WTO Cases
[1] Appellate Body Report, Argentina – Measures Affecting Imports of Footwear, Textiles, Apparel and Other Items, WT/DS56/AB/R and Corr.1, adopted 22 April 1998, DSR 1998:III, 1003.
[2] Appellate Body Report, Argentina – Safeguard Measures on Imports of Footwear, WT/DS121/AB/R, adopted 12 January 2000, DSR 2000:I, 515.
[3] Appellate Body Report, Australia – Measures Affecting Importation of Salmon, WT/DS18/AB/R, adopted 6 November 1998, DSR 1998:VIII, 3327.
[4] Appellate Body Report, Canada – Certain Measures Concerning Periodicals, WT/DS31/AB/R, adopted 30 July 1997, DSR 1997:I, 449.
[5] Appellate Body Report, EC Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones), WT/DS26/AB/R, WT/DS48/AB/R, adopted 13 February 1998, DSR 1998:I, 135.
[6] Panel Report, EC Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones), Complaint by the United States, WT/DS26/R/USA, adopted 13 February 1998, as modified by Appellate Body Report WT/DS26/AB/R, WT/DS48/AB/R, DSR 1998:III, 699
[7] Appellate Body Report, European Communities – Measures Affecting the Importation of Certain Poultry Products, WT/DS69/AB/R, adopted 23 July 1998, DSR 1998:V, 2031.
[8] Appellate Body Report, European Communities – Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas, WT/DS27/AB/R, adopted 25 September 1997, DSR 1997:II, 591.
[9] Appellate Body Report, Japan – Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages, WT/DS8/AB/R, WT/DS10/AB/R, WT/DS11/AB/R, adopted 1 November 1996, DSR 1996:I, 97.
[10] Panel Report, Japan – Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages, WT/DS8/R, WT/DS10/R, WT/DS11/R, adopted 1 November 1996, as modified by Appellate Body Report WT/DS8/AB/R, WT/DS10/AB/R, WT/DS11/AB/R, DSR 1996:I, 125.
[11] 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 21 November 2001, DSR 2001:XIII, 6675.
[12] Appellate Body Report, Mexico – Tax Measures on Soft Drinks and Other Beverages, WT/DS308/AB/R, adopted 24 March 2006, DSR 2006:I, 3.
[13] Panel Report, Mexico – Tax Measures on Soft Drinks and Other Beverages, WT/DS308/R, adopted 24 March 2006, as modified by Appellate Body Report WT/DS308/AB/R, DSR 2006:I, 43.
[14] Appellate Body Report, India – Patent Protection for Pharmaceutical and Agricultural Chemical Products, WT/DS50/AB/R, adopted 16 January 1998, DSR 1998:I, 9.
[15] Appellate Body Report, United States – Anti-Dumping Act of 1916, WT/DS136/AB/R, WT/DS162/AB/R, adopted 26 September 2000, DSR 2000:X, 4793.
[16] Appellate Body Report, United States – Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000, WT/DS217/AB/R, WT/DS234/AB/R, adopted 27 January 2003, DSR 2003:I, 375.
[17] Appellate Body Report, United States – Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products, WT/DS58/AB/R, adopted 6 November 1998, DSR 1998:VII, 2755.
[18] Appellate Body Report, United States – Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products – Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by Malaysia, WT/DS58/AB/RW, adopted 21 November 2001, DSR 2001:XIII, 6481.
[19] Appellate Body Report, United States – Final Anti-Dumping Measures on Stainless steel from Mexico, WT/DS344/AB/R, adopted 20 May 2008, DSR 2008:II, 513.
[20] Appellate Body Report, United States – Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Certain Hot-Rolled Lead and Bismuth Carbon Steel Products Originating in the United Kingdom, WT/DS138/AB/R, adopted 7 June 2000, DSR 2000:V, 2595.
[21] Appellate Body Report, United States – Standards for Reformulated and Conventional Gasoline, WT/DS2/AB/R, adopted 20 May 1996, DSR 1996:I, 3.
