跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(18.97.14.82) 您好!臺灣時間:2025/02/19 10:04
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

我願授權國圖
: 
twitterline
研究生:孫敏超
論文名稱:WTO爭端解決機構所適用審查基準之研究-以SPS協定之風險評估為中心
論文名稱(外文):A Study on Applicable Standard of Review - Risk Assessment Under WTO SPS Dispute Settlement
指導教授:倪貴榮倪貴榮引用關係陳在方陳在方引用關係
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:117
中文關鍵詞:審查基準食品安全檢驗與動植物防疫檢疫措施協定風險評估
外文關鍵詞:Standard of ReviewAgreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measure (SPS)risk assessment
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:2
  • 點閱點閱:618
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:0
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:0
審查基準(Standard of Review)為近期WTO審判過程中最為爭議的主題之一。審查基準的概念存在於所有WTO的爭端解決程序中,即使隨著審理的客體不同而適用不同的協定規範,審查基準在每個案件中仍為進入實質審理時須決定的問題。審查基準將影響小組或上訴機構成員解釋法律、發現事實的態度,不同的審查基準將影響審理的結果。

世界貿易組織架構下的SPS協定要求各會員國為避免進口食品貨物造成境內自然環境與國民健康風險而採取防疫檢疫措施時,應儘可能符合調和原則,否則應具有風險評估報告支持其措施的維持。但是,從最早的歐盟荷爾蒙案、到前年底的澳洲蘋果案循線觀察,得以發現小組或上訴機構在某些案件中對於被訴國的風險評估要求較為寬鬆,有時即使被訴會員已盡其最大努力提供適法性依據,仍無法達成爭端解決機構的要求。

審查基準為影響小組及上訴機構審理SPS爭端的根本因素。即使所適用的審查要件相同,仍然會因為審查基準的不同而影響其對於會員科學證據、風險評估的要求。然而,爭端解決小組與上訴機構通常並未於爭端解決報告中表示其所採取的審查基準,亦無表達其選擇審查基準理由,使得關於風險評估報告的審查基準不具有可預測性,而影響會員在進行風險評估、採取措施的決策方向。

本研究藉由審查基準對於小組及上訴機構審查風險評估要件所造成影響結果,推論過去已發生爭端案件所適用的審查基準,發現從過去到近期的審查基準呈現擺盪的趨勢。

但是,如將各爭端的情況加以分析,得以觀察到「協定的規範義務」與「措施所管制的風險類型」會影響小組及上訴機構所選擇的審查基準。因此在目前情況下,各會員在採取措施與評估風險時,應將此兩點納入參考,以預測WTO對於風險評估的要求,而通過小組及上訴機構對於SPS協定的檢驗。但是,本研究認為小組及上訴機構區分審查基準的理由並不適當,因而建議WTO應採納統一、且較為寬鬆的審查基準於SPS類型的爭端程序。

The question of standarad of review has become one of most controversial aspects of the WTO dispute settlement jurisprudence. The concept of standard of review generally applies to all WTO disputes. When the examination of a domestic measures falls within the jurisdiction of panels and the Appellate Body, the question to what depth and with what intensity the WTO member determination should be reviewed arises.

Risk assessment is the core element of the Agreement on the Sanitary and Phytosnitary (SPS) Measure. When the measures at issue are not based on the relevant international standardsm guidelines or recommendations, the Agreemnt requires members shall ensure the measures are based on an assessment of the risks to human, animal or plant life or health. The standard of review applied by WTO panels and the Appellate Body in disputes under the SPS Agreement plays a critical role in determining to what extent the risk assement afforded by national authorities would be consistent with the SPS Agreement rules. However, there are few statements setting out positively the nature of the standard of review that is applied to risk assessments.

This thesis considers past six cases to study the tendency of the standard of review applied in SPS disputes. The study shows that the panels and Appellate Body tend to depend on the agreement obligation at issue and the categories of risks to determine the applied standard of review in disputes. This thesis argues that such distinction failed to find a strong ratioale basis. Therefore, the study concludes that it is more appropriate for the panels and Appellate Body to develope a single, more deferential standard of review for all SPS cases.

