臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

基因改良（Genetic Modified Organisms (GMOs)）的蓬勃發展以及其跨國貿易的興盛，引發了世界貿易組織會員國間之貿易紛爭。GMOs管制之複雜性在於其涉及龐大的經濟商機以及對環境及公共健康保護的公共利益，如何在貿易自由化以及此等非經濟的公共利益間取得平衡，乃近年來重要的國際貿易議題。西元2003年間，世界貿易組織在GMOs生產國之請求下，成立爭端解決小組（Panel）負責裁決有關歐洲共同體（European Community）及其會員國就基因改良產品所採取之影響貿易之管理措施是否符合世界貿易組織相關規定之爭端。由於該爭端之複雜性及高度爭議性，爭端解決小組進行了相當長的程序，費時三年多，始於西元2006年六月完成其報告。本文擬從本案之法律層面分析爭端解決小組之報告對於GMOs管制於世界貿易組織下之合法性，尤其側重於WTO Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures相關條文之解釋與適用。本文觀察到爭端解決小組雖然再次肯認會員國採取措施以保障環境及公共健康的權利，但其對於相關貿易限制措施之實施仍給予相當嚴格之檢視。

The transboundary movement of Genetic Modified Organisms (GMOs) has become a focal point of the international community. The management of and control over GMOs involves huge economic interests and the protection of the environment and public health. In 2003, the World Trade Organization (WTO), at the request of GMOs-producing countries, established a Panel to adjudicate the consistency of European Community State Members’ restriction on trade of GMO products with the WTO rules. Given the high controversy and sensitivity of the dispute, the Panel had conducted a very lengthy deliberation and finally reached a conclusion in September of 2006. This Article aims to analyze the legal reasoning of the decision, focusing on how the tribunal interpreted and applied certain critical provisions governing the dispute. It is found that this ruling took a rigid stand on the justification of applying trade restrictions on GMOs, although the right of WTO members to protect national health has been fairly reaffirmed.

Table of Contents
I. Introduction 1
II. Rules under WTO Law Regime Relevant to GMOs Regulations 9
A. Inter-relationship between SPS Agreement, TBT Agreement and GATT 1994 10
B. Legitimate purpose and the key elements of the SPS Agreement, TBT Agreement and general exception under GATT 1994 respectively 16
1. The legitimate purposes 17
2. The key elements 21
3. The appropriate ambit of SPS Agreement 22
III. Safeguard Measures Adopted by EC Members 25
IV. Whether the Measure at Issue Is a “SPS Measure”? 29
A. The Purpose of Austria T-25 30
B. Form and Nature of the Safeguard Measure 36
C. Economic Effects on International Trade 37
D. Implication of the broad interpretation of the SPS measure 37
V. The Legal Interpretation regarding the Relationship among Articles 5.1, 5.7 and 2.2 of the SPS Agreement 40
A. Whether a Provisionally Adopted Measure Can Only Fall within Article 5.7? 40
B. Whether Article 5.7 of the SPS Agreement Is a Right or an Exception from the General Obligation under Article 5.1 thereof 43
1. Relationship between Article 2.2 and Article 5.7 of the SPS Agreement 44
2. Relationship between Article 5.1 and Article 5.7 of the SPS Agreement 52
C. Implication and Review of the Panel’s Approach of the Relationship among Articles 2.2, 5.1 and 5.7 56
VI. The Consistency of the Safeguard Measure with Articles 5.1, 5.7, and 2.2 of the SPS Agreement 69
A. Initial Examination of a Measure’s Consistency with Article 5.1 of the SPS Agreement 69
1. A General Issue 69
2. Risk Assessment 71
3. Based on 73
B. Examination of A Measure’s Consistency with Article 5.7 of the SPS Agreement and the Final Finding regarding its Consistency with Article 5.1 thereof 76
1. Relevance of the Appropriate Level of Sanitary or Phytosanitary Protection with the Risk Assessment 78
2. Time at which the “Sufficiency” or “Insufficiency” of Relevant Scientific Evidence to be Assessed 84
3. The Final Determination of Consistency of Austria- T25 with Article 5.1 of the SPS Agreement 86
C. The Consistency of Austria-T25 with Article 2.2 of the SPS Agreement 87
VII. Conclusion 90