[22] Appellate Body Report, United States – Tax Treatment for “Foreign Sales Corporations”, WT/DS108/AB/R, adopted 20 March 2000, DSR 2000:III, 1619.
[23] Appellate Body Report, United States – Tax Treatment for “Foreign Sales Corporations” – Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by the European Communities, WT/DS108/AB/RW, adopted 29 January 2002, DSR 2002:I, 55.
[24] Appellate Body Report, United States – Restrictions on Imports of Cotton and Man-made Fibre Underwear, WT/DS24/AB/R, adopted 25 February 1997, DSR 1997:I, 11.
[25] Panel Report, Argentina – Definitive Anti-Dumping Duties on Poultry from Brazil, WT/DS241/R, adopted 19 May 2003, DSR 2003:V, 1727.
[26] Panel Report, Canada – Patent Protection of Pharmaceutical Products, WT/DS114/R, adopted 7 April 2000, DSR 2000:V, 2289.
[27] Panel Report, EC Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones), Complaint by Canada, WT/DS48/R/CAN, adopted 13 February 1998, as modified by Appellate Body Report WT/DS26/AB/R, WT/DS48/AB/R, DSR 1998:II, 235.
[28] Panel Report, EC Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Product (Hormones), Complaint by the United States, WT/DS26/R/USA, adopted 13 February 1998, as modified by Appellate Body Report WT/DS26/AB/R, WT/DS48/AB/R, DSR 1998:III, 699.
[29] Panel Report, European Communities – Trade Description of Sardines, WT/DS231/R and Corr.1, adopted 23 October 2002, as modified by Appellate Body Report WT/DS231/AB/R, DSR 2002:VIII, 3451.
[30] Panel Report, Guatemala – Definitive Anti-Dumping Measures on Grey Portland Cement from Mexico, WT/DS156/R, adopted 17 November 2000, DSR 2000:XI, 5295.
[31] Panel Report, India – Patent Protection for Pharmaceutical and Agricultural Chemical Products, Complaint by the European Communities and their member States, WT/DS79/R, adopted 22 September 1998, DSR 1998:VI, 2661.
[32] Panel Report, Indonesia – Certain Measures Affecting the Automobile Industry, WT/DS54/R, WT/DS55/R, WT/DS59/R, WT/DS64/R and Corr.1 and 2, adopted 23 July 1998, and Corr. 3 and 4, DSR 1998:VI, 220.
[33] Panel Report, Korea – Measures Affecting Government Procurement, WT/DS163/R, adopted 19 June 2000, DSR 2000:VIII, 3541.
[34] Panel Report, Mexico – Anti-Dumping Investigation of High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS) from the United States, WT/DS132/R, adopted 24 February 2000, and Corr.1, DSR 2000:III, 1345.
[35] Panel 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/RW, adopted 21 November 2001, upheld by Appellate Body Report WT/DS132/AB/RW, DSR 2001:XIII, 6717.
[36] Panel Report, Turkey – Restrictions on Imports of Textile and Clothing Products, WT/DS34/R, adopted 19 November 1999, as modified by Appellate Body Report WT/DS34/AB/R, DSR 1999:VI, 2363.
GATT Cases
[1] GATT Panel Report, United States - Taxes on Automobiles, DS/31/R, unadopted (Oct. 11, 1994).
[2] GATT Panel Report, EEC – Member States’ Import Regimes for Bananas, DS32/R, unadopted (June 3, 1993).
[3] GATT Panel Report, United States – Measures Affecting Imports of Softwood Lumber from Canada, SCM/162, B.I.S.D. 40S/358 (Oct. 27, 1993).
[4] GATT Panel Report, United States – Restrictions on Imports of Tuna – Complaint by the ECC and the Netherlands, DS29/R (June 19, 1994).
Other International Law Cases
[1] Judgement of Case Concerning the Gabcikovo–Nagymaros Project (Hungary v. Slovakia), 1997 I.C.J. 7.
[2] Judgement of Case Concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v. Thailand), 1962 I.C.J. 6.
[3] Judgement of Nottebohn case, 1953 I.C.J. 111.
