臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

　　人類早期文明商業行為的開始是以貝殼為貨幣交易，國際貿易的歷史，自初期以貨易貨的貿易行為，到18世紀末所盛行的重商主義時代，並沒有組織性的國際貿易團體或法律規則成為規範。
　　
　　始自20世紀，初有GATT的國際性關稅組織的誕生；並且在後期有WTO協定的國際貿易組織成立，為國際間的貿易活動建立一套規範協定，使其有助於國際自由貿易盛行。
　　
　　但國際貿易發展自今，在區域性貿易組織中，首推以歐洲聯盟為目前國際上最強大的區域經濟組織體，該組織的經貿法律規定是否會與目前也是世界上擁有最多會員國的國際多邊經貿組織WTO的協定有相容性或是有非相容性呢？正是本研究的首開重點之一。
　　
　　其次，有延續性的將上述主題，接續研究這些國際性的經貿組織間，因貿易所發生的衝突，即所謂的貿易爭端問題，又是如何解決？
　　
　　最後，將研究使用數量經濟方法輔之WTO爭端解決的法律仲裁之有效性如何？以及WTO爭端解決小組及上訴機構是使用那些種類的數量經濟分析方法，做為輔助公正裁判爭端當事國之間的貿易爭端，並舉出其使用過的案例，予以證明之。
　　
　　因此，本研究結果發現：
一、 歐盟對於除了WTO的前言規定的法律效力有直接適用之效力外，其它各附件之法律規定，都必須經過歐盟執委會的審查過後，才能適用，所以歐盟整體而言，無論是對WTO協定或是各種國際條約或協定，都必須先經過審查通過後，才有適用其各會員國中的效力，此即是國際法中所謂的間接效力的適用。
二、 目前WTO爭端解決中除適用其「爭端解決規則議定書」外還有適用其「反傾銷協定」、「補貼暨平衡措施協定」、「安全防衛協定」等3種協定處理爭端案件。
三、 應用數量經濟分析的工具如：以「Armington彈性模型」、「價格交差彈性」、「線性廻歸分析」、「財務報表分析」、「因果關係和非因果關係」分析等方法，可以輔助WTO解決爭端案件，做為有效公平之判決。

　　It did not have an international trade organization or law to be formed a norm before, since the end of 18th century the mercantilism has became much prevails. And a pre-market at early era where economies relied on using barters or exchanges by shells for transaction. And it was taken place in mankind’s early civilization of international trading history.
　　
　　For making a contribution on the international trade liberalization prevalently, it is necessary to set up a criterion of agreement among the international trade activities. And it starting until to the end of 20th century has established the world trade organization since GATT had established.
　　
　　The first point on this thesis is The WTO agreement has lots of members on the world trade organization on present, and whether its legal relationship with European Union law has coherent or not ? which is thus one of main point on my study, because she is not only the most powerful regional economics organization on the world to date but it also the world trade activities developed rapidly now.
　　
　　Secondly, how to solve the trade dispute settlement when the trade conflict has happened, it will be studied above issues continually.
　　
　　Finally, will be proved the Appellate Body /Panel body on WTO had been used what kind of quantitative economics analysis which helped solving some case law during the trade dispute settlement between complaining member and defendant member, otherwise, will be studied how the quantitative economics analysis can take a good effect to help the arbitrator on WTO?
Consequently, on this study I have found：
　　
1. The attachments of WTO or others agreements had been necessarily examined by European commission in which WTO agreement would be applied by indirection, but for the preamble on WTO. In general to EU, it is necessary be examined by EU whenever what kinds of International Treaties in which applied in member states. This is so-called indirect application in the International law.
　　
2.In addition to “Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes, DSU” was applied in WTO agreement, also there has three sorts of agreement helps to solve trade dispute that is “the
Anti-Dumping agreement, AD ”、“The Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, SCM”、“the Safeguards Agreement, SA”.
　　
3. Using quantitative economic analysis the particular measure such as “Armington elasticity ”、“cross-price elasticity”、“Regression analysis”、“ financial analysis”、“causation and non-causation analysis”, it could be a instrumental in fair adjudication on WTO dispute settlement process.
　　