Books
MURPHY, JOSEPH & LEVIDOW, LES, GOVERNING THE TRANSATLANTIC CONFLICT OVER AGRICULTURAL BIOTECHNOLOGY (2006)
MATSUSHITA, MITSUO, SCHOENBAUM, THOMAS J. & MAVROIDIS, PETROS C., THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION-LAW, PRACTICE, AND POLICY (2006)
POLLACK, MARK A. & SHAFFER, GREGORY C., WHEN COOPERATION FAILS, THE INTERNATIONAL LAW AND POLITICS OF GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODS (2009)

Articles
Chalmers, Damian, Risk, Anxiety, and the European Mediation of the Politics of Life, 30 EUROPEAN L.REV 649 (2005)
Charnovitz, Steve, The Supervision of Health and Biosafety Regulation by World Trade Rules, 13 TUL. ENVTL. L. J. 271 (2000)
Covelli, Nick & Hohots, Viktor, The Health Regulation of Biotech Foods Under the WTO Agreements, 6 J. IN’T ECON. L. 773 (2003)
Gonzalez, Carmen G., Genetically Modified Organisms and Justice: the International Environmental Justice: the International Environmental Justice Implications of Biotechnology, 19 GEO. INT’L ENVTL. L. REV. 583 (2007)
Hutchinson, Marguerite A., Moving beyond the WTO: A Proposal to Adjudicate GMO Disputes in an International Environmental Court, 10 SAN DIEGO INT’L L. J. 229 (2008)
Issac, Grant E. & Kerr, William A., Genetically Modified Organism at the World Trade Organization: A Harvest of Trouble, 37 J. World Trade 1083 (2003)
Kellow, Aynsley, Risk Assessment and Decision-Making for Genetically Modified Foods, 13 RISK 155 (2002)
Lang, Andrew, T.F., Provisional Measures under Article 5.7 of the WTO’s Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures: Some Criticisms of the Jurisprudence So Far, 42 (6) J. WORLD TRADE 1085, 1091 (2008)
Antonia Eliason, Science versus law in WTO Jurisprudence: The (Mis)interpretation of the scientific process and the (in)sufficiency of scientific evidence in EC-biotech, 41 NYUJILP 341 (2009)
Lester, Simon, WTO—Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures Agreement—rules/exception—international Law as interpretive tool, 101 AM. J. INT’L L. 453 (2007)
Lively, Sarah, The ABCs and NTBs of GMOs: The Great European Union-United States Trade Debate-Do European Restrictions on the Trade of Genetically Modified Organisms Violated International Trade Law?, 23 NW. J. INT’L L. & BUS. 239 (2002)
McDonald, Michelle K., International Trade Law and the U.S.-EU GMO Debate: Can Africa Weather this Storm?, 32 GA. J. INT’L & COMP. L. 501 (2004)
Motaal, Doaa Abdel, The “Multilateral Scientific Consensus” and the World Trade Organization, 38 J. WORLD TRADE 855 (2004)
Pauwelyn, Joost, A typology of Multilateral Treaty Obligations: Are WTO Obligations Bilateral or Collective in Nature?, 14 Eur. J. Int’l L. 907 (2003)
Peck, Alison, The New Imperialism: Toward an Advocacy Strategy for GMO Accountability, 21 GEO. INT’L ENVTL. L. REV. 37 (2008)
Peel, Jacqueline, A GMO by Any Other Name… Might Be an SPS Risk!: Implications of Expanding the Scope of the WTO Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures Agreement, 17 EJIL 1009 (2008)
Pereira, Ravi Afonso, Why Would International Administrative Activity Be Any Less Legitimate?- A Study of the Codex Alimentarius Commission, 9 GERMAN L.J. 1693
Phillips, Peter W. B. & Kerr, W.A., Alternative Paradigms: The WTO versus the Biosafety Protocol for Trade in Genetically Modified Organisms, 34 J. World Trade 63 (2000)
Scott, Joanne, European Regulation of GMOs and the WTO, 9 COLUM. J. EUR. L. 213 (2003)
Shaffer, Gregory, A Structure Theory of WTO Dispute Settlement: Why Institutional Choices Lies at the Center of the GMO Case, 41 N.Y.U.J. INT’L L. & POL. 1
Strauss, Debra M., Feast or Famine: The Impact of the WTO Decision Favoring the U.S. Biotechnology Industry in the EU Ban of Genetically Modified Foods, 45 AM. BUS. L. J. 775 (2008)
Strauss, Debra M., The International Regulation of Genetically Modified Organisms: Importing Caution into the U.S. Food Supply, 61 FOOD & DRUG L. J. 167 (2006)
Wolff, Christiane, Regulating Trade in GMOs: Biotechnology and the WTO, TRADING IN GENES: DEVELOPMENT PERSPECTIVES ON BIOTECHNOLOGY, TRADE AND SUSTAINABILITY 217 (edited by Melendez-Oriz, Ricardo & Sanchez, Vicente, 2003)
Wynne, Brian, Creating Public Alienation: Expert Cultures of Risk and Ethics on GMOs, 10(4) SCIENCE AS CULTURE 445 (2001)
Zurek, Laylah, The European Communities Biotech Dispute: How the WTO Fails to Consider Cultural Factors in the Genetically Modified Food Debate, 42 TEX. INT’L L. J. 345 (2007)