[4] Opinion of Judge Alfaro and Fitzmaurice in the Temple case, 1962 I.C.J. 39.
[5] Legal Status of Eastern Greenland (Den. v. Nor.), 1933 P.C.I.J. (ser. A/B) No. 53, at 22 (Apr. 15).
[6] Judgement of Nuclear Test (Austl. v. Fr.), 1974 I.C.J. 253 (Dec. 20).
[7] Judgement of Nuclear Test (N.Z. v. Fr.), 1974 I.C.J. 457 (Dec. 20).
英文專書
[1] AUST, ANTHONY, MODERN TREATY LAW AND PRACTICE (2nd ed. 2007).
[2] Black’s Law Dictionary (6th ed., West Publishing Co., 1990).
[3] BROWNLIE, IAN, PRINCIPLES OF PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW (7th ed. 2008).
[4] CHENG, Bin, GENERAL PRINCIPLE OF LAW AS APPLIED BY INTERNATIONAL COURTS AND TRIBUNALS (London: Stevens, 2006).
[5] GATT, ANALYTICAL INDEX: GUIDE TO GATT LAW AND PRACTICE (1994).
[6] GURUSWAMY, L., & B. R. HENDRICKS, INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (1997).
[7] HUDEC, ROBERT E., THE GATT LEGAL SYSTEM AND WORLD TRADE DIPLOMACY (2d edn., Butterworth, 1990).
[8] JACKSON, JOHN H., THE JURISPRUDENCE OF GATT AND THE WTO: INSIGHTS ON TREATY LAW AND ECONOMIC RELATION 84 (2000).
[9] JACKSON, JOHN J., THE WORLD TRADING SYSTEM (2d edn. MIT Press, 1997).
[10] LAUTERPACHT, H., THE DEVELOPMENT OF INTERNATIONAL LAW BY THE INTERNATIONAL COURT (2d edn. New York: Praeger, 1958).
[11] LO, CHANG-FA, WTO-PLUS IN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT (Angle 2010).
[12] LONG, OLIVIER, LAW AND ITS LIMITATIONS IN THE GATT MULTILATERAL TRADE SYSTEM (1985).
[13] LOWENFELD, ANDREAS, INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC LAW (2002).
[14] MACCORMICK, NEIL, LEGAL REASONING AND LEGAL THEORY (Oxford 1999).
[15] Malanczuk, Peter, Akehurst's Modern Introduction to International Law (7th edn Routledge, London & NY 1997).
[16] MATSUSHITA, MITSUO, 5 SELECTED GATT/WTO PANEL REPORTS: SUMMARIES AND COMMENTARIES ix (Fair Trade Center, Tokyo, 1999).
[17] MATSUSHITA, MITSUO, THOMAS J. SCHOENBAUM & PETROS C. MAVROIDIS, THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION: LAW, PRACTICE, AND POLICY (2nd ed., Oxford, 2006)
[18] PALMETER, DAVID, & PETROS C. MAVROIDIS, DISPUTE SETTLEMENT IN THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE (2nd edn. Cambridge 2004).
[19] PAUWELYN, JOOST, CONFLICT OF NORMS IN PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW: HOW WTO RELATES TO OTHER RULES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW (2006).
[20] PETERSMANN, ERNST-ULRICH, INTERNATIONAL TRADE LAW AND THE GATT-WTO DISPUTE SETTLEMENT SYSTEM 53(1997).
[21] ROSENNE, SHABTAI, THE LAW AND PRACTICE OF THE INTERNATIONAL COURT 1920-1996: VOL.3, PROCEDURE (3rd edn. 1997).
[22] SHAHABUDDEEN, MOHOMED, PRECEDENT IN THE WORLD COURT (Grotius, Cambridge, 1996).
[23] SHAW, MALCOLM N., INTERNATIONAL LAW (Grotius, Cambridge 1991).
[24] U.N. INTERNATIONAL LAW COMMISSION, YEARBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONAL LAW COMMISSION (II) (1962).