第一章 緒論…………………………………………………1
　第一節 研究動機…………………………………………………1
　第二節 研究目　的…………………………………………………2
　第三節 研究方法…………………………………………………3
　第四節 研究架構…………………………………………………3
　第五節 文獻回顧…………………………………………………4
　　
第二章 國際貿易爭端源由及爭端解決機制………………6
　第一節 國際貿易的發生及其貿易理論…………………………6
　　第一項 國際貿易的發生……………………………………6
　　第二項 國際貿易之一般理論………………………………7
　第二節 國際貿易理論中的基本分析工具………………………8
　　第一項 基本分析工具………………………………………8
　　第二項 國際貿易之一般和部份均衡分析………………10
　第三節 國際貿易之一般政策……………………………………11
　　第一項 價格政策…………………………………………11
　　第二項 數量政策……………‥…………………………12
　第四節 GATT時代之爭端解決機………………………………13
　　第一項 關稅暨貿易總協定時期…………………………14
　　第二項 GATT1979年東京回合談判之結果………………16
　第五節 世界貿易組織之爭端解決……………………………18
　　第一項 世界貿易組織之歷史發展………………………18
　　第二項 WTO之爭端解決先行程序………………………21
　　
第三章 歐洲聯盟之貿易爭端解決方式………………………31
　第一節 歐洲聯盟………………………………………………31
　第二節 歐體法院的職能………………………………………33
　第三節 歐體條約法第133條的演進………………………‥…36
　　第一項20世紀歐體對外貿易政策………………………37
　　第二項1/94號意見結論……………………………………42
　　第三項 阿姆斯特丹條約…………………………………44
　　第四項 21世紀的現況……………………………………47
　第四節 歐體法與WTO協定的相容性…………………………55
　　第一項 國際慣例…………………………………………55
　　第二項 依據WTO各協定所做的法令審查………………58
　　第三項 歐盟理事會見解…………………………………59
　第五節 盟貿易救濟措施現況………………………………68
　　第一項 歐盟貿易救濟措施………………………………68
　　第二項 歐盟執行貿易救濟措施的相關機構……………71
　　第三項 歐盟貿易救濟調查程序…………………………72
　　第四項 世界貿易組織與歐洲聯盟爭端解決之法律關係78
　　
第四章WTO貿易爭端數量經濟解決方式……………………80
　第一節 數量經濟之使用近況……………………………………80
　第二節 數量經濟基本分析工具…………………………………83
　　第一項 貿易型態的基本模型和函數……………………84
　　第二項 彈性係數…………………………………………87
　　第三項 廻歸分析與相關分析…………………………93
　第三節 數量經濟之應用案例一………………………………94
　　第一項 補貼和平衡措施效果分析………………………94
　　第二項 貿易管制效果分析………………………………98
　　第三項 政府贈與效果分析………………………………107
　第四節 數量經濟之應用案例二……………………………115
　　第一項 直接競爭品或可替代品的數量分析……………117
　　第二項 反傾銷之因果分析………………………………126
　　第三項 安全防衛之因果分析……………………………130
　第五節 本章結論………………………………………………136
　　
第五章 總結論及研究發現……………………………………138
　　
參考文獻………………………………………………………………143
　　
圖目錄
圖 2-1、WTO 爭端解決程序流程圖…………………………………28
圖4-1、簡單貿易供需模型……………………………………………85
圖4-2、兩財為替代品圖………………………………………………89
圖4-3、兩財為互補品圖1……………………………………………89
圖 4-4、兩財為互補品圖2……………………………………………90
圖 4-5、正相關離散圖 ………………………………………………119
圖 4-6、部份均衡分析之非因果關係圖……………………………134
圖 4-7、部份均衡分析之因果關係圖………………………………135

