1. NCCU Academic Hub
  2. 學術產出
  3. College of Commerce
  4. Theses
  5. Item

學術產出-Theses

Article View/Open

Publication Export

Google ScholarTM

政大圖書館

Citation Infomation

  • No doi shows Citation Infomation
題名 WTO下實施貿易反制措施的適法性──以歐盟《反經濟脅迫草案》為中心
Legality of Trade Countermeasures Under International Law: Focus on the EU`s Anti-Economic Coercion Regulation
作者 易婕
Yi, Chieh
貢獻者 施文真
Shih, Wen Chen
易婕
Yi, Chieh
關鍵詞 歐盟反經濟脅迫草案
經濟脅迫
反制措施
WTO
EU`s Anti-Economic Coercion Regulation
Economic Coercion
Countermeasures
WTO
日期 2023
上傳時間 1-Sep-2023 15:21:39 (UTC+8)
摘要 鑒於近年來國際社會興起將貿易武器化之趨勢，歐盟訂定《反經濟脅迫草案》作為法律基礎，以採取特定措施快速回應並促使他國停止以貿易手段，施壓歐盟或其成員國採取特定政策之經濟脅迫行為。然歐盟主張即便該措施違反WTO法而受到其他會員於WTO提出控訴，系爭措施是針對他國經濟脅迫所採取之國際法反制措施，故於WTO爭端解決程序中有其正當性。
本文旨在以此論點為核心，探討歐盟採取的反經濟脅迫措施於國際法與WTO協定下的適法性。先從國際法確認系爭措施符合國際法反制措施之要件作為前提，接著探討國際法與WTO法之階層關係以確認歐盟是否得於WTO外採取國際法反制措施，最後再就案例法探討小組於個案中對系爭措施可能之審理態度。本文發現，鑒於經濟脅迫於國際法下之不法性尚存爭議，系爭措施可能不符合國際法下合法的反制措施之要件，縱使承認之，WTO專屬管轄權與特別法原則可能已排除歐盟採取國際法反制措施之空間，且當系爭措施被其他會員於WTO控訴違反WTO義務，小組於個案之管轄範圍通常不及於被告提出之國際法反制措施抗辯。另外，系爭措施適用GATT第20條（d）款確保遵守法規之一般例外、以及GATT第21條（b）款（iii）目國際關係之緊急情況之國家安全例外亦有一定困難度。故歐盟可能無法以國際法反制措施或WTO例外條款作為正當化系爭措施之依據。
In light of the recent trend of weaponizing trade in the international community, the European Union (EU) has established the Anti-Coercion Instrument as a legal basis to take specific measures to respond quickly and compel other countries to cease using trade as a means of pressuring the EU or its member states to adopt specific policies. The EU argues that even if these measures violate WTO law and are subject to complaints from other WTO members, they are countermeasures taken against economic coercion by other countries under international law.
This article aims to explore the legality of the EU`s anti-economic coercion measures under international law and WTO agreements. It starts by establishing the compliance of the disputed measures with the requirements for lawful countermeasures under international law. Then, it examines the hierarchical relationship between international law and WTO law to determine whether the EU can adopt countermeasures outside the WTO. Finally, it analyzes WTO panel`s potential attitudes towards the disputed measures. The article finds that due to the ongoing controversy surrounding the legality of economic coercion under international law, the disputed measures may not meet the criteria for lawful countermeasures under international law. Even if they were recognized, the exclusive jurisdiction of the WTO and the principle of lex specialis derogat generali may have excluded the EU from adopting countermeasures. Additionally, Furthermore, the application of the disputed measures to GATT Article XX(d) (general exception for the observance of regulations) and GATT Article XXI(b)(iii) (national security exception for emergency situations in international relations) also presents certain difficulties. Therefore, the EU may not be able to justify the anti-economic coercion measures based on international law countermeasures or WTO exception clauses.
參考文獻 中文文獻
書籍
林彩瑜（2013），WTO制度與實務：世界貿組織法律研究（三），2版，臺北：元照。
丘宏達（2012），現代國際法，3版，臺北：三民。
期刊論文
林彩瑜（2011），論WTO與區域貿易協定爭端解決機制之衝突與調和，台大法學論叢，40卷1期。
林賢參、郭永興（2017），中國的非正式經濟制裁與對象國的反擊策略：中日稀土衝突為例的分析，中國大陸研究，60卷4期。
李俊毅（2021），中國的經濟脅迫：必要但效果不一的工具，國防情勢特刊， 12期，頁11-19。
研討會論文
陳貞如，國際法之破碎性於國際漁業貿易規範的體現。收於：楊光華編，第12屆國際經貿法學發展學術研討會（2012年）。
碩博士論文
張愷致（2012），世界貿易組織與區域貿易協定之競合與衝突研究—以爭端解決機制為中心，國立交通大學科技法律研究所碩士論文。
法規
中華人民共和國反外國制裁法，中國人大網，2021年6月10日，http://www.npc.gov.cn/npc/c30834/202106/d4a714d5813c4ad2ac54a5f0f78a5270.shtml。
英文文獻
書籍
Derek W. Bowett, SELF-DEFENSE IN INTERNATIONAL LAW (1st ed. 1958).
GARY CLYDE HUFBAUE ET AL., ECONOMIC SANCTIONS RECONSIDERED (3d ed. 2009).
IRYNA BOGDANOVA, UNILATERAL SANCTIONS IN INTERNATIONAL LAW AND THE ENFORCEMENT OF HUMAN RIGHTS (1st ed. 2022).
ROSALYN HIGGINS, THE DEVELOPMENT OF INTERNATIONAL LAW THROUGH THE POLITICAL ORGANS OF THE UNITED NATIONS (1st ed. 1963).
RUDOLF DOLZER & CHRISTOPH SCHREUER, PRINCIPLE OF INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT LAW (2nd ed. 2012).
