| dc.contributor | 國貿系 | en_US |
| dc.creator (作者) | 施文真 | zh_TW |
| dc.creator (作者) | Shih, Wen-Chen | - |
| dc.date (日期) | 2008-10 | en_US |
| dc.date.accessioned | 10-Sep-2014 15:36:29 (UTC+8) | - |
| dc.date.available | 10-Sep-2014 15:36:29 (UTC+8) | - |
| dc.date.issued (上傳時間) | 10-Sep-2014 15:36:29 (UTC+8) | - |
| dc.identifier.uri (URI) | http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/69715 | - |
| dc.description.abstract (摘要) | 於分析排放權交易制度與世界貿易組織（WTO）關係之文獻中，多以討論GATT/WTO與國際環境公約之關係為背景，故僅以京都議定書下的排放權交易機制為分析對象，並未考量可能脫離於京都議定書外之各國家或區域性的排放權交易機制，此外，該些文獻中並未區分排放權交易機制不同的制度設計，以及於不同類型的排放權交易中被交易單位的異質性，特別是該些交易單位於內國法律制度下的法律性質，而將該些被交易的單位均視為同一；此一過於簡化排放權交易機制內涵的分析模式，是否將影響排放權交易制度與WTO下各類法律規範之關係的實質分析結果？本文透過對於不同類型的排放權交易制度下，被交易單位的法律性質，特別是其於內國法律制度下的法律性質進行分析，重新檢視排放權交易制度與WTO之間的關係。分析結果發現：兩大類型的排放權交易制度下得交易單位——「排放上限與交易」下的「核發量」以及「排放基準與溢額交易」下的「溢額」——確實於內國法中有其法律性質上的差異性，但就其具有公法上之許可、屬於國家管制主權此一法律特色觀察，無論其是否於市場上具有財產價值或流通性，對於主權政府間的排放權交易市場、以及廠商間為符合管制為目的所形成的初級市場之規範制訂者——各國政府——而言，交易單位均非WTO規範中的「貨品」或「服務業」，因此，管制者對於交易單位的產生以及交易條件，均應不受到WTO規範的影響，但，於投資者或仲介者以獲利或仲介為目的所形成之次級市場，兩類型的交易單位可能有不同的交易風險，而於此一市場中之交易單位，性質上類似於「流通證券」或「金融資產」，故針對規範此類次級市場交易之契約的商業或金融法規，可能必須注意服務業貿易總協定（GATS）之規範。 | en_US |
| dc.description.abstract (摘要) | With regard to the relationship between emissions trading and the WTO, most existing literature focuses on the emissions trading system under the Kyoto Protocol without providing an analysis of those domestic or regional emissions trading systems. Furthermore, these studies failed to differentiate among the various types of emissions trading systems, in particular the possibly divergent legal nature of various types of the ‘unit’ that is being traded. Is this an over-simplified approach to the analysis of the relationship between emissions trading and the WTO? This is the main research question this article attempts to answer. By focusing on two different types of emissions trading systems—cap and trade vs. baseline and credit—this article seeks to provide a detailed analysis of the legal nature of different types of ‘unit’—allowances vs credit—that is being traded under these two systems in order to re-examine the relationship between emissions trading and the WTO. The article reaches the following conclusions. Firstly, there are certain differences between allowances and credit in terms of their legal nature under domestic law. Secondly, both of these ‘traded units’ possess one similar legal characteristic that render the inapplicability of the WTO disciplines in both sovereignty markets and primary markets where the main purpose of trade is to meet regulatory requirements: These traded units, permissible under public law, represent the regulatory sovereignty of governments and are, thus, neither ‘goods’ nor ‘services’ in the context of the WTO. However, as these traded units possess market value and are freely transferable in the secondary market, they might be regarded as ‘negotiable instruments’ or ‘financial assets’ under the definition of financial services of GATS. | - |
| dc.format.extent | 2741765 bytes | - |
| dc.format.mimetype | application/pdf | - |
| dc.language.iso | en_US | - |
| dc.relation (關聯) | 法學評論, 105 , 121-215 | en_US |
| dc.subject (關鍵詞) | 排放權交易 ; 排放上限與交易 ; 排放基準與溢額交易 ; 京都議定書 ; 歐盟排放權交易機制 ; 關稅暨貿易總協定 ; 服務業貿易總協定 ; 世界貿易組織 | - |
| dc.subject (關鍵詞) | Emissions trading ; Cap and trade ; Baseline and credit ; Kyoto protocol ; EU emissions trading scheme ; GATT ; GATS ; WTO | - |
| dc.title (題名) | 由交易單位之法律性質重新檢視排放權交易制度與WTO之關係 | zh_TW |
| dc.title.alternative (其他題名) | A Re-examination of the Relationship between the Emissions Trading System and the WTO with respect to the Legal Nature of the Traded Units | - |
| dc.type (資料類型) | article | en |