　　
表目錄
表 2-1、GATT 與WTO 時期爭端解決程序之比較GATT 與WTO時期爭端解決程序之比較……………………………………26
表 2-2、使用WTO爭端解決機制國家之比較表………………………31
表3-1、歐盟反傾銷表…………………………………………………72
表 3-2、歐盟平衡稅表…………………………………………………72
表 3-3、歐盟各種貿易爭端解決程序表 ……………………………77
表 4-1、1995-2004 WTO仲裁案件統計表……………………………97
表 4-2、歐盟香蕉案統計表…………………………………………99
表 4-3、賀爾蒙牛案統計表…………………………………………106
表 4-4、WTO會員國貿易損失求償案統計表………………………107
表 4-5、智利酒精案廻歸統計表……………………………………121
表 4-6、依據因果關係形態改變表…………………………………135

一、中文部份
　
（一）書籍
　
1. 王泰銓，歐洲共同體法總論。（台北：三民書局，1997）。
　
2. 丘宏達，現代國際法，頁二四七，三民出版社，台北，1995年11月。
　
4. 沈玄池，國際關係，台北:高立圖書有限公司，民國九十一年三月十日。
　
5. 沈玄池、洪德欽主編，歐洲聯盟：理論與政策。（台北：中央研究院歐美研究所，1998）。
　
6. 吳成物，國際直接投資，自版，民國85 年2 月。
　
7. 認識世界貿易組織，經濟部國貿局，民國88 年出版。
　
8. 林灼榮，國際貿易理論．政策．實證，台北:新陸書局股份有限公司，民國88年9月。
　
9. 林惠玲．陳正倉著統計學-方法與應用，台北雙葉書局民國93年3版。
　
10. 周宜魁，國際貿易理論與政策，台北: 三民書局股份有限公司，81年9月2版。
　
11. 胡士文•王葳•林燕姬合著，個體經濟理論與應用，二版下冊，台北茂昌圖書有限公司1995年2月二版二印。
　
12 . 黃立、李貴英、林彩瑜，國際貿易法論。台北：元照出版，2000年。
　
13. 陳治世，國際法，頁127，台北臺灣商務印書館有限公司， 1992年10月。
　
14. 陳春山，國際經濟法---台灣與世貿組織，初版，五南，民84年。
　
15. 張清溪、許嘉棟．劉鶯釧．吳聰敏合著，經濟學理論與實際，二版下冊，台北:雙葉書廊有限公司1991年8月二版。
　
16. 楊雲明，個體經濟學，台北智勝文化事業有限公司1996年7月初版，頁65。
　
17. 歐陽勛、黃仁德，國際貿易理論與政策 （臺北：三民，2000）。
　
18. 歐陽勳與黃仁德，國際金融理論與制度，台北:三民書局股份有限公司，82年10月.
　
19. 劉德標主編，涉外經濟貿易法教程（修訂本），北京：中國對外經濟貿易出版社，1996 年1 月，一版一刷。
　
20. 羅昌發，國際貿易法，台北：元照出版公司，1999 年7 月，初版二刷。
　

　
（二）中文期刊
　

　
1. 邱政宗，「多邊貿易架構下之爭端解決制度」，《進口救濟論叢》，第3 期。
　
2. 林純如，WTO 架構下的爭端解決機制與案例分析，貿易調查專刊，民國87 年5月。
　
3. 洪德欽，「歐聯、美國與世貿組織農產品貿易政策之綜合研究」，歐美研究，第26卷第2期1996年。
　
4. 陳麗娟，歐洲貿易法之研究，貿易政策論叢第6期，2006年。
　
5. 張維邦，「從『舒曼宣言』到『德洛爾報告』：法國與歐洲整合」，當代，第169 期2001年。
　
6. 藍玉春，「有關歐洲統合的論戰及其實踐：聯邦派vs.主權派」，政治科學論叢，第11 期，2000年。
　
7. 鄭富霖取材自Inside U.S. Trade，2004年9月3日。
　