SURYA P. SUBEDI, INTRODUCTION, IN UNILATERAL SANCTIONS IN INTERNATIONAL LAW (1st ed. 2021).
法律案件
S.S. Lotus (Fr. v. Turk.), Judgement, 1927 P.C.I.J. (ser. A) No. 10 (Sept. 7)
Case Concerning Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. U.S.), Judgement, 1986 I.C.J.14 (June 27)
國際協定
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994, Apr.15, 1994, Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, Annex 1A, 1867 U.N.T.S. 187, 33 L.L.M. 1153 (1994).
Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes art. 1.1, Apr. 15, 1994, Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, Annex 2, 1869 U.N.T.S.
The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, May 23, 1969, 1155 U.N.T.S. 331.
法律條文
Proposal for a Regulation of The European Parliament and of The Council on the Protection of the Union and Its Member States from Economic Coercion by Third Countries, COM (2021) 775 final (Dec. 8, 2021).
International Law Commission, Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, UN Doc. A/RES/56/83 (28 January, 2002).
Countering Economic Coercion Act of 2022, S. 4514, 117th Cong. §5 (as read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations).
Treaty on European Union, Feb. 7, 1992 1992 O.J. (C191) 1; 31 I.L.M. 253 (1992)
Consolidated Version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, 2012 O.J. (C326) 47, 50
專書論文
Bruno Simma & Dirk Pulkowski, Leges Speciales and Self-Contained Regimes, in THE LAW OF INTERNATIONAL RESPONSIBILITY 139-163 (James Crawford et al. eds., 2010).
Jeffrey L. Dunoff. 2008 The WTO Constitution, Judicial Power and Changing Patterns of Authority, in Authority in the Global Political Economy 55–86 (Volker Rittberger et al. eds, 2008).
M. Garcia-Rubio, Unilateral Measures as a Means of Enforcement of WTO Recommendations and Decisions, in ECONOMIC SANCTIONS IN INTERNATIONAL LAW (Académie de droit international de La Haye eds., 2004)
Richard N. Haass, Introduction, in ECONOMIC SANCTIONS AND AMERICAN DIPLOMACY (Richard N. Haass eds., 1985)
Scott Sagan, From Deterrence to Coercion to War: The Road to Pearl Harbor, in THE LIMITS OF COERCIVE DIPLOMACY (Alexander George & William Simons eds., 1994).
Tom Ruys, Sanctions, Retorsions and Countermeasures: Concepts and International Legal Framework, in RESEARCH HANDBOOK ON UN SANCTIONS AND INTERNATIONAL LAW 19-51 (Larissa van den Herik eds., 2017).
Victor Ferguson & Darren Lim, Economic Power and Vulnerability in Sino-Australian Relations, in CHINA STORY YEARBOOK 2021: CRISIS (Linda Jaivin, Jane Golley, & Sharon Strange eds., 2021).
期刊論文
Amy Staples, Seeing Diplomacy Through Bankers’ Eye: The World Bank, the Anglo-Iranian Crisis, and the Aswan High Dam, 26(3) DIPLOMATIC HISTORY 397-418 (2002).
Anna Ventouratou, The Law on State Responsibility and the WTO, 22(5-6) THE JOURNAL OF WORLD INVESTMENT & TRADE 759-803 (2021)
Anne Peters, The Refinement of International Law: From Fragmentation to Regime Interaction and Politicization, 15(3) INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 671-704 (2017).
Anthony D`Amato, Trashing Customary International Law, 81(1) THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INT’L 101-105 (1987).
Antonios Tzanakopoulos, The Right to be Free from Economic Coercion, 4 CAMBRIDGE JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL AND COMPARATIVE LAW 616-633 (2015).
Bruno Simma & Dirk Pulkowski, Of Planets and the Universe: Self-contained Regimes in International Law; 17(3) EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 483-529 (2006)
Danae Azaria, Trade Countermeasures for Breaches of International Law Outside the WTO, 71(2) INTERNATIONAL & COMPARATIVE LAW QUARTERLY 389-423 (2022).
David D. Caron, The ILC Articles on State Responsibility: The Paradoxical Relationship Between Form and Authority, 96(4) THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 857-873 (2002).
DM McRae, The WTO in International Law: Tradition Continued or New Frontier?, 3(1) JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC LAW 27-41 (2000).
Fernando Lusa Bordin, Reflections of Customary International Law: The Authority of Codification Conventions and ILC Draft Articles in International Law, 63(3) THE INTERNATIONAL AND COMPARATIVE LAW QUARTERLY 535-567 (2014)
Hartmut Brosche, The Arab Oil Embargo and United States Pressure Against Chile: Economic and Political Coercion and the Charter of the United Nations, 7 Case W. Res. J. Int`l L. 3-35 (1974).
James A. Boorman III, Economic Coercion in International Law: The Arab Oil Weapon and the Ensuing Juridical Issues, 9 J. INT`L L. & ECON. 205-231 (1974).
Joost Pauwelyn, The Role of Public International Law in the WTO: How Far Can We Go?, 95(3) THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 535-578 (2001).
Joost Pauwelyn & Luiz Eduardo Salles, Forum Shopping before International Tribunals:(Real) Concerns, (Im)Possible Solutions, 42(1) CORNELL INTERNATIONAL LAW JOURNAL 77-118 (2009).
John Galtung, On the Effects of International Economic Sanctions: With Examples from the Case of Rhodesia, 19(3) WORLD POLITCS 378-416 (1967).
Kimberley N. Trapp, WTO Inconsistent Countermeasures—A View from the Outside, 104 INTERNATIONAL LAW IN A TIME OF CHANGE 264-270 (2010).
Luke Lee & John McCobb, United States Trade Embargo on China, 1949-1970: Legal Status and Future Prospects, 4 NEW YORK UNIVERSITY JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW AND POLITICS (1971).
