臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

我國為WTO 之會員之一，而萊克多巴胺之管制措施為一項貿易限制措施，係屬於SPS 協定第1 條所規範之動植物衛生檢驗措施。訂定牛肉之肌肉最大殘留容許量為0.01ppm，係完全符合國際標準、準則或建議之動植物衛生檢驗措施；依據SPS 協定第3 條第2 項之規定，系爭措施應「推定」為符合SPS 協定與GATT之相關規定之措施。禁止豬肉及其製品殘留萊克多巴胺，係以「零風險」之高保護水準作為我國之保護水準，當然符合SPS 協定第5 條第4 項之規定。控訴會員須提出違反SPS 協定第3 條第3 項之表面證據，證明我國違反該協定之情況下，我國始負提出抗辯之舉證任。而系爭措施未同時具備符合SPS 協定第5 條第5項規定之三項要件，即可認為系爭措施未與SPS 協定第5 條第5項之規定不一致。系爭措施也尚未完全滿足、符合恣意、前後矛盾或無法以法律上或道德上之理由來說明之專斷或不正當之措施，故難謂系爭措施與SPS 協定第2 條第3 項之規定不一致。是否有其他替代措施，且替代措施同時可以達到我國所選擇之適當之保護水準（豬肉零萊克多巴胺殘留之風險），對於我國政府亦屬於技術及經濟之可行，並明顯地對於貿易限制效果較小者；依SPS 協定第5 條第6 項之規定須由控訴會員負舉證責任，則難謂系爭措施與SPS 協定第5 條第6 項之規定不一致。對我國消費者而言，牛、豬二者非屬於同類產品。既然二者非屬於同類產品，則當然無系爭措施是否違反最惠國待遇義務和國民待遇義務之問題。因此，系爭措施並無違反GATT 第1 條第1 項規定和第3 條第2 項及第4 項規定。我國實施之原產地標示措施係屬於TBT 協定所規定之技術性法規，非屬於SPS 協定之適用範圍。TBT 協定第2 條第1 項之規定與GATT 第3 條第4 項之國民待遇義務相類似，系爭標示措施並未給予進口產品低於本國同類產品之待遇，而與TBT 協定第2 條第1 項之規定相一致。消費者權益之保護與消費者資訊之提供雖非屬於TBT 協定第2 條第2 項明文列舉之合法目的，消費者權益之保護與消費者資訊之提供仍應屬於TBT 協定第2 條第2 項所規範之合法目的之一。在其他會員尚未提出符合要件之其他替代措施之情況下，難謂我國之標示措施與TBT 協定第2 條第2 項之規定不一致。在相關之科學證據並不充分之情形，內臟零殘留之措施即屬於SPS 協定第5 條第7 項之暫時性措施，得依據SPS 協定第2 條第4 項之規定，推定其為符合GATT 第20 條第b 款之措施。進口產品逐批檢驗與國內檢驗程序似乎不同，屬於對於進口產品之檢驗程序為專斷或不正當之差別對待，與SPS 協定第8 條和附件C 第1 項之規定不一致。我國風險評估程序及食品風險評估諮議會，在諮詢、建議或審議時，未能履行WTO 所要求實施風險評估之要件，與SPS 協定第5 條第1 項、第2 條第2 項之規定不一致。未將風險評估與風險管理分離，似與SPS協定第5 條第1 項實施風險評估之精神有所不符。