[25] WAINCYMER, JEFF, WTO LITIGATION: PROCEDURAL ASPECTS OF FORMAL DISPUTE SETTLEMENT (Cameron May 2002).
[26] WOLFRUM, RÜDIGER, & NELE MATZ, CONFLICTS IN INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (Springer, Berlin Heidelberg 2003).
英文專書論文
[1] BARTELS, LORAND, & FEDERICO ORTINO, Introduction, in REGIONAL TRADE AGREEMENTS AND THE WTO LEGAL SYSTEM 1.
[2] BHAGWATI, JAGDISH, & ARVIND PANINGARIYA, Preferential Tradeing Areas and Multilateralism: Strangers, Friends or Foes?, in FREE TRADE AREAS OR FREE TRADE? THE ECONOMICS OF PREFERENTIAL TRADING AGREEMENT 1 (AEI Press, 1996).
[3] Cottier, Thomas, & Krista N. Schefer, Non-Violation Complaints in the WTO/GATT Dispute Settlement: Past, Present and Future, in INTERNATIONAL TREADE LAW AND THE GATT-TWTO DISPUTE SETTLEMENT SYSTEM 145 (Petersmann ed. 1997)
[4] Cottier, Thomas, & Marina Foltea, Constitutional Functions of the WTO and Regional Trade Agreement, in REGIONAL TRADE AGREEMENT AND THE WTO LEGAL SYSTEM 43 (Lorand Bartels & Federico Ortino eds., Oxford, 2006).
[5] Damro, Chad, The Political Economy of Regional Trade Agreements, in REGIONAL TRADE AGREEMENTS AND THE WTO LEGAL SYSTEM 23 (Lorand Bartels & Federico Ortino eds., 2006).
[6] Davey, William, The World Trade Organization: A Brief Introduction, in INTERNATIONAL TRADE LAW, 83, 83. (Andrew T. Guzman & Joost H.B. Pauwelyn eds., Wolters Kluwer, 2009).
[7] Do, Viet D., & William Watson, Economic Analysis of Regional Trade Agreement, in REGIONAL TRADE AGREEMENTS AND THE WTO LEGAL SYSTEM 7 (Lorand Bartels & Federico Ortino eds., 2006)
[8] Estrella, Angela T. Gobbi, & Gary N. Horlick, Mandatory Abolition of Anti-Dumping, Countervailing Duties and Safeguards in Custom Union and Free Trade Areas Constituted between WTO Members: Revisiting a Long-Standing Discussion in Light of the Appellate Body’s Turkey – Textiles Ruling, in REGIONAL TRADE AGREEMENTS AND THE WTO LEGAL SYSTEM 109 (Lorand Bartels & Federico Ortino eds., 2006).
[9] INTERNATIONAL TRADE LAW, CHAPTER 4 THE WTO: HISTORY AND STRUCTURE 79 (Andrew T. Guzman & Joost H.B. Pauwelyn eds., Wolters Kluwer, 2009).
[10] Jackson, John H., Designing and Implementing Effective Dispute Settlement Procedures: WTO Dispute Settlement, Appraisal and Prospects, in THE WTO AS AN INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION 161, 163 ( Anne O. Krueger ed., 1998).
[11] Kwak, Kyung & Gabrielle Marceau, Overlaps and Conflicts of Jurisdiction between the World Trade Organization and Regional Trade Agreement, in Regional Trade Agreements and the WTO Legal System 465 (Lorand Bartels & Federico Ortino eds. 2006).
[12] Lawrence, R., Emerging Regional Arrangement: Building Blocks or Stumbling Blocks?, in FINANCE AND THE INTERNATIONAL ECONOMY:5, THE AMEX BANK REVIEW PRIZE ESSAYS 22 (R. O’Brien ed. 1991).
[13] Lockhart, Nicolas JS, & Andrew D. Mitchell, Regional Trade Agreement Under GATT 1994: An Exception and Its Limits, in CHALLEGES AND PROSPECTS FOR THE WTO 217 (Andrew D. Mitchell ed., Cameron May: London, 2005).