WTO Panel and Appellate Body Reports
Appellate Body Report, European Communities- Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones), WT/DS26/AB/R, WT/DS48/AB/R (Jan. 16, 1998)
Appellate Body Report, Australia-Measures Affecting Importation of Salmon, WT/DS18/AB/R (Oct.20, 1998)
Appellate Body Report, Japan-Measures Affecting Agriculture Products, WT/DS76/AB/R (Feb. 22, 1999)
Appellate Body Report, Japan-Measures Affecting the Importation of Apples, WT/DS245/R (Nov. 26, 2003)
Appellate Body Report, European Communities-Conditions for Granting of Tariff Preferences to Developing Countries, WT/DS246/AB/R (Apr. 7, 2004)
Appellate Report, Mexico-Tax Measures on Soft Drinks and other Beverages, WT/DS308/AB/R (adopted March 24, 2006)
Appellate Body Report, United States-Continued Suspension of Obligations in the EC-Hormones Dispute, WT/D320/AB/R (Oct. 18, 2008) (adopted Nov. 14, 2008)
Panel Report, Japan-Measures Affecting Agriculture Products, WT/DS76/R (Oct.27, 1998)
Panel Report, Japan-Measures Affecting the Importation of Apples, WT/DS245/R (July 15, 2003)
Panel Report, European Communities — Measures Affecting the Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products, WT/DS291, 292, 293/R (Sept. 29, 2006)
Panel Report, European Communities- Trade Description of Sardines, WT/DS 231/R (May 29, 2002)
Panel Report, United States – Continued Suspension of Obligations in the EC – Hormones Dispute, WT/DS320/R, (March 21, 2008)

Documents
EC Council Directive 2001/18/EC, 2001 O.J. (L106)
Agreement under Article 21.3(b) of the DSU— Measures Affecting the Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products, WT/DS293/37 (July 2, 2009)
Notification of a Mutually Agreed Solution— Measures Affecting the Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products, WT/DS292/40 (July 17, 2009)
International Law Commission, Report of the Study Group of the International Law Commission, Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties Arising from the Diversification and Expansion of International Law, ILC, UN Doc. A/CN.4/L.682 (finalized by Koskenniemi, Martti 2006)

中文期刊
牛惠之，「科技法律」與科技「治理」--研究生醫、安全與環境等跨科技法律議題之方法與省思，月旦法學169，頁142-155 (2009年6月)。
牛惠之，WTO技術性貿易障礙 (TBT) 協定就安全貿易之適用與限制--環保標示、GMO標示之評析，政大法學評論95，頁323-383 (2007年2月)。
牛惠之，生物科技之風險議題之省思--兼論GMO與基因治療之科技風險管理與規範體系，東吳法律學報 15:1，頁179-228 (2003年8月)。
林彩瑜，從歐體生技產品爭端之裁決論SPS協定對GMO規範之影響，國立臺灣大學法學論叢 36:4，頁257-323 (2007年12月)。
李森堙，從法制調和與地方自治的觀點看GMO-Free運動與相關區域立法，科技法律透析21:4，頁28-45 (2009年4月)。
黃慧嫺，奧地利全面實施GMO禁令可能使歐盟面臨WTO制裁，生技與醫療器材報導103，頁57-59 (2008年2月)。
楊一晴，談美國GMO管理規範之修法趨勢--從「全有全無」到「多階分級」許可管理之制度轉換，科技法律透析 21:5，頁38-64 (2009年5月)。
楊一晴，美研擬修改以風險為基礎的GMO許可制，生技與醫療器材報導112，頁6-8 (2008年11月)。
楊一晴，CODEX建立GMO評估標準加速國際貿易流通，生技與醫療器材報導 111，頁11-13 (2008年10月)。