Taiwan is a member of the WTO, and the legal system of Ractopamine, a method of trade limitation, is under Article 1 of the SPS agreement which prescribes the sanitary and phytosanitary measures. The maximal residue level of Ractopamine in beef is 0.01 ppm, a standard that conforms to the international standards, guidelines and recommendations, and, according to Article 3.2 of the SPS agreement, the disputed measure is presumed to be consistent with the SPS agreement and GATT standards. Limiting Ractopamine residues of pork imported in Taiwan is performed under “zero risk” high restriction standards, and certainly conforms to Article 5.4 of the SPS agreement. Under the presence of prima facie evidence showing that Taiwan violates Article 3.3 of the SPS agreement, Taiwan would be responsible to disclaim these accusations with proof. If the disputed measure does not simultaneously satisfy the three conditions stated in Article 5.5 of the SPS agreement, then the measure is not regarded as inconsistent with Article 5.5 of the SPS agreement. The disputed measure is not arbitrary or unjustifiable measure, because it does not fulfil capriciousness, inconsistency, and other illegally and unmorally justification. Therefore, it is hard to conclude that the disputed measure is inconsistent with Article 2.3 of the SPS agreement. There may be an alternative measure that can meet Taiwan’s standard (zero Ractopamine residue in pork), is economically and technically feasible, and is less trade-restrictive. According to Article 5.6 of the SPS agreement, the complainant is responsible for presenting evidence, or else the disputed measure cannot be said to be inconsistent with the SPS agreement. To the consumers of Taiwan, beef and pork are not considered to be the like products. Since they are not considered the like products, the measure does not conflict with the most-favored nation treatment and the national treatment. For these reasons, the disputed measure does not contradict Article 1.1, 3.2, and 3.4 of the GATT. The labeling of country of origin in Taiwan is a technical regulation under the TBT agreement, not under the SPS agreement. Article 2.1 of the TBT agreement is similar to the national treatment of Article 3.4 of the GATT; the labeling measure does not accord lower treatment to imported products in comparison to domestic products, which is consistent with Article 2.1 of the TBT agreement. Although the protection of consumer rights and purveying of information to consumers is not a part of the objective of Article 2.2 of the TBT agreement, they should be an objective of Article 2.2 of the TBT agreement. Until other WTO members provide possible less trade-restrictive alternative measures, it cannot be said that Taiwan’s labeling measures is inconsistent with Article 2.2 of the TBT agreement. Under the insufficiency of relevant scientific evidence, the restriction measure of no residue in viscera products is a provisional measure under Article 5.7 of the SPS agreement, and is presumed to conform to Article 20 (b) of the GATT, according to Article 2.4 of the SPS agreement. The inspection of import products is different than that of domestic products, which is considered an act of arbitrary and unjustifiable discrimination, inconsistent with Article 8 and annex C (1) of the SPS agreement. The procedure of risk assessment, and the consultation, recommendation and deliberation of the Food Risk Assessment Advisory Committee, would not fulfill WTO’s requirements of risk assessment, which is inconsistent with Article 5.1 and 2.2 of the SPS agreement. Not separating risk assessment with risk management seems to be inconsistent with the principle of Article 5.1 of the SPS agreement.

