跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(18.97.14.81) 您好!臺灣時間:2025/02/19 04:08
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  
回查詢結果 :::

詳目顯示

: 
twitterline
研究生:張愷致
研究生(外文):Chang, Kai-Chih
論文名稱:世界貿易組織與區域貿易協定之競合與衝突研究 —以爭端解決機制為中心
論文名稱(外文):Conflict and Overlapping of Dispute Settlement Mechanism Jurisdiction between the World Trade Organization and Regional Trade Agreements
指導教授:倪貴榮倪貴榮引用關係
指導教授(外文):Ni, Kuei-Jung
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立交通大學
系所名稱:科技法律研究所
學門:法律學門
學類:專業法律學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2012
畢業學年度:100
語文別:中文
論文頁數:204
中文關鍵詞:世界貿易組織區域貿易協定爭端解決管轄權衝突
外文關鍵詞:WTORTAdispute settlementconflict of jurisdiction
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:5
  • 點閱點閱:1470
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:200
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:2
1994年世界貿易組織(WTO)成立後,其即繼GATT而成為最重要的多邊國際貿易組織;而WTO下設成立的爭端解決機制,也因強制管轄權的賦予,而被認定為維繫WTO有效運作的重要基石。然而,隨著區域貿易協定(RTA)在1990年後的快速成長,目前RTA已成為國際貿易規範不可忽略的一環,且在多邊貿易協定新回合談判陷入僵局的同時,RTA之發展即更令人注意。除了WTO的爭端解決機制,目前許多RTA也自行設有爭端解決機制;此外,隨著擴張RTA爭端解決機制管轄權的爭端管轄條款的訂定,以及排除WTO對會員間爭端解決管轄權行使的場域選擇條款之出現,WTO和RTA爭端解決機制間管轄權重疊和競合狀況即隨之發生,並曾在WTO訴訟中被提出。
本論文之研究,首先將對目前生效適用的RTA進行分析,並將管轄權條款依其對WTO爭端解決機制管轄權之影響加以分類;其次,根據對WTO判決先例研究所得之分析以及國際法相關原則的適用,本論文將提出WTO爭端解決機制調和WTO和RTA管轄權衝突之可能方法,並希望藉由此論文研究之提出,能對WTO和RTA規範之調和有所貢獻,並避免國際法脆裂狀況之發生。

Succeeding the old GATT system, the World Trade Organization (WTO) has become the most dominant multilateral international trade organization since its establishment in 1994. The efficient Dispute Settlment Mechanism (DSM) under WTO with compulsory jurisdiction over disputes among WTO members is also the pillar of WTO and has also been hailed as “jewel of the crown”. However, after the 1990s, Regional Trade Agreements (RTAs) have developed rapidly and become the mainstream of nowaday’s international trade regulation while the WTO struggled with difficulties during the Doha negotiation Round. Moreover, RTAs also established its own DSM, and with the adoption of jurisdiction clause or forum selection clause to expand the RTA DSM’s jurisdiction or to exclude WTO’s jurisdiction over disputes. The overlapping jurisdiction has become a serious problem between WTO and RTAs’ DSMs, and dispute upon this issue has also been raised before WTO panel and Appellate Body.
By analyzing RTAs in force, this thesis will first indicate the trend of jurisdictional clauses used by members under RTAs, and will classify it by how it would affect WTO DSM’s jurisdiction over disputes. Furthermore, based on the guidance extract from WTO jurisprudence and implementation of related international principles, this thesis will also bring up suggested solutions for WTO DSM in order to harmonize the conflict of jurisdictions between DSMs. With the content mentioned above, the findings and suggestions of this thesis may contribute to the harmonization of relationship between WTO and RTAs, and thus prevent the international trade law from fragmentation.