Madhu Sudan Ravindran, China’s Potential for Economic Coercion in the South China Sea Disputes: A Comparative Study of the Philippines and Vietnam, 31(3) J. CURRENT SOUTHEAST ASIAN AFF105-132 (2012).
Martin Domb, Defining Economic Aggression in International Law: The Possibility of Regional Action by the Organization of American States, 11(1) CORNELL INT`L L.J. 85-105(1978).
N. Jansen Calamita, Countermeasures and Jurisdiction: Between Effectiveness and Fragmentation, 42 GEO. J. INT`L L. 233-301 (2011).
PC Mavroidis, Remedies in the WTO Legal System: Between a Rock and a Hard Place, 11(4) EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 763-813 (2000).
Pierre-Emmanuel Dupont, Countermeasures and Collective Security: The Case of the EU Sanctions Against Iran, 17 JOURNAL OF CONFLICT AND SECURITY LAW (2012).
Robert Carswell, Economic Sanctions and the Iran Experience, 60 FOREIGN AFFAIRS 247-265 (1981).
Stephen M. Schwebel, The Effect of Resolutions of the U.N. General Assembly on Customary International Law, 73 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ANNUAL MEETING (AMERICAN SOCIETY OF INTERNATIONAL LAW) 301-309 (1979).
William J. Davey & Andre Sapir, The Soft Drinks Case: The WTO and Regional Agreements, 8(1) WORLD TRADE REVIEW 5-23 (2009).
政府文件
Commission Staff Working Document Impact Assessment Report Accompanying the Document Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Protection of the Union and its Member States from Economic Coercion by Third Countries, SWD (2021) 371 final (Dec. 8, 2021)
EU Legislation in Progress: Proposed Anti-Coercion Instrument, European Parliament (June 12, 2022), https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2022/729299/EPRS_BRI(2022)729299_EN.pdf
European Commission Press Release IP/23/3046, Political Agreement on New Anti-Coercion Instrument to Better Defend EU Interests on Global Stage (June 6, 2023).
網路資料
Andrew Higgins, In Philippines, Banana Growers Feel Effect of South China Sea Dispute, THE WASHINGTON POST (June 10, 2012), https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/in-philippines-banana-growers-feel-effect-of-south-china-sea-dispute/2012/06/10/gJQA47WVTV_story.html.
Antony J. Blinken, Secretary of State, Speech at NATO Headquarters Agora: Reaffirming and Reimagining America’s Alliances, US DEPARTMENT OF STATE (Mar. 24, 2021), https://www.state.gov/reaffirming-and-reimagining-americas-alliances/.
Cynthia Kim & Hyunjoo Jin, With China Dream Shattered over Missile Land Deal, Lotte Faces Costly Overhaul, REUTERS (Oct. 25, 2017), https://www.reuters.com/article/us-lotte-china-analysis-idUSKBN1CT35Y.
Deepak Raju, Proposed EU Regulation to Address Third Country Coercion – What is Coercion?, EJIL: TALK! (Jan. 6, 2022), https://www.ejiltalk.org/proposed-eu-regulation-to-address-third-country-coercion-what-is-coercion/.
DS598: China — Anti-dumping and Countervailing Duty Measures on Barley from Australia, World Trade Organization [WTO], https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds598_e.htm.
DS602: China — Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duty Measures on Wine from Australia, WTO, https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds602_e.htm.
DS610: China — Measures Concerning Trade in Goods and Services, WTO, https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds610_e.htm.
EU-US Summit 2021 – Statement, Towards a Renewed Transatlantic Partnership, EUROPEAN COUNCIL (June 15, 2021), https://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/50758/eu-us-summit-joint-statement-15-june-final-final.pdf
Freya Baetens & Marco Bronckers, The EU’s Anti-Coercion Instrument: A Big Stick for Big Targets, EJIL: TALK! (Jan. 19, 2022), https://www.ejiltalk.org/the-eus-anti-coercion-instrument-a-big-stick-for-big-targets/.
G7 Foreign and Development Ministers’ Meeting: Communiqué, THE DIPLOMATIC SERVICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION (May 5, 2021), https://www.eeas.europa.eu/eeas/g7-foreign-and-development-ministers%E2%80%99-meeting-communiqu%C3%A9_en
John Hudson & Souad Mekhennet, Days Before Europeans Warned Iran of Nuclear Deal Violations, Trump Secretly Threatened to Impose 25% Tariff on European Autos If They Didn’t, THE WASHINGTON POST (Jan.15, 2020), https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/days-before-europeans-warned-iran-of-nuclear-deal-violations-trump-secretly-threatened-to-impose-25percent-tariff-on-european-autos-if-they-didnt/2020/01/15/0a3ea8ce-37a9-11ea-a01d-b7cc8ec1a85d_story.html.
Kana Itabashi, Japan: New Act on the Promotion of Japan’s Economic Security Enacted, GLOBAL COMPLIANCE NEWS (July 10, 2022), https://www.globalcompliancenews.com/2022/07/10/new-act-on-the-promotion-of-japans-economic-security-enacted240622/.
Katrin Bennhold & Jack Ewing, In Huawei Battle, China Threatens Germany ‘Where It Hurts’: Automakers, THE N.Y. TIMES (Jan. 16, 2020), https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/16/world/europe/huawei-germany-china-5g-automakers.html.
Khaled Elgindy, Obama’s Record of Israeli-Palestinian Peace, FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Oct. 5, 2016), https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/israel/2016-10-05/obamas-record-israeli-palestinian-peace.
S.4514 - Countering Economic Coercion Act of 2022, CONGRESS. GOV., https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/4514.
WTO爭端解決案例相關文件
Appellate Body Report, China－Measures Related to the Exportation of Rare Earths, Tungsten and Molybdenum, WTO Doc. WT/DS431/432/433/AB/R (adopted Aug. 7, 2014).
Appellate Body Report, India — Certain Measures Relating to Solar Cells and Solar Modules, WTO Doc. WT/DS456/AB/R (adopted Oct. 14, 2016).