目錄
第壹章 緒論 1
第一節 研究背景 1
第二節 研究動機與目的 2
第三節 文獻回顧 3
第四節 研究方法 3
第五節 研究限制 4
第六節 論文架構 4
第貳章 審查基準之定義、功能、及其規範依據 6
第一節 審查基準之定義 6
第一項 基本定義 6
第二項 審查基準的兩種極端態樣:重新審查(De novo)與完全採納(Total Deference) 7
第三項 WTO體制的審查基準與「審查密度理論」、「三重審查標準」的關連性 8
第四項 審查基準的內涵 11
第二節 審查基準的功能 12
第一項 維持國家主權、適當分配政策決定權 12
第二項 增加WTO爭端解決機構審理效率 14
第三項 維持WTO爭端解決機構的公信力 16
第三節 審查基準的相關規範 17
第一項 GATT時期 17
第二項 WTO建立之後 18
第四節 事實、法律及事實適用於法律問題所適用的審查基準 22
第一項 會員的決策為討論審查基準的前提 23
第二項 審理事實的審查基準 23
第三項 法律問題的審查基準 24
第四項 事實適用於法律問題的審查基準 26
第參章 風險評估於SPS協定中的地位及其運作 28
第一節 風險評估在SPS協定中的地位──調和原則的適用 28
第二節 風險(risk)的概念 32
第一項 風險的基本概念 32
第二項 客觀與主觀的風險概念 32
第三項 客觀與主觀風險造成的影響 35
第三節 動植物防疫檢疫措施所管制的風險種類 35
第四節 SPS協定所規範的風險種類 37
第五節 風險評估報告 40
第一項 食品標準委員會(CODEX)的風險評估內涵 40
第二項 SPS協定的風險評估內涵 41
第六節 小結 48
第肆章 WTO爭端解決小組或上訴機構對於風險評估的審查 49
第一節 歐盟荷爾蒙案(EC-Hormones) 49
第一項 事實背景 49
第二項 爭端解決小組的意見 49
第三項 上訴機構的意見 51
第二節 澳洲鮭魚案(Australia-Salmon) 53
第一項 事實背景 53
第二項 爭端解決小組的意見 54
第三項 上訴機構的意見 55
第三節 日本蘋果案(Japan-Apples) 55
第一項 事實背景 55
第二項 爭端解決小組的意見 56
第三項 上訴機構的意見 59
第四節 歐盟生技產品案(EC-Biotech) 60
第一項 事實背景 60
第二項 爭端解決小組的意見 61
第五節 美國與加拿大持續暫停減讓案(Canada/U.S.-Hormones Suspension) 62
第一項 事實背景 62
第二項 爭端解決小組報告 63
第三項 上訴機構的意見 65
第六節 澳洲蘋果案(Australia-Apples) 68
第一項 事實背景 68
第二項 最終風險分析報告的架構與方法 68
第三項 爭端解決小組的意見 70
第四項 上訴機構的意見 72
第伍章 WTO爭端解決小組與上訴機構適用於風險評估的審查基準 75
第一節 風險評估應適用事實問題的審查基準 75
第二節 審查基準影響小組或上訴機構的審理方式 76
第一項 風險評估的相關規範 77
第二項 爭端解決程序的相關規範 88
第三節 審查基準適用的趨勢變化 95
第四節 審查基準整體趨勢變化之分析 98
第一項 不同規範義務所造成的影響 98
第二項 風險類型與審查基準的選擇 101
第陸章 結論-兼論審查基準適用的建議 106
第一節 以「社會-政治爭議」與「不確定性」的程度為區分標準 106
第二節 結論與建議──對於各種風險類型應採取相同的審查基準 108
英文書籍
1.EPPS, TRACEY, INTERNATIONAL TRADE AND HEALTH PROTECTION: A CRITICAL ASSESSMENT OF THE WTO’S SPS AGREEMENT (Edward Elgar Publishing 2008) (2008).
2.GRUSZCZYNSKI, LUKASZ, REGULATING HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS UNDER WTO LAW: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE SPS AGREEMENT (Oxford University Press 2010) (2010).
3.JACKSON, JOHN H., SOVEREIGNTY, THE WTO AND CHANGING FUNDAMENTALS OF INTERNATIONAL LAW (Cambridge University Press 2006).
4.OESCH, MATTHIAS, STANDARDS OF REVIEW IN WTO DISPUTE RESOLUTION (Oxford University Press 2005) (2003).
5.PROSKE, DIRK, CATALOGUE OF RISKS (Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008) (2008).
6.RENN, ORTWIN, RISK GOVERNANCE: COPING WITH UNCERTAINTY IN A COMPLEX WORLD (Earthscan 2008).
7.SCOTT, JOANNE, THE WTO AGREEMENT ON SANITARY AND PHYTOSANITARY MEASURES: A COMMENTARY (Oxford University Press 2007) (2007).
8.SUNSTEIN, CASS R., RISK AND REASON: SAFETY, LAW, AND THE ENVIRONMENT (Cambridge University Press 2002) (2002).

