止進口加拿大與挪威以非人道方式獵捕之海豹相關商品之相關規則，而被加拿大與挪威控告違反最惠國待遇原則以及技術性貿易障礙協定。惟，歐盟基於動物福祉考量所施行之規則，尤以該規則係針對特定之「製程與生產方式」為規範對象時，是否應屬技術性貿易障礙下之技術性規範？甚者，動物福祉之促進與保障豈非本應優於貿易利益之考量？在上訴機構尚未對該案於2014年5月為判決之前，各方學者針對上述重要爭點做出諸多討論，然而上訴機構最後則認為相關問題並未被小組與相關當事人充分探討，且就公共道德之考量得否作為製程與生產之要素之一，亦未給予解答。除此之外，上訴機構肯認保障動物福祉確屬公共道德之其中一種態樣，但認為歐盟未能證明其相關規則符合關稅暨貿易總協定第二十條前言之必要性要求。耐人尋味者，亦如在美國線上賭博服務案與中國視聽服務案中，無論係限制人民賭博或者會員國對保護內國視聽產品之公共政策，皆無疑被認定屬公共道德之範疇，然上述二案亦被認定其並未達到關稅暨貿易總協定第二十條前言之必要性要求。由此三案以觀，是否意謂以公共道德作為貿易限制措施之合法化主張係屬可能，但要更進一步通過前言之必要性審查卻有其難度而難以實現？ 甚至，我們是否應同意公共道德得以「消費者偏好」之姿，作為辨別同類商品(Like Products)之可能標準？若允之，是否更有助於我們掌握WTO制度下未來之道德倫理、環境保護與動物福祉之意涵？總言之，上述所論之「公共道德」三種可能之角色，亦即公共道德是否可能作為製程與生產方式之要素、作為關稅暨貿易總協定下之一般例外以及是否可能作為辨別同類產品之標準等議題，於本計畫中詳加的分析與研究。 dc.description.abstract (摘要) This project focuses on possible roles of “Public Morals”in WTO legal regime. Recently, the European Union’s ban on certain inhumane-captured seal products from Canada and Norway triggers trade complaints about the violation of most-favored-nation treatment and TBT agreement. However, should the measure taken by the EU, based on considerations of animal welfare, be a technical regulation in sense ofTBT? Especially some kind of process and production methods? Even, the promotion of animal welfare, shouldn’t it trump trade interest? Before the final decision of the Appellate Body (AB) for EC-Seal Products in May 2014, scholars quarreled with these crucial points. However, the AB just ruled that “this question had not been sufficiently explored by the Panel and the participants”and the question that whether moral consideration should be considered as an element of PPM is still unanswered. Besides, even the AB accepted that animal welfare is definitely a kind of public moral, it still declared that the EU “had not demonstrated that the EU Seal Regime meets the requirements of the chapeau of Article XX”. It’squite interesting that both in the US-Gambling case and China-audiovisual case, the moral considerations, either refraining people from gambling or guaranteeing Member’s own national public policy for audiovisual products, could certainly be a kind of public morals, but the respondents also both failed in the justification of necessity test prescribed in the chapeau. So, does it mean that eventually any argumentation of public moral for justification of some trade-restrictive measures is possible, yet its implementation appears impossible to pass the examination according to the chapeau? Even, should we accept that public moral is a possible element for distinguishing “like products” in sense of“consumers’ preference”? Would we make it clearer for the future moral, environmental protection and animal welfare in WTO regime? In sum, the above-mentioned three different roles of“public moral” in WTO, i.e. possible element of PPM, possible justification for general exception to GATT, and possible criteria for distinguishing like products, have been thoroughly investigated in this article. dc.format.extent 6912928 bytes - dc.format.mimetype application/pdf - dc.relation (關聯) MOST 104-2410-H-004-069 dc.subject (關鍵詞) 公共道德; 技術性貿易障礙; 製程與生產方式; 關稅暨貿易總協定第二十條; 前言; 同類商品 dc.subject (關鍵詞) Public Moral; TBT; Process and Production Methods (PPM); GATT XX; chapeau; Like Products dc.title (題名) 公共道德在WTO規範中之角色 zh_TW dc.type (資料類型) report