　
（三）參考國內網站
　

　
1. 李貴英，論歐洲憲法條約架構下之共同商業政策，2006年。http://www.edu.tw/EDU_WEB/EDU_MGT/BICER/EDU2658001/eurostudies.htm
　
2. 【取自經濟部國際貿易局經貿資訊入口網─國內外相關新聞，http://ekm92.trade.gov.tw/BOFT/web/report_detail.jsp? data_base_id=DB009&category_id=CAT525&report_id=77473，2004年12月17日。】
　

　
（四）學術研究
　

　
1. 洪昌宏，歐洲共同體對外貿易政策之研究，淡江大學歐洲研究所碩士論文，民國93年6月，頁7。
　
2 . 陳振峰，國際投資爭端解決法制之研究，東海大學法律學研究所碩士論文，民國90 年7 月，頁1。
　
3. 鍾志明，歐洲聯盟與聯合國，「歐盟制憲與歐盟發展學術研討會」，台北：歐洲聯盟研究論壇，92年3月14日，第1至6頁。
　

　
外文部份
　
（一）書籍
　
1. K ,Anderson. (2002) ‘Peculiarities of retaliation in the WTO dispute settlement’, World Trade Review 1, 2: 123-134.
　
2. S ,Anderson. (2004) ‘Meeting the Burden of Proof – A Practitioner’s Guide to Documents, Witnesses, Experts and Adverse Inferences’, paper presented at the Seventh Annual Conference on Dispute Resolution in the WTO, organized by Cameron May, 18 June 2004, Geneva.
　
3. C. P ,Bown. (2002) ‘The Economics of Trade Disputes, the GATT’s Article XXIII, and the WTO’s Dispute Settlement Understanding’, Economics and Politics 14, 3: 283-323.
　
4. T.H ,Cohn. Governing Global Trade. International institutions in conflict and convergence, Ashgate, 2002
　
5. A,Dashwood. “E.C. External Relations Provision Post-Amsterdam” in A. Dashwood & C. Hillion (eds.) THE General Law Of EC External Relations, 2000.
　
6. J ,Heliskoski. Mixed Agreements as a Technique for Organizing the International Relations of the European Community and its Member States, Kluwer Law International, 2001.
　
7. Mavroidis, Dispute Settlement in the World Trade Organization, Kluwer Law International, The Hague/London/Boston（1999）
　
8. Trade Policy Liberalization in the European Union’,International Organization, 52(1): 55-85, 1998
　
9. T ,Tridimas. “The WTO and OECD Opinions,” in A. Dashwood & C. Hillion (eds.) The General Law Of EC External Relations, 2000
　
10. Varian, H. R. (1984) Microeconomic analysis, second edition, New York & London: W. W. Norton & Company.
　