第一章 緒論 1
第一節、研究背景 1
第二節、研究動機 6
第三節、研究目的 11
第四節、研究限制與範圍 15
第五節、研究方法 15
第一項、文獻分析法 15
第二項、實證規範分析法 16
第三項、實證案例分析法 16
第四項、比較法分析法 17
第六節、研究架構 17
第二章 GATT之相關規範 19
第一節、GATT第1條第1項之最惠國待遇原則 20
第一項、涵蓋事項 22
第二項、同類產品 23
第三項、立即且條件授予會員「利益、優惠、特權或豁免」 26
第二節、GATT第3條第4項之國民待遇原則 27
第一項、同類產品 31
第二項、影響產品銷售與使用等之法規 37
第三項、不低於國內產品之待遇 38
第四項、國民待遇之例外規定 41
第三節、GATT第20條第B款之例外條款 42
第一項、GATT第20條之本質與功能 42
第二項、GATT第20條前言與個別要件之關係 43
第三項、GATT第20條第b款之個別例外 45
第四項、GATT第20條前言之要件 57
第三章 SPS協定之相關規範 61
第一節、SPS協定成立背景與設立目的 61
第一項、SPS協定成立背景 61
第二項、SPS協定設立目的 62
第二節、SPS協定之適用範圍與其他協定之關係 63
第一項、動植物衛生檢驗措施 64
第二項、SPS協定與其他涵蓋協定之關係 72
第三節、會員實施動植物衛生檢驗措施之一般性規定 78
第一項、會員有權利採取動植物衛生檢驗措施 79
第二項、會員實施動植物衛生檢驗措施之要求 80
第四節、會員實施動植物衛生檢驗措施之依據 84
第一項、以國際標準、準則或建議為基礎 85
第二項、會員採取高於國際標準、準則或建議之保護水準 87
第五節、暫時性之動植物之衛生檢驗措施 105
第六節、動植物衛生檢驗措施應遵守透明化原則 112
第七節、動植物衛生檢驗措施應採行同等效力 113
第八節、管制和檢驗與核可程序 115
第四章 TBT協定之相關規範 117
第一節、TBT協定適用範圍 118
第二節、TBT協定第2條技術性法規 124
第一項、不歧視原則 125
第二項、必要性原則 130
第三項、調和原則 132
第三節、透明化原則 139
第四節、符合性評估程序 139
第五章 國際間與我國對於萊克多巴胺之規範架構 145
第一節、萊克多巴胺及乙型受體素之說明 145
第一項、乙型受體素概述 145
第二項、萊克多巴胺 147
第三項、其他種類之乙型受體素 150
第二節、各國對於萊克多巴胺之管制 155
第三節、我國對於萊克多巴胺之管制 157
第一項、我國管制法規之歷史脈絡 157
第二項、有條件開放 162
第三項、檢驗查驗方式之管制 175
第六章我國萊克多巴胺管制法律制度與WTO之義務一致性之探討 177
第一節、藥品殘留的部分 177
第一項、萊克多巴胺之管制措施之性質 177
第二項、管制措施之合致性之討論 180
第二節、牛豬分離之管制手段 186
第一項、SPS協定第5條第4項之規定 186
第二項、SPS協定第3條第3項之義務 186
第三項、SPS協定第5條第5項之義務 188
第四項、SPS協定第2條第3項之義務 191
第五項、SPS協定第5條第6項之義務 192
第六項、GATT第3條與第1條之義務 193
第三節、強制標示義務之課予 194
第一項、標示原產地措施之性質 195
第二項、TBT協定相關條文之探討 200
第四節、內臟排除之措施 208
第一項、SPS協定第3條第1項與第5條第7項之規定 208
第二項、SPS協定第8條之規定 210
第五節、我國食品安全風險評估之建立 212
第一項、「食品安全風險管理」專章之設立 212
第二項、風險分析體系的建立 217
第七章結論 221
參考文獻 229

壹、中文文獻
一、專書
1.王錦堂（2000）。大學學術研究與寫作。台北：東華書局。
2.羅昌發（2010）。國際貿易法。台北：元照出版公司。

二、專書論文
1.黃美雲（2004）。《一般化需求體系模型之設定與選擇－以台灣肉類消費需求為例》。行政院國家科學委員會補助專題研究計畫。

三、期刊論文
1.牛惠之（2002）。〈論規範基因改良食品風險性之貿易措施在世界貿易組織下之同類產品議題〉，《東吳法律學報》，14卷1期，頁19-56。
2.牛惠之（2004）。〈世界貿易組織之SPS協定關於風險評估與風險管理之規範體系與爭端案例研究〉，《台灣國際法季刊》，1卷2期，頁151-236。
3.牛惠之（2004）。〈世界貿易組織SPS 協定第五條第七項之研究—爭端案例中關於暫時性措施要件與預防原則之評析〉，《政大法學評論》，79期，頁257-311。
4.牛惠之（2007）。〈WTO技術性貿易障礙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期，頁323-383。
5.汪文豪（2012）。〈揭露政府未公開報告瘦肉精將衝擊畜牧產業〉，《台灣法學雜誌》，199期，頁29-31。
6.林彩瑜（2006）。〈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》，36卷4期，頁257-323。
7.周晉澄（2012）。〈台灣人需要美國瘦肉精萊克多巴胺的調養嗎〉，《新世紀智庫論壇》，57期，頁71-73。
8.李瑋埕、謝綺文、周珮如、古遠丰、蘇淑珠、施養志（2009）。〈市售畜禽產品中動物用藥乙型受體素類（β-Agonists）殘留量調查〉，《藥物食品檢驗局調查研究年報》，27期，頁188-196。
9.徐揮彥（2002）。〈世界貿易組織法律架構與人權保障理念之接軌：一般例外條款運用法理之探討〉，《政大法學評論》，71期，頁237-301。
10.倪貴榮、曾文智、魏翠亭（2002）。〈從世界貿易組織荷爾蒙案論預防原則之適用與發展〉，《問題與研究》，41卷6期，頁61 -80。
11.倪貴榮、吳慈珮（2010）。〈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》，176期，頁147-159。
12.陳妙帆、李宏萍、翁愫慎（2000）。〈作業環境農藥暴露評估生物偵測方法概述〉，《行政院農業委員會農業藥物毒物試驗所技術專刊》，96期，頁1-6。
13.楊婉苓（2002）。〈預防原則對GMO爭議之反省（上）〉，《科技法律透析》，14卷12期，頁57 -62。
14.楊婉苓（2003）。〈預防原則對GMO爭議之反省（下）〉，《科技法律透析》，15卷1期，頁47-62。
15.劉翠玲（2012）。〈臺灣進口食品趨勢與風險分析〉，《農業生技產業季刊》，30卷，頁1-16。
16.劉鋼、徐瑞玲、陳文雄（2013）。〈產地標示與台灣消費者對國產牛肉之價格溢酬〉，《人文及社會科學集刊》，25卷1期，頁1-44。
17.顏志昇（2013）。〈試析俄羅斯肉品之萊克多巴胺零殘留措施與SPS規範之合致性〉，《經貿法訊》，144 期，頁1-5。
18.譚偉恩、蔡育岱（2009）。〈食品政治：「誰」左右了國際食品安全的標準〉，《政治科學論叢》，42期，頁1-42。

