| dc.contributor.advisor | 楊光華 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.advisor | Yang , Connie Guang-Hwa | en_US |
| dc.contributor.author (Authors) | 鄭富霖 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.author (Authors) | Cheng , Fu-Lin | en_US |
| dc.creator (作者) | 鄭富霖 | zh_TW |
| dc.creator (作者) | Cheng , Fu-Lin | en_US |
| dc.date (日期) | 2003 | en_US |
| dc.date.accessioned | 18-Sep-2009 18:55:09 (UTC+8) | - |
| dc.date.available | 18-Sep-2009 18:55:09 (UTC+8) | - |
| dc.date.issued (上傳時間) | 18-Sep-2009 18:55:09 (UTC+8) | - |
| dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) | G0090351040 | en_US |
| dc.identifier.uri (URI) | https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/36588 | - |
| dc.description (描述) | 碩士 | zh_TW |
| dc.description (描述) | 國立政治大學 | zh_TW |
| dc.description (描述) | 國際經營與貿易研究所 | zh_TW |
| dc.description (描述) | 90351040 | zh_TW |
| dc.description (描述) | 92 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.abstract (摘要) | 2001年11月世界貿易組織召開杜哈部長會議，重啟檢討爭端解決規則與程序瞭解書（DSU）之新回合談判，其中「法庭之友」議題頗受注目，已開發國家與開發中國家立場截然不同，幾無共識。DSU之本文與其附件皆未提及「法庭之友」一詞，歷經幾次關鍵性案件之裁決，上訴機構逐漸發展出一套規則，認為DSU第13條、第17.9條與上訴審查作業程序第16(1)條可資引用為小組與上訴機構接受與考慮「法庭之友」書面意見之法律基礎。本文首先從法律面向著手，將現行條文加以適當之解釋，認為目前上開條文之規定並無法為「法庭之友」提供一合理之法律基礎，上訴機構向來有關之裁決並不正確。 本文繼而從政策面向分析，主張未來世界貿易組織應適度突破傳統國際公法之限制，讓公民社會之成員有機會以「法庭之友」的身份，「間接」、「例外」地參與WTO爭端解決程序，以爭取全球民眾對世界貿易組織之支持與認同。為解決「法庭之友」之爭議，世界貿易組織會員應以修正DSU條文或另外做成決議之方式，明確釐清此一高度爭議問題，而非繼續任其模糊不清，徒增紛擾。 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.abstract (摘要) | The World Trade Organization (WTO) convened the Doha Ministerial Conference and restarted the review of provisions of Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU) in November 2001. Inter alia, the issue of ‘amicus curiae’ was very controversial, opposite positions were raised during the DSB Special Session between the developed countries and developing countries. Since there are no words about amicus curiae in DSU and its annex, the Appellate Body concluded in some Appellate Body reports that Article 13 and 17.9 of DSU and 16(1) of Working Procedures for Appellate Review could be constituted as proper legal basis for Panel and the Appellate Body to accept and consider the amicus curiae briefs. This article starts with interpreting the existing provisions of DSU from the legal perspective, and concludes that the provisions mentioned above could not be regarded as a legal basis to for Panel and the Appellate Body to accept and consider the amicus curiae briefs and therefore, the Appellate Body’s decisions might not be appropriate. This article then suggests from the policy perspective that the WTO release itself from the restriction of traditional international public law in the future, allowing the members of civil society to present their submission in a ‘indirect’ and ‘exceptional’ way by the name of ‘amicus curiae’ in the WTO dispute settlement proceedings. At last, it also recommends that the WTO members revise some provisions of DSU or make a decision to solve this controversial problem manifestly, instead of leaving it ambiguous for a long time. | en_US |
| dc.description.tableofcontents | 第一章 序論………………………………………………………………………….1 第一節 研究背景與動機……………………………………………………….1 第二節 論文架構……………………………………………………………….2 第二章 「法庭之友」之意義與在WTO爭端解決機制下之發展與爭論………..3 第一節 「法庭之友」之意義………………………………………………….3 第二節 相關案例之發展與上訴機構之立場………………………………….4 一、美國對某些小蝦及蝦類產品禁止進口案...…………………………4 二、美國課徵英國熱軋鉛鉍碳鋼製品平衡稅案………………………...7 三、歐體影響石綿及含石綿產品措施案…………………………….…..9 四、歐體沙丁魚貿易描述案………………………………………….….12 第三節 WTO會員之立場………………………………………….………….16 一、石綿案「附加程序」公佈後WTO會員之立場………….………..16 二、杜哈回合關於「法庭之友」之發展…………………….………….18 1. 杜哈部長宣言之指示………………………………….………….18 2. 關於「法庭之友」議題之提案……………………….………….18 3. 談判最新進展....................……………………………….……….19 第四節 本章小結………………………………………………….…………...20 第三章 從法律面向分析「法庭之友」WTO參與爭端解決程序之合法性.…….26 第一節 由美國法之發展再論法庭之友於WTO爭端解決機制下之功能.