　
（二）外國期刊
　
1. Analytical Index. Guide to GATT Law and Practice, Vol.2, WTO 1995
　
2. J. S ,Armington. (1969) ‘A theory of demand for products distinguished by place of production’, IMF Staff Papers 16: 159-177.
　
3. K ,Bagwell. and R ,Staiger. (2002) The Economics of the World Trading System, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
　
4. J. H. J,Bourgeois. “The Uruguay Round Results from a European Lawyers’ Perspective: an Introduction” in Bourgeois, J. H. J. et al. (eds.) The Uruguay Round Results. A European Lawyers’ Perspective, European University Press, 1995 .
　
- The EC in the WTO and Advisory Opinion 1/94: An Echternach Procession, 32 Common Mkt. L. Rev. 763 (1995).
　
5. F ,Breuss. (2004) ‘WTO Dispute Settlement: An Economic Analysis of Four EU-US Mine Trade Wars’, Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade 4, 4: 275-315.
　
6. M. L ,Busch,. and E ,Reinhardt. (2003) ‘Developing Countries and GATT/WTO Dispute Settlement’, mimeo.
　
7. M ,Butler. and H ,Hauser. (2000) ‘The WTO Dispute Settlement Mechanism: A First Assessment from an Economic Perspective’, Journal of Law, Economics and Organization 16, 2: 503-533.
　
8. M ,Cremona. “A Policy of Bits and Pieces? The Common Commercial Policy After Nice,” The Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies, Vol. 4, 2001
　
M ,Cremona. “EC External Commercial Policy after Amsterdam: Authority and Interpretation within Interconnected Legal Orders,” in Weiler, J. (ed.) The EU, the WTO, and the NAFTA. Towards a Common Law of International Trade?, Oxford University Press, 2000.
　
9. De Witte, B. “Simplification and Reorganization of the European Treaties,” in Common Market Law Review, 2002 .
　
10. W. A ,Donnelly., K,Johnson. M, Tsigas. and Ingersoll, D. (2004) ‘Revised Armington Elasticities of Substitution for the USITC Model and the Concordance for Constructing a Consistent Set for the GTAP Model’, Office of Economics Research Note, U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC), Washington: USITC.
　
11. Editorial Comments, “The Aftermath of Opinion 1/94 or how to ensure unity of representation for joint competencies”, (1995) 32 CMLRev, p. 386.
　
12. EC Commission, “EU Common Commercial Policy and the Intergovernmental Conference,” MEMO/00/86, Brussels, 22 November 2000.
　
13. European Commission, Participation des Communautes Europeennes aux Accords Multilateraux, Direction General I A, Introduction (1997).
　
14. J. F ,Francois. and H.K,Hall(2003) ‘Global Simulation Analysis of Industry-Level Trade Policy’, Version 3.0: 21 April 2003, mimeo.
　
15. J. F ,Francois. and K. A, Reinert,. (1997) ‘Applied Methods for Trade Policy Analysis: An Overview’, in: J. F, Francois,. and K ,Reinert. (eds.) Applied Methods for Trade Policy Analysis: A Handbook, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 3-24.
　
16. General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, Geneva - 1994 GATT Dispute Settlement Panel Report on the European Economic Community— Import Regime for Bananas - 1993 Trade Policy Review: European Communities Vol.1
　
17. Grossman. (1986) ‘Imports as a Cause of Injury: The Case of the U.S. Steel Industry’, Journal of International Economics 20: 201-223.
　
18. A. C ,Harvey. (1990) The Econometric Analysis of Time Series, second edition, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
　
19. T. W ,Hertel,. (1990) ‘General Equilibrium Analysis of U.S. Agriculture: What Does It Contribute?’, The Journal of Agricultural Economics Research 42, 3: 3-9.
　
20. T. W ,Hertel., D. K.,Lanclos. , K. R, Pearson. and P. V ,Swaminathan. (1997) ‘Aggregation and computation of equilibrium elasticities’, in: Hertel, T. W. (ed.) Global Trade Analysis: Modeling and Applications, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 149-163.
　
21. J ,Heliskoski. “The Nice Reform of Article 133 EC on the Common Commercial Policy,” Journal of International Commercial Law, 2002, 1(1): 1-13 .
　
22. C. W ,Herrmann,. ‘Common Commercial Policy after Nice: Sisyphus Would Have Done a Better Job.’ Common Market Law Review, 39: 7-29, 2002.
　
23. M ,Hilf,. “The ECJ’s Opinion 1/94 on the WTO –No Surprise, but Wise?- in European Journal of International Law, Vol 6 (1995), No. 2.,pp.245.
　
24. House of Lords, Select Committee on the European Union, “The Future of Europe: Constitutional Treaty–Draft Articles 1-16,” Session 2002-03, 9th Report, 25 42. H, Horn. and P. C ,Mavroidis. (eds.) (2003) The WTO Case Law of 2001, The American Law Institute Reporters’ Studies, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
　