四、學位論文
1.王希平（2002）。《基因改造食品管理之相關法律問題研究》。東吳大學法律學系研究所碩士論文。
2.呂麗蓉（2002）。《食品次需求體系之建構-以臺灣地區漁畜類產品為例》。國立海洋大學應用經濟研究所碩士論文。
3.林書宇（2007）。《SPS協定下我國瘦肉精畜產品進口限制措施之研究》。國立臺灣海洋大學海洋法律研究所碩士論文。
4.林佳慶（2002）。《台灣肉品消費之分析》。中國文化大學經濟學研究所碩士論文。
5.吳又茗（2009）。《歐盟與美國訴諸WTO有關生技（GMO）產品貿易爭端案的衝突與解決》。淡江大學歐洲研究所博士班博士論文。
6.吳淑靜（2009）。《由SPS協定檢視毒奶粉事件之台灣因應措施》。輔仁大學財經法律學碩士論文。
7.吳俊英（2002）。《預防原則於世界貿易組織法體系之適用─以SPS協定與基因改造食品貿易之爭議為中心》。國立交通大學科技法律研究所碩士論文。
8.孫寅瑞（2001）。《牛肉成為台灣漢人副食品的歷史觀察》。國立中央大學歷史研究所碩士論文。
9.孫敏超（2011）。《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》。國立交通大學科技法律研究所碩士論文。
10.陳慧芝（2009）。《WTO爭端解決小組就GMO爭議之裁決分析—以SPS Agreement第2.2條、第5.1條及第5.7條之解釋及適用為主》。國立交通大學科技法律研究所碩士論文。
11.陳品錄（2013）。《消費者對購買牛肉產品之重視程度、營養認知、安全觀感、口感風味與購買意願之相關研究》。國立高雄應用科技大學觀光與餐旅管理系碩士論文。
12.黃錦儀（1992）。《臺灣肉品完整需求體系之研究》。國立台灣大學農業經濟研究所碩士論文。
13.馮莉婷（1996）。《臺灣漁產品需求體系之研究》。國立海洋大學漁業經濟研究所碩士論文。
14.張孫福（2002）。《基因改造食品關於標示要求之國際貿易議題之研究》。東吳大學法律學系研究所碩士論文。
15.楊一晴（2004）。《論WTO對於公共衛生議題在國際法之發展與實踐—TRIPS協定與SPS協定之研究》。東吳大學法律學系碩士論文。
16.蔡嘉容（2012）。《瘦肉精事件對台灣牛肉需求結構變化之研究》。中興大學應用經濟學系所碩士論文。
17.賴昱誠（2011）。《從食品安全檢驗與動植物防疫檢疫措施協定論臺美牛肉議定書之爭議》。國立政治大學外交研究所碩士論文。