[14] Pescatore, Pierre, Drafting and Analysing Decisions on Dispute Settlement, in HANDBOOK OF WTO/GATT DISPUTE SETTLEMENT 32 (Pescatore et al. eds. 1998).
[15] Sieber, Ulrich, Legal Orderin a Global World, in MAX PLANCK YEARBOOK OF UNITED NATION LAW 1 (A. von Bogdandy & R. Wolfrum eds. 2010).
[16] Watts, Arthur, The International Court and the Continuing Customary International Law of Treaties, in LIBER AMICORUM JUDGE SHIGERU ODA VOL. I 251–66 (Nisuke Ando,Edward McWhinney & Rüdiger Wolfrum eds., Cambridge 2002).
英文期刊
[1] Alter, Karen J., Resolving or exacerbating disputes? The WTO’s new dispute resolution system, 79 (4) INT’L AFF. 783 (2003).
[2] Bhala, Raj, & David A. Gantz, WTO Case Review 2006, 24 ARIZ. J. INT’L & COMP. L. 299.
[3] Bhala, Raj, The Myth of Stare Decisis and International Trae Law, 14 AM.U. INT’L L. REV. 845 (1999).
[4] Bowett, T.W., Estoppel Before International Trivunals and its Relation to Acquiescence, 28 BRITISH YEAR BOOK OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 156.
[5] Brevetti, Rossella, & John Nagel, Corn Products International Files NAFTA Arbitration Case on HFCS Tax, 20 INT’L TRADE REP. 1759 (Oct. 23, 2003).
[6] Gross, Adam, Can Sub-Saharan African Countries Defend their Trade and Development Interests Effectively in the WTO? The Case of Cotton, 18 (3) EUR. J. DEV. RES. 368 (2006).
[7] Hauser, Heinz, & Thomas A. Zimmermann, The Challege of Reforming the WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding, 38(5) INTERECONOMICS – REV. EURO. ECON. POL’Y 241 (2003).
[8] Hafez, Zakir, Weak Discipline: GATT Article XXIV and the Emerging WTO Jurisprudence on RTAs, 79 North Dakota Law Review 879 (2003).
[9] Henry, Hon. Robert L., Jurisprudence Constante and Stare Decisis Contrasted, 15 A.B.A. 11 (1929)
[10] Jackson, John J., World Trade Rules and Environmental Policies: Congruence or Conflict?, 49 WASH. & LEE L. REV. 1227 (1992).
[11] Jenks, C.W., the conflict of Law Making Treaties, 30 BRIT. Y.B. INT’L L. 401 (1953).
[12] Kennedy, Kevin C., Parallel Proceeding at the WTO and Under NAFTA Chapter 19: Whither the Doctrine of Exhaustion of Local Remedies in DSU Reform, 39 GEO. WASH. INT’L L. REV. 47 (2007).
[13] Kuijper, Pieter Jan, The Law of GATT as a Special Field of International Law: Ignorance, Further Refinement of Self-Contained Regime of International Law, 25 NETH. Y.B. INT’L L. 227 (1994).
[14] Lanoszka, Anna, The Promises of Multilateralism and the Hazards of ‘Single Undertaking’: The Breakdown of Decision Making within the WTO, 16 MICH. ST. J. INT’L L. 655 (2008).
[15] Leal-Arcas, Rafael, Choice of Jurisdiction in International Trade Disputes: Going Regional or Global?, 16 MINN. J. INT’L L. 1 (2007).
[16] Lovell, Martin, Regional Trade Agreements and the WTO: An analysis of the efficacy of the ACFTA forum selection clause in resolving jurisdictional conflict, available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1114770.
[17] Lowe, Vaughan, Res Judicata and the Rule of Law in International Arbitration, 8 AFR. J. INT’L L 38 (1996).
[18] Lowe,Vaughan, Overlapping Jurisdiction in International Tribunals, 20 AUSTL. Y.B. INT’L L. 191 (1999).
[19] Marceau, Gabrielle, A Call for Coherence in International Law: Praise for the Prohibition Against “Clinical Isolation” in WTO Dispute Settlement, 33(5) J. World Trade 87 (1999).