英文期刊論文
1.Arcuri, Alessandra, Food Safety at the WTO After “Continued Suspension”: A Paradigm Shift? (Rotterdam Institute of Law and Economics (RILE), Working Paper No. 2010/04, 2010), available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1633390.
2.Bloche, M. Gregg, WTO Deference to National Health Policy: Toward an Interpretive Principle, 5 J.INT’L ECON. L. 825 (2002).
3.Croley, Steven P. & John H. Jackson, WTO Dispute Procedures, Standard of Review, and Deference to National Government, 90(2) AM. J. INT’L L 193 (1996).
4.Dunoff, J. L., The Death of the Trade Regime, 10 EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 733 (1999).
5.Du, Michael M., Standard of Review Under the SPS Agreement After EC-Hormones II, 59(2) INT’L & COMP. L.Q. 441 (2010).
6.-, Domestic Regulatory Autonomy Under the TBT Agreement: From Non-Discrimination to Harmonization, 6 CHINESE J. INT’L L. 269 (2007).
7.Ehlermann, Claus-Dieter & Nicolas Lockhart, Standard of Review in WTO Law, 7 J. INT’L ECON. L. 491 (2004).
8.Fraiberg, Jeremy & Michael J. Trebilcock, Risk Regulation: Technocratic and Democratic Tools for Regulatory Reform, 43 MCGILL LAW JOURNAL 835 (1998).
9.Gruszczynski, Lukasz, Science in the Process of Risk Regulation Under the WTO Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, 7 GERMAN LAW JOURNAL 371 (2006), also available at http://www.germanlawjournal.com/pdfs/Vol07No04/PDF_Vol_07_No_04_371-398_Articles_Gruszczynski.pdf.
10.-, How Deep Should we go?-Searching for an Appropriate Standard of Review in the SPS Cases, 1 EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF RISK REGULATION 55 (2011).
11.-, Standard of Review of Health and Environmental Regulations by WTO Panels, in RESEARCH HANDBOOK ON ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH AND THE WTO (Geert Van Calster & Denise Prevost eds., Edward Elgar Publishing 2012) (forthcoming).
12.-, The Standard of Review in International SPS Trade Disputes: Some Developments, http://regulation.upf.edu/dublin-10-papers/7F4.pdf.
13.Guzman, Andrew T., Determining the Appropriate Standard of Review in WTO Disputes, 42 CORNELL INT’L L.J. 45 (2009).
14.-, Dispute Resolution in SPS Cases, in TEN YEARS OF WTO DISPUTE SETTLEMENT 215 (Moulis Horovitz & Steger eds., 2007), available at http://works.bepress.com/andrew_guzman/4.
15.Hudec, Robert E. Science and “Post-Discriminatory” WTO Law, 26 B.C. INT’L & COMP. L. REV. 185 (2003).
16.Jackson, John H., The Great 1994 Sovereignty Debate: United States Acceptance and Implementation of the Uruguay Round Results, 36 COLUMBIA JOURNAL OF TRANSNATIONAL LAW 157 (1997).