五、政府刊物
1.行政院衛生署食品藥物管理局（2007）。〈瘦肉精說分明〉，《藥物食品安全週報》，97期，頁1。
2.行政院衛生署食品藥物管理局（2011）。〈畜牧禁用乙型受體素肉品不得檢出〉，《藥物食品安全週報》，281期，頁2-3。
3.行政院衛生署食品藥物管理局（2012）。〈牛肉萊克多巴胺「訊息清楚」、「選購安心」〉，《藥物食品安全週報》，360期，頁1-2。
4.行政院衛生署食品藥物管理局（2012）。〈落實牛肉產地標示—安心選購放心食用〉，《藥物食品安全週報》，361期，頁1-2。
5.行政院衛生署食品藥物管理局（2012）。〈確立萊克多巴胺之安全容許量—落實產地標示〉，《藥物食品安全週報》，362期，頁1-2。
6.行政院衛生署食品藥物管理局（2012）。〈牛肉產地標示問與答—共通性規範篇〉，《藥物食品安全週報》365期，頁2-3。
7.行政院衛生署食品藥物管理局（2012）。〈牛肉產地標示問與答—有容器或包裝食品篇〉，《藥物食品安全週報》，366期，頁2-3。
8.行政院農業委員會。《中華民國 99 年度中央政府總預算案審查總報告（修正本）》。
9.行政院農業委員會。《中華民國102年度中央政府總預算案審查總報告（修正本）》。
10.行政院衛生福利部。《2013年年度中央政府總預算案審查總報告（修正本）》，頁755-756。
11.立法院（2007）。《委員會審查》，97卷31期3642號。

六、研討會論文
1.詹東榮（03/25/2011）。萊克多巴胺概說-藥理學特性與應用。劉朝鑫（主持人），萊克多巴胺（Ractopamine培林）面面觀，慶祝2011世界獸醫年及建國百年系列活動。台北：國立臺灣大學。

七、網頁文章
1.王清要（2013）。《漁產品就是最好的保健食品》，載於兩岸農業商務網站http://www.2to1agri.com/APAGRI/21.nsf/ByUNID/DE78C7318AA3191E48256F9000373909?opendocument（最後瀏覽日：04/11/2014）。
2.周晉澄（2012）。《美牛風暴不可截的秘密》，載於台灣新社會智庫網站http://www.taiwansig.tw/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=4184（最後瀏覽日：04/11/2014）。
3.林巍（2012）。《美牛議題對於國內豬農影響評估》，載於財團法人國家政策研究基金會網站，http://www.npf.org.tw/post/3/10468（最後瀏覽日：04/11/2014）。
4.國家環境毒物研究中心（2014）。《美牛進口後國人體內瘦肉精殘留量之流行病學監測與健康影響評估》，載於國家環境毒物研究中心網站http://nehrc.nhri.org.tw/toxic/ref/%E7%98%A6%E8%82%89%E7%B2%BE.pdf （最後瀏覽日：04/11/2014）。
5.張愷致（2012）。《我國對含萊克多巴胺畜品進口規範之WTO之適法性分析》，載於中華民國國際法學會網站http://www.csil.org.tw/home/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/%E7%A0%94%E8%A8%8E%E6%9C%83(%E5%9B%9B)%E5%9C%8B%E9%9A%9B%E8%B2%BF%E6%98%93/%E5%BC%B5%E6%84%B7%E8%87%B4_%E6%88%91%E5%9C%8B%E5%B0%8D%E5%90%AB%E8%90%8A%E5%85%8B%E5%A4%9A%E5%B7%B4%E8%83%BA%E7%95%9C%E5%93%81%E9%80%B2%E5%8F%A3%E8%A6%8F%E7%AF%84%E4%B9%8BWTO%E9%81%A9%E6%B3%95%E6%80%A7%E5%88%86%E6%9E%90.pdf（最後瀏覽日：04/11/2014）。