- (2004) ‘Still Hazy after All These Years: The Interpretation of National Treatment in the GATT/WTO CaseLaw on Tax Discrimination’, European Journal of International Law 15, 1: 39-69.
　
25. H ,Horn,. H ,Nordström, and P. C ,Mavroidis. (1999) ‘Is the Use of the WTO Dispute Settlement System Biased?’, CEPR Discussion Paper 2340, London: Centre for Economic Policy Research.
　
26. H. S ,Houthakker.and S. P ,Magee. (1969) ‘Income and Price Elasticities in World Trade’, Review of Economics and Statistics 51, 2: 111-125.
　
27. D. A ,Irwin. (2003) ‘Causing Problems? The WTO Review of Causation and Injury Attribution in US Section 201 Cases’, World Trade Review 2, 3: 297-325.
　
28. A ,Keck,. (2004) ‘WTO Dispute Settlement: What Role for Economic Analysis?’, Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade 4, 4: 365-371.
　
29. H. L ,Kee., A ,Nicita. and M ,Olarreaga. (2004) ‘Import Demand Elasticities and Trade Distortions’, World Bank Research Working Paper No. 3452, Washington: World Bank
　
30. K ,Kelly,. (1988) ‘The Analysis of Causality in Escape Clause Cases’, Journal of Industrial Economics, 37: 187–207.
　
31. P ,Kennedy. (1987) A Guide to Econometrics, second edition, Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press.
　
32. H.G ,Krenzler. & C ,Pitschas. ‘Progress or Stagnation?: The Common Commercial Policy After Nice,’ European Foreign Affairs Rev., 6, 291-313, 2001
　
33. R. Z ,Lawrence. (2003) Crimes and Punishment: Retaliation under the WTO, Washington, DC: Institute for International Economics (IIE).
　
34. R Leal-Arcas,. “Is the Kyoto Protocol an Adequate Environmental Agreement to Solve the Climate Change Problem?,” in European Environmental Law Review, Vol. 10, Issue 10, winter 2001 .
　
- “The European Community and Mixed Agreements”, in European Foreign Affairs Review, Vol. 6, Issue 4, Winter 2001, pp. 483-513, Kluwer Law International.
　
35. R ,Leal-Arcas. “The Unitary Character in the External Trade Relations of the European Community”, in the Columbia Journal of European Law, Vol. 7.3, Fall 2001, pp. 355-383.
　
36. R ,Leal-Arcas,. “The European Community and the International Trading System: A Judicial Approach,” in The International Relations Journal, San Francisco State University, Vol. XXII, No.1, Fall 2002, pp. 47-54.
　
37. G ,Maggi. (1999) ‘The Role of Multilateral Institutions in International Trade Co-operation’, American Economic Review 89, 1: 190-214.
　
38. B ,Malashevich. (2004) ‘The Metrics of Economics As Applied to WTO Dispute Settlement’, presentation made at the Seventh Annual Conference on Dispute Resolution in the WTO, organized by Cameron May, 18 June 2004, Geneva.
　
39. Marquez, J. (1990) ‘Bilateral Trade Elasticities’, Review of Economics and Statistics 72, 1: 70-77.
　
- (1999) ‘Long-Period Trade Elasticities for Canada, Japan and the United States’, Review of International Economics 7, 1: 102-116.
　
40. Maresceau, M. “The Concept of ‘Common Commercial Policy’ and the Difficult Road to Maastricht,” in Maresceau, M. (ed.) The European Community’s Commercial Policy after 1992: The Legal Dimension, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1993.
　
41. C. A ,McDaniel.. and E. J ,Balistreri,. (2002) ‘A Discussion of Armington Trade Substitution Elasticities’, Office of Economics Working Paper, US International Trade Commission (USITC), Washington: USITC.
　
42. D ,Neven. (2000) ‘Evaluating the effects of non tariff barriers: The economic analysis of protection in WTO disputes’, mimeo.
　
43. Office of The United Sates Trade Representative, Washington,
　
D.C. - 1 July 2001 “U.S. Trade Representative Announces the Lifting of Sanctions on European Products as EU Opens to U.S. Banana Distributors”, Press 155 Release.
　
The World Trade Organization, Geneva-1995 Trade Policy Review: European Union 1995.Vol.1.
　
- 22 May 1997 WT/DS27/R/USA.
　
- “What is Europe?” 12 Feb. 2000, 14.
　
- “Trade disputes,” 9 Sep. 2000, 98-9.
　
44. R. M ,Stern., J ,Francis,. and B ,Schumacher. (1976) Price Elasticities in International Trade: An Annotated Bibliography, Trade Policy Research Centre, London: The Macmillan Press.
　
45. D. A ,Sumner., R. C ,Barichello. and M. S ,Paggi. (2003) ‘Economic Analysis in Disputes of Trade Remedy and Related Measures in Agriculture, with Examples from Recent Cases’, Paper presented at the InternationalConference “Agricultural policy reform and the WTO: where are we heading?”, 23-26 June 2003, Capri. Sykes, A. O. (2003) ‘The Safeguards Mess: A Critique of WTO Jurisprudence’, World Trade Review 2, 3: 261295.
　
46. J. H. H ,Weiler. The Constitution of Europe. "Do the New Clothes have an Emperor?" and Other Essays on European Integration, Cambridge University Press, 1999.
　