17.Kraus, Nancy Torbjorn Malmfors and Paul Slovic, Intuitive Toxicology: Expert and Lay Judgments of Chemical Risks, in THE PERCEPTION OF RISK 285 (Earthscan 2000).
18.Neven, Damien J. & Joseph H.H. Weiler, Japan-Measures Affecting the Importation of Apples (AB-2003-4): One Bad Apple? (DS245/AB/R): A Comment, in THE WTO CASE LAW OF 2003 309 (Henrik Horn & Petros C. Mavroids eds., 2006), available at http://www.ali.org/doc/wto/wto2003/Chapter_11_Japan-APPLES.pdf.
19.Palmeter, David, The WTO Standard of Review in Health and Safety Dispute, in TRADE AND HUMAN HEALTH AND SAFETY 224 (George A. Bermann & Petros C. Marvoidis eds., 2006).
20.Pauwelyn, Joost, Expert Advice in WTO Dispute Settlement, in TRADE AND HUMAN HEALTH AND SAFETY 235 (George A. Bermann & Petros C. Marvoidis eds., 2006).
21.Peel, Jacqueline, Risk Regulation Under the WTO SPS Agreement: Science as an International Normative Yardstick? (European Union Jean Monnet Chair, Working Paper No. 2002/04, 2004), available at http://centers.law.nyu.edu/jeanmonnet/archive/papers/04/040201.pdf.
22.-, Of Apples and Oranges (and Hormones in beef): Science and the Standard of Review in WTO Dispute Under the SPS Agreement, 61(2) INT’L & COMP. L.Q. 427 (2012).
23.Slovic, Paul, Baruch Fischhoff and Sarah Lichtenstein, Facts and Fears: Understanding Perceived Risk, in THE PERCEPTION OF RISK 137 (Earthscan 2000).
24.-, James Flynn and Mark Layman, Perceived Risk, Trust and the Politics of Nuclear Waste, in THE PERCEPTION OF RISK (Earthscan 2000).
25.Spamann, Holger, Standard of Review for World Trade Organization Panels in Trade Remedy Cases: A Critical Analysis, http://www.spamann.net/ASSETS/Spamann-standard_of_review.pdf.
26.Sunstein, Cass R., Book Review-The Law of Fear, 115 HARV. L. REV. 1119 (2001).
27.Sykes, Alan O., Domestic Regulation, Sovereignty and Scientific Evidence Requirements, in TRADE AND HUMAN HEALTH AND SAFETY 257 (George A. Bermann & Petros C. Marvoidis eds., 2006).
28.Wiener, Jonathan B. & Michael D. Rogers, Comparing Precautions in the US and Europe, 5(4) Journal of Risk Research 317 (2002).
29.Winickoff, David, Shelia Jasanoff, Lawrence Busch, Robin Grove-White, Brian Wynne, Adjudicating the GM Food Wars: Science, Risk, and Democracy in World Trade Law, 30 YALE J. INT’L L. 81 (2005).
30.Zleptnig, Stefan, The Standard of Review in WTO Law: An Analysis of Law, Legitimacy and the Distribution of Legal and Political Authority, 6(17) EUROPEAN INTEGRATION ONLINE PAPERS (EIOP) 1 (2002), http://eiop.or.at/eiop/texte/2002-017a.htm.