Appellate Body Report, India — Patent Protection for Pharmaceutical and Agricultural Chemical Products, WTO Doc. WT/DS50/AB/R (adopted Jan. 16, 1998).
Appellate Body Report, Korea — Measures Affecting Imports of Fresh, Chilled and Frozen Beef, WTO Doc. WT/DS161/AB/R; WT/DS169/AB/R (adopted Jan. 10, 2001).
Appellate Body Report, Mexico – Anti-Dumping Investigation of High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS) from the United States, Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by the United States, WT/DS132/AB/RW (adopted Nov. 21, 2001).
Appellate Body Report, Mexico — Tax Measures on Soft Drinks and Other Beverages, WTO Doc. WT/DS308/AB/R (Adopted Mar. 24, 2006).
Appellate Body Report, United States — Standards for Reformulated and Conventional Gasoline, WTO Doc. WT/DS2/AB/R (adopted May 20, 1996).
Council for Trade in Goods, Minutes of the Meeting of The Council for Trade in Goods 8 and 9 July 2021, G/C/M/140.
Panel Report, China — Measures Related to the Exportation of Various Raw Materials, WTO Doc. WT/DS394/R/Corr.1; WT/DS395/R/Corr.1; WT/DS398/R/Corr.1 (adopted on Feb 22, 2012).
Panel Report, EC – Commercial Vessels, para.7.193-7.195; United States — Section 301-310 of the Trade Act of 1974, WTO Doc. WT/DS152/R (adopted Jan. 27, 2000).
Panel Report, European Communities — Measures Affecting Trade in Commercial Vessels, WTO Doc. WT/DS301/R (adopted June 20, 2005).
Panel Report, Mexico — Anti-Dumping Investigation of High-Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS) from the United States, WTO Doc. WT/DS132/R (adopted Feb. 24, 2000).
Panel Report, Mexico — Tax Measures on Soft Drinks and Other Beverages, WTO Doc. WT/DS308/R (adopted Mar. 24, 2006).
Panel Report, Russia — Measures Concerning Traffic in Transit, WTO Doc. WT/DS512/R (adopted on Apr. 26, 2019).
Panel Report, United States — Continued Suspension of Obligations in the EC — Hormones Dispute, WTO Doc. WT/DS382/R (adopted Nov. 14, 2008).
Panel Report, United States — Import Measures on Certain Products from the European Communities, WTO Doc. WT/DS165/R (adopted Jan. 10, 2001).
Panel Report, United States — Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products, WTO Doc. WT/DS58/R (adopted Nov. 6, 1998).
Panel Report, United States — Origin Marking Requirement, WTO Doc. WT/DS597/R (circulated Dec. 21, 2022).
國際組織相關文件
Succession of States in Respect of Treaties, [1974] 2 Y.B. Int’l. Comm’n 162, 276, U.N. Doc. A/CN.4/SER.A/1974/Add. L.
G.A. Res. 56/83, Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (Dec. 12, 2002).
G.A. Res. 2131 (XX), Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention in the Domestic Affairs of States and the Protection of their Independence and Sovereignty (Dec. 21, 1965).
G.A. Res. 2160, Strict Observance of the prohibition of the threat or use of force in international relations, and of the right of people to self-determination (30 Nov. 1966).
G.A. Res. 2625 (XXV), Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States (Oct. 24, 1970).
G.A. Res. 3171 (XXVIII), Permanent Sovereignty over Natural Resources (Dec. 17, 1973).
INTERNATIONAL LAW COMMISSION, REPORT OF THE INTERNATIONAL LAW COMMISSION ON THE WORK OF ITS FIFTY-THIRD SESSION, 23 APRIL -1 JUNE AND 2 JULY - 10 AUGUST 2001, OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, FIFTY-SIXTH SESSION, SUPPLEMENT NO.10 55 (2001).
Secretary-General, Economic Measures as A Means of Political and Economic Coercion Against Developing Countries, 2(a), UN Doc. A/48/535 (Oct. 25, 1993).
其他研究報告
Mohamed Helal, On Coercion in International Law, Ohio State Public Law 25 (Ohio State Public Law Working Paper No. 475, 2019).
MATHILDE VELLIET, CONVINCE AND COERCE: U.S. INTERFERENCE IN TECHNOLOGY EXCHANGES BETWEEN ITS ALLIES AND CHINA ÉTUDE 22-30 (2022).
ELIZABETH ROSENBERG, PETER E. HARRELL, AND ASHLEY FENG, A NEW ARSENAL FOR COMPETITION: COERCIVE ECONOMIC MEASURES IN THE U.S.-CHINA RELATIONSHIP (2020), https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/files.cnas.org/documents/CNAS-Report-Econ-Competition-Final-web.pdf?mtime=20200423121736&focal=none.