中文摘要 ………………………………………………………………………i
英文摘要 ………………………………………………………………………ii
目錄 ……………………………………………………………………………iv
圖目錄 …………………………………………………………………………vi
表目錄 …………………………………………………………………………vii
縮寫表 WTO和GATT案件名稱縮寫對照表……………………………………viii
第壹章 緒論……………………………………………………………………1
第一節  研究動機與研究目的………………………………………………1
第二節 研究方法與章節安排…………………………………………………5
第一項 研究方法………………………………………………………………5
第二項 章節安排………………………………………………………………7
第三節 研究範圍與研究限制…………………………………………………8
第貳章 WTO和RTA背景介紹及問題意識之提出…………………………… 11
第一節 世界貿易組織和RTA…………………………………………………11
第一項 世界貿易組織概述………………………………………………… 11
第二項 區域性貿易組織發展概述………………………………………… 18
第三項 WTO和RTA之互動…………………………………………………… 23
第二節 WTO和RTA爭端解決機構發展……………………………………… 24
第一項 WTO貿易爭端解決機制………………………………………………24
第二項 RTA之爭端解決機制與管轄條款……………………………………31
第三節 RTA爭端解決機制之分析……………………………………………36
第一項 研究對象…………………………………………………………… 36
第二項 RTA爭端解決機制分類………………………………………………36
第三項 RTA爭端解決機制類型分析…………………………………………37
第四項 小結………………………………………………………………… 42
第參章 WTO法源之分析………………………………………………………43
第一節 WTO/GATT判決先例可適用分析…………………………………… 43
第一項 WTO/GATT爭端解決機構判決先例的重要性……………………… 43
第二項 小結………………………………………………………………… 50
第二節 一般國際法原則可適用性分析…………………………………… 52
第一項 可處理爭端解決管轄權衝突之原理原則………………………… 52
第二項 一般國際法原則可適用於WTO法體系之理由………………………52
第肆章 WTO爭端解決機制對管轄權衝突之處理……………………………62
第一節 概述………………………………………………………………… 62
第二節 Argentina – Poultry Anti-Dumping Duties案……………… 63
第一項 案件事實…………………………………………………………… 63
第二項 當事國及第三國主張……………………………………………… 64
第三項 爭端解決小組見解………………………………………………… 70
第三節 Mexico – Taxes on Soft Drinks案…………………………… 72
第一項 案件事實…………………………………………………………… 72
第二項 當事國及第三國之主張…………………………………………… 74
第三項 爭端解決小組見解………………………………………………… 78
第四項 爭端解決上訴機構見解…………………………………………… 79
第五項 小結………………………………………………………………… 80
第伍章 WTO或區域貿易協定爭端解決機制調和與省思……………………82
第一節 Mexico – Taxes on Soft Drinks案和Argentina – Poultry Anti-Dumping Duties案件評析………………………………………………………82
第一項 WTO判決先例所處理管轄衝突類型整理與歸納……………………82
第二項 WTO判決先例對涉及管轄衝突國際法原則適用見解之統整………86
第二節 WTO判決先例對管轄衝突處理之不足與評析………………………88
第一項 RTA爭端管轄條款對WTO爭端解決機制管轄權行使之可能影響… 89
第二項 Mexico – Taxes on Soft Drinks及Argentina – Poultry Anti-Dumping Duties未處理問題……………………………………………………90
第三項 小結………………………………………………………………… 95
第三節 RTA爭端解決機制之定位……………………………………………97
第一項 WTO爭端解決機構審酌RTA爭端之可能性………………………… 97
第二項 RTA條款之定位與解釋適用……………………………………… 100
第陸章 RTA和WTO爭端解決機構管轄衝突之處理…………………………106
第一節 以一般國際法原則及解釋方法處理RTA和WTO爭端解決機構管轄衝突解決方法………………………………………………………………………… 106
第一項 概論…………………………………………………………………106
第二項 以條約解釋方法處理爭端解決機構管轄衝突問題………………108
第三項 以一般國際法原則處理爭端解決機構管轄衝突問題……………117
第四項 WTO爭端解決報告提示之爭端解決機構管轄衝突處理方法…… 129
第柒章 建議與結論…………………………………………………………132
第一節 研究發現……………………………………………………………132
第一項 RTA爭端管轄條款之發展與趨勢………………………………… 132
第二項 WTO與RTA爭端解決機制管轄競合與衝突之立場…………………133
第二節 研究結論與建議……………………………………………………136
第一項 WTO和RTA爭端解決機制競合與衝突處理之醒思與困境…………136
第二項 WTO爭端解決機制對WTO與RTA規範互動之立場與問題………… 136
第三項 總結…………………………………………………………………139
參考文獻 ……………………………………………………………………141
附件 …………………………………………………………………………155
附件一 RTA爭端解決機制分析表………………………………………… 156
附件二 目前生效施行RTA統計表………………………………………… 194
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。

連結至畢業學校之論文網頁點我開啟連結
註: 此連結為研究生畢業學校所提供,不一定有電子全文可供下載,若連結有誤,請點選上方之〝勘誤回報〞功能,我們會盡快修正,謝謝!
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top