英文學位論文
1.Chen, Tsai-fang Standards of Review in the WTO Dispute Settlement System (Dec. 8, 2011) (unpublished S.J.D dissertation, University of Wisconsin Law School) (on file with author).

中文書籍
1.倪貴榮,《貿易、環境與公共健康-全球治理與在地需求之調和》,1版1刷,元照出版社,台北(2006)。
2.羅昌發,《國際貿易法》,2版1刷,元照出版社,台北(2010)。


中文期刊論文
1.黃昭元,〈憲法權利限制的司法審查標準:美國類型化多元標準模式的比較分析〉,《台大法學論叢》,第33卷第3期,頁45-104頁,2004年。
2.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〉,《台大法學論叢》,第36卷第4期,頁257-323頁,2006年。
3.倪貴榮、吳慈珮,〈由WTO貿易規範檢視美國牛肉(具BSE風險)的進口管制〉,《月旦法學雜誌》,第176期,頁147-159頁,2010年。
4.倪貴榮,〈國際食品安全委員會 (Codex) 在國際貿易體系之地位 ─ 探討作為WTO國際標準之正當性〉,《歐盟與美國生物科技政策》,頁695-746頁,2011年。

其它參考文獻
GATT Cases
1.GATT Panel Report, Report on the Withdrawal by the United States of a Tariff Concession under Article XIX of General Agreement on Tariff and Trade (Hatter’s Fur), CP/106 (Oct. 22, 1951).
2.GATT Panel Report, United States-Imposition of Anti-Dumping Duties on Imports of Fresh anf Chilled Atlantic Salmon from Norway, ADP/87, 41S/229 (Nov. 30, 1992).
3.GATT Panel Report, United States-Measures Affecting Imports of Softwood Lumber from Canada, 40S/358 (Feb. 19, 1993).
4.GATT Panel Report, United States-Restriction on Imports of Tuna, DS29/R (June 16, 1994).

WTO Cases
1.Panel Report, European Communities—Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones), WT/DS26/R/USA (Aug. 18, 1997)
2.Panel Report, Australia—Measures Affecting Importation of Salmon, WT/DS18/R (June 12, 1998)
3.Panel Report, United States-Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports of Certain Steel Products, WT/DS248/R, WT/DS249/R , WT/DS251/R , WT/DS252/R , WT/DS253/R, WT/DS254/R, WT/DS258/R, WT/DS259/R (July 11, 2003).
4.Panel Report, Japan—Measures Affecting the Importation of Apples, WT/DS245/R (July 15, 2003)
5.Panel Report, European Communities—Measures Affecting the Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products, WT/DS291/R, WT/DS292/R, WT/DS293/R (Sept. 29, 2006)
6.Panel Report, United States—Continued Suspension of Obligations in the EC—Hormones Disputes, WT/DS320/R (Mar. 31, 2008)
7.Panel Report, Australia—Measures Affecting the Importation of Apples from New Zealand, WT/DS367/R (Aug. 9, 2010)
8.Panel Report, United States—Certain Measures Affecting Imports of Poultry From China, WT/DS392/R (Sept. 29, 2010)
9.Appellate Body Report, European Communities—Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones), WT/DS26/AB/R, WT/DS48/AB/R (Jan. 16, 1998)
10.Appellate Body Report, Australia—Measures Affecting Importation of Salmon, WT/DS18/AB/R (Oct. 20, 1998)
11.Appellate Body Report, Japan-Measures Affecting Agricultural Products, WT/DS76/AB/R (Feb. 22, 1999).
12.Appellate Body Report, United States-Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Certain Hot-Rolled Lead and Bismuth Carbon Steel Products Originating in the United Kingdom (US-Lead and Bismuth II), WT/DS138/AB/R (June 7, 2000).
13.Appellate Body Report, United States-Anti-dumping Measures on Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Products from Japan, WT/DS184/AB/R (July 24, 2001).
14.Appellate Body Report, United States—Transitional Safeguard Measures on Combed Cotton Yarn from Pakistan, WT/DS192/AB/R (Nov. 5, 2001).
15.Appellate Body Report, United States-Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports of Certain Steel Products, WT/DS248/R, WT/DS249/R , WT/DS251/R , WT/DS252/R , WT/DS253/R, WT/DS254/R, WT/DS258/R, WT/DS259/R (Nov. 10, 2003).
16.Appellate Body Report, Japan—Measures Affecting the Importation of Apples, WT/DS245/AB/R (Nov. 26, 2003)
17.Appellate Body Report, United States—Continued Suspension of Obligations in the EC—Hormones Disputes, WT/DS320/AB/R (Oct. 16, 2008)
18.Appellate Body Report, Australia—Measures Affecting the Importation of Apples from New Zealand , WT/DS367/AB/R (Nov. 29, 2010)
19.Replies from the scientific experts to questions posed by the Panel, Australia-Measures Affecting the Importation of Apples From New Zealand, WT/DS367/11 (Aug. 9, 2010).
20.Replies of the Scientific Experts to Questions Posed by the Panel, United States-Continued Suspension of Obligation in the EC-Hormones Dispute, WT/DS320/R/Add.4.



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