[20] Gabrielle Marceau, Conflicts of Norms and Conflicts of Jurisdiction: The relationship between the WTO Agreement and MEAs and other Treaties, 35(6) J. WORLD TRADE 1081 (2001).
[21] Mus, Jan B., Conflicts between Treaties in International Law, 45 NETH. INT’L L. REV. 208 (1998).
[22] Pauwelyn, Joost, & Luiz Eduardo Salles, Forum Shopping Before International Tribunals: (Real) Concerns, (Im)Possible Solutions, 42 CORNELL INT’L L.J. 77 (2009).
[23] Pauwelyn, Joost, Editorial Comment, Adding Sweeteners To Softwood Lumber: The WTO-NAFTA ‘Spaghetti Bowl’ Is Cooking, 9 J. INT’L ECON. L. 197 (2006).
[24] Pescatore, Pierre, The GATT Despute Settlement Mechanism: Its Present Situation and its Prospects, 27 J. INT’L ARBITRATION 5 (1993).
[25] Ragosta, John, Navin Joneja & Mikhail Zeldovich, WTO Dispute Settlement: the System is Flawed and Must be fixed, 37 INT’L L. 697 (2003).
[26] Romano, Cesare R., The Shift From the Consensual to the Compulsory Paradign in International Adjudication: Elements for a Theory of Concent, 39 N.Y.U. J. INT’L & POL’Y 791 (2007).
[27] Schoenbaum, T. J., WTO Dispute Settlement: Praise and Suggestions for Reform, 47 INT’L & COMP. L. Q. 647 (1998).
[28] Trachtman, Joel P., The Domain of WTO Dispute Resolution, 40 HARV. INT’L L.J. 333 (1999).
[29] Vacek-Aranda, Alice, Sugar Wars: Dispute Settlement Under NAFTA and the WTO As Seen Through The Lens of the HFCS Case, and Its Effects on U.S.–Mexican Relations, 12 TEX. HISP. J.L. & POL’Y 121 (2006).
[30] Zahrnt, V., How Regionalization can be a Pillar of a More Effective World Trade Organization, 39 JWT 671 (2005).
其他資料
[1] Chen, Chun-ming, On a Coherence Approach towards Jurisdictional Conflicts between the WTO and RTAs, Master Thesis of Graduate Institute of Law, College of Law, National Taiwan University (2009).
[2] Davey, William, Regional Trade Agreements and the WTO: General Observations and NAFTA Lessons for Asia (Illinois Public Law and Legal Theory Research Papers Series, Research Paper No. 05-18, Nov. 30, 2005).
[3] Fabbricotti, Alberta, The Interplay Between the WTO and the RTAs: Is It A Question of Interrelation Between Different Sources of International Law?, Society of International Economic Law Inaugural Conference, Geneva, July 15-17, 2008, SIEL Online Proceedings Working Paper No. 12/08, available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1151386.
[4] Fukunaga, Yuka, Securing Compliance Through the WTO Dispute Settlement System: Implementaiton of DSB Recommendations, 9 J. INT’L ECON. L. 383 (2006).
[5] GROTIUS, HUGO, LE DROIT DE LA GUERRE ET DE LA PAIX 413 (D. Alland and S. Goyard-Fabre, eds., Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1999).
[6] International Law Commission, Study Group, Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties Arising from the Diversification and Expansion of International Law, U.N. Doc. A/CN/4/L.92 (Apr. 13, 2006) (finalized by Martti Koskenniemi).
[7] International Law Commission, Draft Articles on the Law of Treaties with Commentaries, 2 Y.B. INT'L L. COMM’N 187, U.N. Doc. A/CN.4/191 (1966).
[8] Lovell, Martin, Regional Trade Agreements and the WTO – An analysis of the efficacy of the ACFTA forum selection clause in resolving jurisdiction al conflict, Working Paper Series, available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1114770 (last visited June 3, 2012).