描述 碩士
國立政治大學
國際經營與貿易學系
109351038
資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0109351038
資料類型 thesis
dc.contributor.advisor 施文真zh_TW
dc.contributor.advisor Shih, Wen Chenen_US
dc.contributor.author (Authors) 易婕zh_TW
dc.contributor.author (Authors) Yi, Chiehen_US
dc.creator (作者) 易婕zh_TW
dc.creator (作者) Yi, Chiehen_US
dc.date (日期) 2023en_US
dc.date.accessioned 1-Sep-2023 15:21:39 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.available 1-Sep-2023 15:21:39 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 1-Sep-2023 15:21:39 (UTC+8)-
dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G0109351038en_US
dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/147020-
dc.description (描述) 碩士zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 國際經營與貿易學系zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 109351038zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) 鑒於近年來國際社會興起將貿易武器化之趨勢，歐盟訂定《反經濟脅迫草案》作為法律基礎，以採取特定措施快速回應並促使他國停止以貿易手段，施壓歐盟或其成員國採取特定政策之經濟脅迫行為。然歐盟主張即便該措施違反WTO法而受到其他會員於WTO提出控訴，系爭措施是針對他國經濟脅迫所採取之國際法反制措施，故於WTO爭端解決程序中有其正當性。
本文旨在以此論點為核心，探討歐盟採取的反經濟脅迫措施於國際法與WTO協定下的適法性。先從國際法確認系爭措施符合國際法反制措施之要件作為前提，接著探討國際法與WTO法之階層關係以確認歐盟是否得於WTO外採取國際法反制措施，最後再就案例法探討小組於個案中對系爭措施可能之審理態度。本文發現，鑒於經濟脅迫於國際法下之不法性尚存爭議，系爭措施可能不符合國際法下合法的反制措施之要件，縱使承認之，WTO專屬管轄權與特別法原則可能已排除歐盟採取國際法反制措施之空間，且當系爭措施被其他會員於WTO控訴違反WTO義務，小組於個案之管轄範圍通常不及於被告提出之國際法反制措施抗辯。另外，系爭措施適用GATT第20條（d）款確保遵守法規之一般例外、以及GATT第21條（b）款（iii）目國際關係之緊急情況之國家安全例外亦有一定困難度。故歐盟可能無法以國際法反制措施或WTO例外條款作為正當化系爭措施之依據。		zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) In light of the recent trend of weaponizing trade in the international community, the European Union (EU) has established the Anti-Coercion Instrument as a legal basis to take specific measures to respond quickly and compel other countries to cease using trade as a means of pressuring the EU or its member states to adopt specific policies. The EU argues that even if these measures violate WTO law and are subject to complaints from other WTO members, they are countermeasures taken against economic coercion by other countries under international law.
This article aims to explore the legality of the EU`s anti-economic coercion measures under international law and WTO agreements. It starts by establishing the compliance of the disputed measures with the requirements for lawful countermeasures under international law. Then, it examines the hierarchical relationship between international law and WTO law to determine whether the EU can adopt countermeasures outside the WTO. Finally, it analyzes WTO panel`s potential attitudes towards the disputed measures. The article finds that due to the ongoing controversy surrounding the legality of economic coercion under international law, the disputed measures may not meet the criteria for lawful countermeasures under international law. Even if they were recognized, the exclusive jurisdiction of the WTO and the principle of lex specialis derogat generali may have excluded the EU from adopting countermeasures. Additionally, Furthermore, the application of the disputed measures to GATT Article XX(d) (general exception for the observance of regulations) and GATT Article XXI(b)(iii) (national security exception for emergency situations in international relations) also presents certain difficulties. Therefore, the EU may not be able to justify the anti-economic coercion measures based on international law countermeasures or WTO exception clauses.		en_US
dc.description.tableofcontents 第壹章 緒論 1
第一節 研究背景與動機 1
第二節 研究架構 3
第三節 研究方法與限制 4
第貳章 經濟脅迫與歐盟《反經濟脅迫草案》 5
第一節 經濟脅迫之意涵 5
第一項 經濟脅迫之定義 5
第二項 經濟脅迫的措施 7
第二節 各國對於經濟脅迫行為的回應 10
第一項 國際場域 10
第二項 其他國家 11
第三節 簡介歐盟《反經濟脅迫草案》 13
第一項 立法目的 13
第二項 經濟脅迫處理機制與措施 16
第三項 經濟脅迫與歐盟反經濟脅迫措施之事例分類 20
第四節 小結 21
第參章 反經濟脅迫措施於國際法下的適法性分析 23
第一節 國際法反制措施的合法性要件 24
第一項 實質性要件 24
第二項 程序性要件 27
第二節 反經濟脅迫措施是否屬於反制措施 28
第一項 經濟脅迫行為的不法性 29
第三二項 其他要件 37
第三項 小結 39
第肆章 反經濟脅迫措施於WTO法下的適法性分析 41
第一節 WTO法與國際法反制措施間的關係 41
第一項 WTO爭端解決機制管轄權 43
第二項 RSIWA下特別法原則與爭端解決相關規定 50
第二節 反制措施於WTO下之適法性分析 57
第一項 WTO對於歐盟反經濟脅迫措施案件是否具管轄權？ 58
第二項 歐盟反經濟脅迫措施是否得依GATT例外條款正當化？ 67
第三節 評析 83
第伍章 結論 89
參考文獻 92		zh_TW
dc.format.extent 1777558 bytes-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0109351038en_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 歐盟反經濟脅迫草案zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 經濟脅迫zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 反制措施zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) WTOzh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) EU`s Anti-Economic Coercion Regulationen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Economic Coercionen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Countermeasuresen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) WTOen_US
dc.title (題名) WTO下實施貿易反制措施的適法性──以歐盟《反經濟脅迫草案》為中心zh_TW
dc.title (題名) Legality of Trade Countermeasures Under International Law: Focus on the EU`s Anti-Economic Coercion Regulationen_US
dc.type (資料類型) thesisen_US
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 中文文獻
書籍
林彩瑜（2013），WTO制度與實務：世界貿組織法律研究（三），2版，臺北：元照。
丘宏達（2012），現代國際法，3版，臺北：三民。
期刊論文
林彩瑜（2011），論WTO與區域貿易協定爭端解決機制之衝突與調和，台大法學論叢，40卷1期。
林賢參、郭永興（2017），中國的非正式經濟制裁與對象國的反擊策略：中日稀土衝突為例的分析，中國大陸研究，60卷4期。
李俊毅（2021），中國的經濟脅迫：必要但效果不一的工具，國防情勢特刊， 12期，頁11-19。
研討會論文
陳貞如，國際法之破碎性於國際漁業貿易規範的體現。收於：楊光華編，第12屆國際經貿法學發展學術研討會（2012年）。
碩博士論文
張愷致（2012），世界貿易組織與區域貿易協定之競合與衝突研究—以爭端解決機制為中心，國立交通大學科技法律研究所碩士論文。
法規
中華人民共和國反外國制裁法，中國人大網，2021年6月10日，http://www.npc.gov.cn/npc/c30834/202106/d4a714d5813c4ad2ac54a5f0f78a5270.shtml。
英文文獻
書籍
Derek W. Bowett, SELF-DEFENSE IN INTERNATIONAL LAW (1st ed. 1958).