　
（三）外國網站
　
1. 日本學者入稲福智先生所著「歐洲入門後的歐盟」（2007）請詳見http://eu-info.jp/r/index.html.
　
2. B. A ,Babcock, J. C,Beghin , J. F, Fabiosa, S,De Cara, , A ,Elobeid,., Fang, C., Hart, C. E., Isik, M., Matthey, H., Saak, A. E., Kovarik K. and FAPRI Staff (2002) ‘The Doha Round of the World Trade Organization: Appraising Further Liberalization of Agricultural Markets’, Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute (FAPRI) Working Paper 02-WP 317. Available online http://www.fapri.org/publications/wto.aspx. Accessed 03/03/05.
　
3. David Palmeter & Petros C.
　
European Integration online Papers (EioP) Vol. 9 (2005) N° 12;
　
http://eiop.or.at/eiop/texte/2005-012a.htm.
　
Foreign & Commonwealth Office of the United Kingdom, London
　
4. European Commission, “The reform of Article 133 by the Nice Treaty. The logic of parallelism,” in Frequently Asked Questions. Intergovernmental Conference discusses Article 133, December 2000. http://europa.eu.int/comm/trade/faqs/rev133_en.htm.
　
5. P ,Lamy. “Europe’s Role in Global Governance: The Way Ahead,” Speech given at Humboldt University, Berlin, 6 May 2002, at http://europa.eu.int/comm/trade/index_en.htm.
　
6. R ,Leal-Arcas. “United We Stand, Divided We Fall- The European Community and its Member States in the WTO Forum: Towards Greater Cooperation on Issues of Shared Competence?,” in European Political Economy Review, Vol. 1, No. 1, Spring 2003, pp. 65-79. http://personal.lse.ac.uk/wergin/eper/vol1-no1/leal.pdf.
　
7. Office of The United Sates Trade Representative, Washington,On the Direct Effect of GATT in the EC Legal Order（III）: 3 Direct Effect of Gatt1994”, http://www.lawinfochina.com/LegalForum/hottopics/displayContent.asp?ID=80 , 2003.06.11; SeeJacques H. J. Bourgeois, “The European Court of Justice and the WTO: Problems and Challenges”in J. H. H. Weiler(ed.), The EU, the WTO, and the NAFTA, 1st published, Oxford university Press(2000), p. 85.
　
8. United States International Trade Commission (USITC) (2002) ‘Available information on economic models (public version)’, mimeo. Available online http://www.usitc.gov. Accessed 03/03/05.
　
–(2002a) ‘United States - Tax Treatment for “Foreign Sales Corporations” - Recourse by the United States to Article 22.6 of the DSU and Article 4.11 of the SCM Agreement, Second Written Submission of the United States of America, February 26, 2002’, mimeo. Available online http://www.ustr.gov. Accessed 03/03/05./
　
– (2002b) ‘United States - Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports of Certain Steel Products, First Written Submission of the United States of America, October 4, 2002’, mimeo. Available online http://www.ustr. Gov.
　
9. X.A ,Yataganas. ‘The Treaty of Nice: The Sharing of Power and the Institutional Balance in the European Union- A Continental Perspective,’ Jean Monnet Working Paper 1/01, at http://www.jeanmonnetprogram.org/papers/01/010101-03.html (last visited, November 29, 2002).