[9] Picker, Colin B., Regional Trade Agreement v. The WTO: A Proposal for reform of Article XXIV to Counter this Institutional Threat, available at http://www.law.upenn.edu/journals/jil/articles/volume26/issue2/Picker26U.Pa.J.Int’l Econ.L.267(2005).pdf.
[10] PUFENDORF, SAMUEL VON, DROIT DE LA NATION ET DES GENS, Book V, Chapters XII–XXIII (quoted in DE VATTEL, DROIT DES GENS, 511).
[11] Sutherland, Peter, et al., The Report on the Future of the WTO – Addressing Institutional Challenges in the New Millennium, available at http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/10anniv_e/future_wto_e.pdf.
[12] VATTEL, EMER DE, LES DROIT DES GENS OU PRINCIPES DE LA LOI NATURELLE (Lyons: Gauthier, 1802).
中文專書
[1] 丘宏達(2006),現代國際法,二版,臺北:三民。
[2] 黃異(2006),國際法在國內法領域中的效力,臺北:元照。[3] 黃異(2010),國際法,臺北:新學林。
[4] 吳嘉生(2004),國際貿易法析論—WTO時代之挑戰,臺北:翰蘆。
[5] 陳櫻琴、邱政宗(2009),WTO與貿易法,二版,臺北:五南。
[6] 羅昌發(2010),國際貿易法,二版,臺北:元照。
[7] 俞寬賜(2006),國際法新論,臺北:啟英。
中文專書論文
[1] 施文真(2008),由『片面宣言之效力』與『禁反言原則』於WTO爭端案件中之適用論我國片面遵守國際環境公約之政策,綠化WTO?-貿易、環境與台灣(國際經貿法與國際環境法系列叢書(一)),臺北:元照。[2] 洪德欽(2003),WTO之發展趨勢與挑戰,WTO法律與政策專題研究,頁432,臺北:新學林。
[3] 郭懿美(1997),認識GATT之爭端解決機制,國際貿易法律專題研究
(一),臺北:群彥。
中文期刊
[1] 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,第40卷第一期,頁393–451。
[2] 曾更瑩(1996), WTO爭端解決程序對美國實施三0一條款之限制,萬國法律,第85期,頁35–47。碩博士論文
[1] 田永弘(2011年),兩岸簽署經濟合作架構協議(ECFA)之研究,淡江大學中國大陸研究所碩士班(文化教育組)碩士論文。[2] 李孟鎔(2004),兩岸經貿互動過程中WTO爭端解決機制之研究,國立東華大學公共行政研究所碩士論文。[3] 黃意文(2005),WTO區域貿易協定自由化範圍之研究,中國文化大學經濟學研究所博士論文。[4] 林淑娟(2007),WTO架構下兩岸簽署自由貿易協定問題之法制探討,國立高雄大學法律學系研究所碩士論文。[5] 施延林(2008),WTO架構下的兩岸經貿之政治經濟分析,國立花蓮教育大學社會發展研究所碩士論文。
[6] 洪守億(2011年),區域貿易協定與兩岸經濟合作架構協議爭端解決機制之探討,世新大學法學院碩士論文。[7] 胡紹琳(2001),以歐體香蕉爭端案為例探討WTO之爭端解決機制,私立東吳大學法律研究所專業碩士班論文。[8] 張佑安(2004),世界貿易組織爭端解決架構下救濟方式之研究,國立臺灣大學法律學研究所碩士論文。[9] 陳小坪(2009),WTO架構下兩岸經貿互動之研究,國立臺灣師範大學政治學研究所碩士學位論文。[10] 陳昭仁(2008),GATT/WTO 架構下之區域貿易協定-以GATT第二十四條為中心,國立中正大學法學院財經法律學研究所碩士論文。[11] 陳淑慧(2004),WTO爭端解決機制及其程序爭點之研究,東海大學法律研究所碩士論文。[12] 陳筱筠(2004),臺灣在WTO爭端解決機制下處理兩岸經貿爭端研究,國立政治大學外交研究所碩士論文。[13] 楊健弘(2010),論習慣國際法於世界貿易組織爭端解決案件之地位,國立東華大學財經法律研究所碩士論文。