…26 一、關於英美法系「法庭之友」制度之簡介………………….……….26 二、「法庭之友」在美國法上之發展…………………….…………….28 三、本文觀察…………………………………………….……………….31 第二節 上訴機構裁決之合法性分析……………………….………………...32 一、解釋方法………………………………………….………………….32 二、小組與上訴機構對於DSU第13條、第17.9條與上訴審查作 業程序第16(1)條之解釋並不適當…………….…………………...33 （一） 關於DSU第13條之解釋………………….………………….33 （二） 關於DSU第17.9條與上訴審查作業程序第16(1)條之解釋.35 （三） 歷史解釋………………………………………………………..40 第三節 第三國權利與法庭之友....……………………………………………42 一、第三國權利與法庭之友之異同……………....……………………..42 二、比較法上之分析……………………………………………………..43 三、第三國權利之內涵影響對會員作為「法庭之友」之評價………..45 第四節 法律適用(司法)、法律創造（立法）與司法的自我限制…..……...49 一、司法權對於法律規定之作用………………………………..………49 二、WTO爭端解決機制下司法與立法之衝突…………………...……49 三、司法的自我限制……………………………………………….……51 第五節 本章小結……………………………………………………………...52 第四章 從政策面向分析「法庭之友」參與WTO爭端解決程序之可行性……53 第一節 公民社會與WTO…………………………………………………….54 一、全球治理與公民社會……………………………………………….54 二、公民社會與GATT/WTO之互動關係……………………………..55 三、「法庭之友」於其他國際組織之參與情形……………………….56 第二節 有關「法庭之友」制度體制化正反論據之評析與本文見解……...58 一、反對「法庭之友」制度體制化之政策上理由…………………….58 二、支持「法庭之友」制度體制化之政策上理由…………………….59 三、本文見解…………………………………………………………….60 1.國際法法理與民主代議制度應受尊重…….......………………….60 2.暢通國內溝通管道應為首要之務………….......………………….61 3.WTO可考慮「例外」之方式正式引進「法庭之友」制度……..62 4.小結…………………………………………………………………65 第三節 「法庭之友」制度體制化之相關配套措施.......................................65 一、以明確之立法程序取代模糊之司法解釋.........................................65 二、「法庭之友」之書面提案內容應包含事實與法律爭議.................66 三、「法庭之友」提出書面意見不限於小組程序.................................67 四、正當法律程序之保障.........................................................................68 1.申請提案時間與提出書面意見時間之控制....................................68 2.給予當事國與第三國之回應機會....................................................68 3.小組與上訴機構並無義務附理由駁回「法庭之友」之申請與 書面意見.............................................................................................68 第四節 本章小結.............................................................................................68 第五章 結論...............................................................................................................72 參考文獻…………………………………………………………………………….74 附件圖表 附件一：石綿案之「附加程序」…………………………………………………..24 附件二：歐體之提案………………………………………………………………..70 表 一：「法庭之友」相關案例彙整表..................................................................22 表 二：上訴程序中第三國權利與「法庭之友」之比較………………………..48 | zh_TW |
| dc.language.iso | en_US | - |
| dc.source.uri (資料來源) | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0090351040 | en_US |
| dc.subject (關鍵詞) | 世界貿易組織 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject (關鍵詞) | 杜哈部長會議 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject (關鍵詞) | 法庭之友 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject (關鍵詞) | 公民社會 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject (關鍵詞) | WTO | en_US |
| dc.subject (關鍵詞) | Doha Ministerial Conference | en_US |
| dc.subject (關鍵詞) | Amicus Curiae | en_US |
| dc.subject (關鍵詞) | Civil Society | en_US |
| dc.subject (關鍵詞) | DSU | en_US |
| dc.title (題名) | 「法庭之友」參與WTO爭端解決程序問題之解構—以法律與政策面向為主軸 | zh_TW |
| dc.title (題名) | Deconstruction of the Controversy of Amicus Curiae’s Participation in the WTO Disputes Settlement Proceeding—From the Perspective of Law and Policy | en_US |
| dc.type (資料類型) | thesis | en |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 中文書目 | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 1. Arthur Kaufmann 著，吳從周 譯，《類推與「事物本質」-兼論類型理論-》，台北：學林，1999年1月。 | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 2. 李貴英，《「法庭之友」參與國際經貿爭端解決程序之研析》，東吳大學法律學報，第十五卷第一期，2003年7月。 | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 3. 美濃部達吉 著、林紀東 譯，《法之本質》，台北：台灣商務，1993年8月。 | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 4. 彭心儀，《論WTO爭端解決程序下之『法庭之友』介入問題》，發表於政大商學院國際經貿組織暨法律研究中心「第四屆國際經貿法學發展學術研討會」，2004年3月6日。 | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 5. 羅昌發，《國際貿易法》，台北：元照，1999年7月。 | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 工具書 | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 1. 法律英漢辭典，台北：五南，2001年2月。 | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 英文書籍 | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 1.Brownlie Ian, Principles of Public International Law, 5th edition (1998). | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 2.Cheshire, Fifoot and Furmston, Law of Contract, 13th edition (1996). | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 3.Duxbury Robert, Contract in a Nutshell, Nutshells, 2nd edition (1991). | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 4.GATT Analytical Index: Guide to GATT Law and Practice, Updated 6th Edition (1995). | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 5.Jackson John H., The World Trading System – Law and Policy of International Economic Relation (1997). | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 6.Jackson John H., The World Trade Organization—Constitution and Jurisprudence (1998). | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 7.Matsushita Mitsuo, Thomas J. Schoenbaum & Petros C. Mavroidis, The World Trade Organization: Law, Practice, and Policy, 1st edition (2003). | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 8.WTO Analytical Index, Guide to WTO Law and Practice, 1st edition, Vol.2 (2003). | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 英文期刊論文 | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 1.Ala`i Padideh, Judicial Lobbying at The WTO: The Debate Over the Use of Amicus Curiae Briefs and the U.S. Experience, Fordham International Law Journal, Vol.24 (November / December 2000). | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 2.Charnovitz Steve, Opening the WTO to Nongovernmental Interests, Fordham International Law Journal, Vol. 24 (November / December, 2000). | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 3.Covelli Nick, Member Intervention in World Trade Organization Dispute Settlement Proceedings After EC-Sardines: The Rules, Jurisprudence, and Controversy, Journal of World Trade, Vol.37 (2003). | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 4.Ehlermann Claus-Dieter, Experiences from the WTO Appellate Body, Taxes International Law Journal, Vol.38 (2003). | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 5.Gaffney John P., Due Process in the World Trade Organization: The Need for Procedural Justice in the Dispute Settlement System, Am. U. Int`l L. Rev., Vol.14 (1999). | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 6.Gao Henry S., Amicus Curiae Briefs in the WTO Dispute Settlement System: Theory and Practice (Chinese), Journal of International Economic Law, Vol.8 (2004, upcoming). | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 7.Hollis Duncan B., Globalization & The Erosion of Sovereignty in Honor of Professor Lichtenstein: Private Actors in Public International Law: Amicus Curiae and the Case for the Retention of State Sovereignty, B.C. International & Comparative Law Review, Vol.25 (Spring 2002). | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 8.Jackson John H., Perceptions About the WTO Trade Institution, World Trade Review, Vol.1 (2002). | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 9.Jackson John H., The WTO ‘Constitution ’and Proposed reforms: Seven ‘Mantras’ Revisited, Journal of International Economic Law, Vol.4 (2001). | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 10.Jeffords Maura Blue, Turning the Protester Into a Partner for Development: The Need for Effective Consultation Between the WTO & NGOs, Brooklyn Journal of International Law, Vol.28 (2003). | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 11.Krislov Samuel, The Amicus Curiae Brief: From Friendship to Advocacy, The Yale Law Journal, Vol.72 (1963). | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 12.Marceau Gabrielle, Matthew Stilwell, Practical Suggestions for Amicus Curiae Briefs Before WTO