GARY CLYDE HUFBAUE ET AL., ECONOMIC SANCTIONS RECONSIDERED (3d ed. 2009).
IRYNA BOGDANOVA, UNILATERAL SANCTIONS IN INTERNATIONAL LAW AND THE ENFORCEMENT OF HUMAN RIGHTS (1st ed. 2022).
ROSALYN HIGGINS, THE DEVELOPMENT OF INTERNATIONAL LAW THROUGH THE POLITICAL ORGANS OF THE UNITED NATIONS (1st ed. 1963).
RUDOLF DOLZER & CHRISTOPH SCHREUER, PRINCIPLE OF INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT LAW (2nd ed. 2012).
SURYA P. SUBEDI, INTRODUCTION, IN UNILATERAL SANCTIONS IN INTERNATIONAL LAW (1st ed. 2021).
法律案件
S.S. Lotus (Fr. v. Turk.), Judgement, 1927 P.C.I.J. (ser. A) No. 10 (Sept. 7)
Case Concerning Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. U.S.), Judgement, 1986 I.C.J.14 (June 27)
國際協定
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994, Apr.15, 1994, Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, Annex 1A, 1867 U.N.T.S. 187, 33 L.L.M. 1153 (1994).
Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes art. 1.1, Apr. 15, 1994, Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, Annex 2, 1869 U.N.T.S.
The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, May 23, 1969, 1155 U.N.T.S. 331.
法律條文
Proposal for a Regulation of The European Parliament and of The Council on the Protection of the Union and Its Member States from Economic Coercion by Third Countries, COM (2021) 775 final (Dec. 8, 2021).
International Law Commission, Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, UN Doc. A/RES/56/83 (28 January, 2002).
Countering Economic Coercion Act of 2022, S. 4514, 117th Cong. §5 (as read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations).
Treaty on European Union, Feb. 7, 1992 1992 O.J. (C191) 1; 31 I.L.M. 253 (1992)
Consolidated Version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, 2012 O.J. (C326) 47, 50
專書論文
Bruno Simma & Dirk Pulkowski, Leges Speciales and Self-Contained Regimes, in THE LAW OF INTERNATIONAL RESPONSIBILITY 139-163 (James Crawford et al. eds., 2010).
Jeffrey L. Dunoff. 2008 The WTO Constitution, Judicial Power and Changing Patterns of Authority, in Authority in the Global Political Economy 55–86 (Volker Rittberger et al. eds, 2008).
M. Garcia-Rubio, Unilateral Measures as a Means of Enforcement of WTO Recommendations and Decisions, in ECONOMIC SANCTIONS IN INTERNATIONAL LAW (Académie de droit international de La Haye eds., 2004)
Richard N. Haass, Introduction, in ECONOMIC SANCTIONS AND AMERICAN DIPLOMACY (Richard N. Haass eds., 1985)
Scott Sagan, From Deterrence to Coercion to War: The Road to Pearl Harbor, in THE LIMITS OF COERCIVE DIPLOMACY (Alexander George & William Simons eds., 1994).
Tom Ruys, Sanctions, Retorsions and Countermeasures: Concepts and International Legal Framework, in RESEARCH HANDBOOK ON UN SANCTIONS AND INTERNATIONAL LAW 19-51 (Larissa van den Herik eds., 2017).
Victor Ferguson & Darren Lim, Economic Power and Vulnerability in Sino-Australian Relations, in CHINA STORY YEARBOOK 2021: CRISIS (Linda Jaivin, Jane Golley, & Sharon Strange eds., 2021).
期刊論文
Amy Staples, Seeing Diplomacy Through Bankers’ Eye: The World Bank, the Anglo-Iranian Crisis, and the Aswan High Dam, 26(3) DIPLOMATIC HISTORY 397-418 (2002).
Anna Ventouratou, The Law on State Responsibility and the WTO, 22(5-6) THE JOURNAL OF WORLD INVESTMENT & TRADE 759-803 (2021)
Anne Peters, The Refinement of International Law: From Fragmentation to Regime Interaction and Politicization, 15(3) INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 671-704 (2017).
Anthony D`Amato, Trashing Customary International Law, 81(1) THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INT’L 101-105 (1987).
Antonios Tzanakopoulos, The Right to be Free from Economic Coercion, 4 CAMBRIDGE JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL AND COMPARATIVE LAW 616-633 (2015).
Bruno Simma & Dirk Pulkowski, Of Planets and the Universe: Self-contained Regimes in International Law; 17(3) EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 483-529 (2006)
Danae Azaria, Trade Countermeasures for Breaches of International Law Outside the WTO, 71(2) INTERNATIONAL & COMPARATIVE LAW QUARTERLY 389-423 (2022).
David D. Caron, The ILC Articles on State Responsibility: The Paradoxical Relationship Between Form and Authority, 96(4) THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 857-873 (2002).
DM McRae, The WTO in International Law: Tradition Continued or New Frontier?, 3(1) JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC LAW 27-41 (2000).
Fernando Lusa Bordin, Reflections of Customary International Law: The Authority of Codification Conventions and ILC Draft Articles in International Law, 63(3) THE INTERNATIONAL AND COMPARATIVE LAW QUARTERLY 535-567 (2014)
Hartmut Brosche, The Arab Oil Embargo and United States Pressure Against Chile: Economic and Political Coercion and the Charter of the United Nations, 7 Case W. Res. J. Int`l L. 3-35 (1974).
James A. Boorman III, Economic Coercion in International Law: The Arab Oil Weapon and the Ensuing Juridical Issues, 9 J. INT`L L. & ECON. 205-231 (1974).