Adjudicating Bodies, Journal of International Economic Law, Vol.4 (March 2001). | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 13.Mavroidis Petros C., Amicus Curiae Briefs Before the WTO: Much Ado About Nothing, The Jean Monnet Program Working Paper 2/01 (2001). | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 14.Scholte Jan Aart, Robert O’Brien, Marc Williams, The WTO and Civil Society, Journal of World Trade, Vol.33 (1999). | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 15.Shelton Dinah, The Participation of Nongovernmental Organizations in International Judicial Proceedings, American Journal of International Law, Vol.88 (October 1994). | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 16.Smith James McCall, WTO Dispute Settlement: The Politics of Procedure in Appellate Body Rulings, World Trade Review, Vol.2 (2003). | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 17.Umbricht Georg C., An ‘Amicus Curiae Brief’ on Amicus Curiae Briefs at the WTO, Journal of International Economic Law, Vol.4 ( December 2001). | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | WTO文件 | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 1.Working Procedures for Appellate Review, WT/AB/WP/3 (28 February, 1997). | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 2.Working Procedures for Appellate Review, WT/AB/WP/4 (24 January, 2002). | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 3.Working Procedures for Appellate Review, WT/AB/WP/5 (19 December, 2002). | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 4.Working Procedures for Appellate Review, WT/AB/WP/7 (1 May, 2003). | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 5.WTO Document: JOB(03)/69/Rev.2, (5 May, 2003). | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 6.WTO Document: JOB(03)/91, (16 May, 2003). | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 7.WTO Document: JOB(03)/91/Rev.1 (28 May, 2003). | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 8.WTO Document: TN/DS/9 (6 June, 2003). | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 9.WTO Document: TN/DS/M/4 (6 November, 2002). | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 10.WTO Document: TN/DS/W/1 (13 March, 2002). | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 11.WTO Document: TN/DS/W/25 (27 November, 2002). | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 12.WTO Document: TN/DS/W13 (22 August, 2002). | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 13.WTO Document: WT/DS122/AB/R (5 April, 2001). | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 14.WTO Document: WT/DS135/9 (8 November, 2000). | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 15.WTO Document: WT/DS135/AB/R (12 March, 2001). | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 16.WTO Document: WT/DS138/AB/R (10 May, 2000). | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 17.WTO Document: WT/DS248/AB/R, WT/DS249/AB/R, WT/DS251/AB/R, WT/DS252/AB/R, WT/DS253/AB/R, WT/DS254/AB/R, WT/DS258/AB/R, WT/DS259/AB/R (11 November, 2003). | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 18.WTO Document: WT/DS58/AB/R (12 October, 1998). | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 19.WTO Document: WT/DS58/AB/RW (21 November, 2001). | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 20.WTO Document: WT/GC/M/60 (23 January, 2001). | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 21.WTO Document: WT/GC/M/81 (28 August, 2003). | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 22.WTO Document: WT/DS76/AB/R (22 February, 1999). | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 本文所有WTO文件皆取自WTO官方網站http://www.wto.org/。 | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 網站資料 | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 美國國務院網站：http://www.state.gov/。 | zh_TW |