Joost Pauwelyn, The Role of Public International Law in the WTO: How Far Can We Go?, 95(3) THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 535-578 (2001).
Joost Pauwelyn & Luiz Eduardo Salles, Forum Shopping before International Tribunals:(Real) Concerns, (Im)Possible Solutions, 42(1) CORNELL INTERNATIONAL LAW JOURNAL 77-118 (2009).
John Galtung, On the Effects of International Economic Sanctions: With Examples from the Case of Rhodesia, 19(3) WORLD POLITCS 378-416 (1967).
Kimberley N. Trapp, WTO Inconsistent Countermeasures—A View from the Outside, 104 INTERNATIONAL LAW IN A TIME OF CHANGE 264-270 (2010).
Luke Lee & John McCobb, United States Trade Embargo on China, 1949-1970: Legal Status and Future Prospects, 4 NEW YORK UNIVERSITY JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW AND POLITICS (1971).
Madhu Sudan Ravindran, China’s Potential for Economic Coercion in the South China Sea Disputes: A Comparative Study of the Philippines and Vietnam, 31(3) J. CURRENT SOUTHEAST ASIAN AFF105-132 (2012).
Martin Domb, Defining Economic Aggression in International Law: The Possibility of Regional Action by the Organization of American States, 11(1) CORNELL INT`L L.J. 85-105(1978).
N. Jansen Calamita, Countermeasures and Jurisdiction: Between Effectiveness and Fragmentation, 42 GEO. J. INT`L L. 233-301 (2011).
PC Mavroidis, Remedies in the WTO Legal System: Between a Rock and a Hard Place, 11(4) EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 763-813 (2000).
Pierre-Emmanuel Dupont, Countermeasures and Collective Security: The Case of the EU Sanctions Against Iran, 17 JOURNAL OF CONFLICT AND SECURITY LAW (2012).
Robert Carswell, Economic Sanctions and the Iran Experience, 60 FOREIGN AFFAIRS 247-265 (1981).
Stephen M. Schwebel, The Effect of Resolutions of the U.N. General Assembly on Customary International Law, 73 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ANNUAL MEETING (AMERICAN SOCIETY OF INTERNATIONAL LAW) 301-309 (1979).
William J. Davey & Andre Sapir, The Soft Drinks Case: The WTO and Regional Agreements, 8(1) WORLD TRADE REVIEW 5-23 (2009).
政府文件
Commission Staff Working Document Impact Assessment Report Accompanying the Document Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Protection of the Union and its Member States from Economic Coercion by Third Countries, SWD (2021) 371 final (Dec. 8, 2021)
EU Legislation in Progress: Proposed Anti-Coercion Instrument, European Parliament (June 12, 2022), https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2022/729299/EPRS_BRI(2022)729299_EN.pdf
European Commission Press Release IP/23/3046, Political Agreement on New Anti-Coercion Instrument to Better Defend EU Interests on Global Stage (June 6, 2023).
網路資料
Andrew Higgins, In Philippines, Banana Growers Feel Effect of South China Sea Dispute, THE WASHINGTON POST (June 10, 2012), https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/in-philippines-banana-growers-feel-effect-of-south-china-sea-dispute/2012/06/10/gJQA47WVTV_story.html.
Antony J. Blinken, Secretary of State, Speech at NATO Headquarters Agora: Reaffirming and Reimagining America’s Alliances, US DEPARTMENT OF STATE (Mar. 24, 2021), https://www.state.gov/reaffirming-and-reimagining-americas-alliances/.
Cynthia Kim & Hyunjoo Jin, With China Dream Shattered over Missile Land Deal, Lotte Faces Costly Overhaul, REUTERS (Oct. 25, 2017), https://www.reuters.com/article/us-lotte-china-analysis-idUSKBN1CT35Y.
Deepak Raju, Proposed EU Regulation to Address Third Country Coercion – What is Coercion?, EJIL: TALK! (Jan. 6, 2022), https://www.ejiltalk.org/proposed-eu-regulation-to-address-third-country-coercion-what-is-coercion/.
DS598: China — Anti-dumping and Countervailing Duty Measures on Barley from Australia, World Trade Organization [WTO], https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds598_e.htm.
DS602: China — Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duty Measures on Wine from Australia, WTO, https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds602_e.htm.
DS610: China — Measures Concerning Trade in Goods and Services, WTO, https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds610_e.htm.
EU-US Summit 2021 – Statement, Towards a Renewed Transatlantic Partnership, EUROPEAN COUNCIL (June 15, 2021), https://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/50758/eu-us-summit-joint-statement-15-june-final-final.pdf
Freya Baetens & Marco Bronckers, The EU’s Anti-Coercion Instrument: A Big Stick for Big Targets, EJIL: TALK! (Jan. 19, 2022), https://www.ejiltalk.org/the-eus-anti-coercion-instrument-a-big-stick-for-big-targets/.
G7 Foreign and Development Ministers’ Meeting: Communiqué, THE DIPLOMATIC SERVICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION (May 5, 2021), https://www.eeas.europa.eu/eeas/g7-foreign-and-development-ministers%E2%80%99-meeting-communiqu%C3%A9_en
John Hudson & Souad Mekhennet, Days Before Europeans Warned Iran of Nuclear Deal Violations, Trump Secretly Threatened to Impose 25% Tariff on European Autos If They Didn’t, THE WASHINGTON POST (Jan.15, 2020), https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/days-before-europeans-warned-iran-of-nuclear-deal-violations-trump-secretly-threatened-to-impose-25percent-tariff-on-european-autos-if-they-didnt/2020/01/15/0a3ea8ce-37a9-11ea-a01d-b7cc8ec1a85d_story.html.
Kana Itabashi, Japan: New Act on the Promotion of Japan’s Economic Security Enacted, GLOBAL COMPLIANCE NEWS (July 10, 2022), https://www.globalcompliancenews.com/2022/07/10/new-act-on-the-promotion-of-japans-economic-security-enacted240622/.
Katrin Bennhold & Jack Ewing, In Huawei Battle, China Threatens Germany ‘Where It Hurts’: Automakers, THE N.Y. TIMES (Jan. 16, 2020), https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/16/world/europe/huawei-germany-china-5g-automakers.html.
Khaled Elgindy, Obama’s Record of Israeli-Palestinian Peace, FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Oct. 5, 2016), https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/israel/2016-10-05/obamas-record-israeli-palestinian-peace.
S.4514 - Countering Economic Coercion Act of 2022, CONGRESS. GOV., https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/4514.
WTO爭端解決案例相關文件
Appellate Body Report, China－Measures Related to the Exportation of Rare Earths, Tungsten and Molybdenum, WTO Doc. WT/DS431/432/433/AB/R (adopted Aug. 7, 2014).
Appellate Body Report, India — Certain Measures Relating to Solar Cells and Solar Modules, WTO Doc. WT/DS456/AB/R (adopted Oct. 14, 2016).
Appellate Body Report, India — Patent Protection for Pharmaceutical and Agricultural Chemical Products, WTO Doc. WT/DS50/AB/R (adopted Jan. 16, 1998).
Appellate Body Report, Korea — Measures Affecting Imports of Fresh, Chilled and Frozen Beef, WTO Doc. WT/DS161/AB/R; WT/DS169/AB/R (adopted Jan. 10, 2001).
Appellate Body Report, Mexico – Anti-Dumping Investigation of High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS) from the United States, Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by the United States, WT/DS132/AB/RW (adopted Nov. 21, 2001).
Appellate Body Report, Mexico — Tax Measures on Soft Drinks and Other Beverages, WTO Doc. WT/DS308/AB/R (Adopted Mar. 24, 2006).
Appellate Body Report, United States — Standards for Reformulated and Conventional Gasoline, WTO Doc. WT/DS2/AB/R (adopted May 20, 1996).
Council for Trade in Goods, Minutes of the Meeting of The Council for Trade in Goods 8 and 9 July 2021, G/C/M/140.
Panel Report, China — Measures Related to the Exportation of Various Raw Materials, WTO Doc. WT/DS394/R/Corr.1; WT/DS395/R/Corr.1; WT/DS398/R/Corr.1 (adopted on Feb 22, 2012).
Panel Report, EC – Commercial Vessels, para.7.193-7.195; United States — Section 301-310 of the Trade Act of 1974, WTO Doc. WT/DS152/R (adopted Jan. 27, 2000).
Panel Report, European Communities — Measures Affecting Trade in Commercial Vessels, WTO Doc. WT/DS301/R (adopted June 20, 2005).
Panel Report, Mexico — Anti-Dumping Investigation of High-Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS) from the United States, WTO Doc. WT/DS132/R (adopted Feb. 24, 2000).
Panel Report, Mexico — Tax Measures on Soft Drinks and Other Beverages, WTO Doc. WT/DS308/R (adopted Mar. 24, 2006).
Panel Report, Russia — Measures Concerning Traffic in Transit, WTO Doc. WT/DS512/R (adopted on Apr. 26, 2019).
Panel Report, United States — Continued Suspension of Obligations in the EC — Hormones Dispute, WTO Doc. WT/DS382/R (adopted Nov. 14, 2008).
Panel Report, United States — Import Measures on Certain Products from the European Communities, WTO Doc. WT/DS165/R (adopted Jan. 10, 2001).
Panel Report, United States — Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products, WTO Doc. WT/DS58/R (adopted Nov. 6, 1998).
Panel Report, United States — Origin Marking Requirement, WTO Doc. WT/DS597/R (circulated Dec. 21, 2022).
國際組織相關文件
Succession of States in Respect of Treaties, [1974] 2 Y.B. Int’l. Comm’n 162, 276, U.N. Doc. A/CN.4/SER.A/1974/Add. L.
G.A. Res. 56/83, Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (Dec. 12, 2002).
G.A. Res. 2131 (XX), Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention in the Domestic Affairs of States and the Protection of their Independence and Sovereignty (Dec. 21, 1965).
G.A. Res. 2160, Strict Observance of the prohibition of the threat or use of force in international relations, and of the right of people to self-determination (30 Nov. 1966).
G.A. Res. 2625 (XXV), Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States (Oct. 24, 1970).
G.A. Res. 3171 (XXVIII), Permanent Sovereignty over Natural Resources (Dec. 17, 1973).
INTERNATIONAL LAW COMMISSION, REPORT OF THE INTERNATIONAL LAW COMMISSION ON THE WORK OF ITS FIFTY-THIRD SESSION, 23 APRIL -1 JUNE AND 2 JULY - 10 AUGUST 2001, OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, FIFTY-SIXTH SESSION, SUPPLEMENT NO.10 55 (2001).
Secretary-General, Economic Measures as A Means of Political and Economic Coercion Against Developing Countries, 2(a), UN Doc. A/48/535 (Oct. 25, 1993).
其他研究報告
Mohamed Helal, On Coercion in International Law, Ohio State Public Law 25 (Ohio State Public Law Working Paper No. 475, 2019).
MATHILDE VELLIET, CONVINCE AND COERCE: U.S. INTERFERENCE IN TECHNOLOGY EXCHANGES BETWEEN ITS ALLIES AND CHINA ÉTUDE 22-30 (2022).
ELIZABETH ROSENBERG, PETER E. HARRELL, AND ASHLEY FENG, A NEW ARSENAL FOR COMPETITION: COERCIVE ECONOMIC MEASURES IN THE U.S.-CHINA RELATIONSHIP (2020), https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/files.cnas.org/documents/CNAS-Report-Econ-Competition-Final-web.pdf?mtime=20200423121736&focal=none.		zh_TW