貳、外文文獻
一、專書
1.Bossche, P. V. D. (2008). The Law and Policy of the World Trade Organization: Text, Cases and Materials. UK: Cambridge University.
2.Jackson, J. H. (1969). World Trade and the Law of GATT. Lexis LawPub.
3.Jackson, J. H. (1997). The World Trade System: Law and Policy of International Economic Relations. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.
4.Jackson, J. H., Davey, W. J., Sykes, A. O. (1995). Legal Problems of International Economic Relations: Cases, Materials and Text on the National and International Regulation of Transnational Economic Relations. West Group.
5.Hanrahan, J. P. (1987). β-Agonists and Their Effects on Animal Growth and Carcass Quality. London & New York: Elsevier Applied Science.
6.Hyder, K. (1968). Equality of Treatment and Trade Discrimination in International Law. Springer Netherlands.
7.Mavroidis, P. C. (2005). The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade: A Commentary. UK: Oxford University.
8.Mitsuo, M., Schoenbaum, T. J., Mavroidis, P. C. (2003). The World Trade Organization: Law, Practice, and Policy. UK: Oxford University.
9.Petersmann, E.U. (1995). International and European Trade and Environmental Law after the Uruguay Round. London: Kluwer Law International.
10.Simon, L., Bryan, M., Arwel, D., Kara, L. (2008). World Trade Law: Text, Materials and Commentary. UK: Hart Publishing.
11.Yusuf, A. (1982). Legal Aspects of Trade Preferences for Developing States: A Study in the Influence of Development Needs on the Evolution of International Law. The Hague: MartinusNijhoff.

二、期刊論文
1.Abraham, J., Reed, T. (2002). Progress, Innovation and Regulatory Science in Drug Development: The Politics of International Standard-Setting. Social Studies of Science, 32, 337-369.
2.Benjamin, P. Y. Lau, David, L., James, F. L. (1997). Confirmation Analysis of Clenbuterol in Beef Liver and Minced Beef by a Combination of Immunoaffinity Chromatography and Liquid Chromatography/Electrospray Mass Spectrometry or Liquid Chromatography/Electrospray Tandem Mass spectrometry. Journal of Mass Spectrometry, 32[6], 655-661.
3.Bhala, R., Gantz, D. A. (2003). WTO Case Review 2002. Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law, 20, 143-289.
4.Charnovitz, S. (1991). Exploring the Environmental Exceptions in GATT Article XX. Journal of World Trade, 25[5], 7-55.
5.Charnovitz, S. (2000).The Supervision of Health and Biosafety Regulation by World Trade Rules. Tulane Environmental Law Journal, 13, 271-302.
6.Deborah, A. O. (2002). GATT/WTO Necessity Analysis: Evolutionary Interpretation and its Impact on the Autonomy of Domestic Regulation. Legal Issues of Economic Integration, 29, 123-141.
7.Desmedt, A. (2001). Proportionality in WTO Law. Journal of the International Economic Law, 4[3], 441-480.
8.Dunoff, J. L. (1994). Resolving Trade-Environment Conflicts: The Case for Trading Institutions. Cornell International LawJournal, 27, 607-629.
9.Hahnau, S., Jülicher B. (1996). Evaluation of Commercially Available ELISA Test Kits for the Detection of Clenbuterol and other β-agonists. Food Additives & Contaminants, 13[3], 259-274.
10.Kennedy, K. C. (2000). Resolving International Sanitary and Phytosanitary Disputes in the WTO: Lessons and Future Directions. Food and Drug Law Journal, 55[1], 81-104.
11.Klabbers, J. (1992). Jurisprudence in International Trade Law: Article XX of GATT. Journal of World Trade, 26[2], 63-94.
12.Majone, G. (1984). Science and Trans-Science in Standard Setting. Science Technology & Human Values, 9[1], 15-22.
13.Marceau, G., Trachtman, J. P. (2002). The Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement, the Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures Agreement and General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade: A Map of the World Trade Organization Law of Domestic Regulation of Goods. Journal of World Trade, 36[5], 811-881.
14.Martínez-Navarro, J .F. (1990). Food Poisoning Related to Consumption of Illicit β-agonist in liver. The Lancet, 336[8726], 1311.
15.Polettini, A. (1996). Bioanalysis of β2-agonists by Hyphenated Chromatographic and Mass Spectrometric Techniques. Journal of Chromatography B: Biomedical Sciences and Applications, 687[1], 27-42.
16.Pulce, C., Lamaison, D., Keck, G., Vironnois, C. B., Nicolas, J., Descotes, J. (1991). Collective Human Food Poisoning by Clenbuterol Residues in Veal Liver. Veterinary and Human Toxicology, 33[5], 480-481.
17.Shannon, G. (2010). Importing a Change in Diet: The Proposed Food Safety Law of 2010 and the Possible Impact on Importers and International Trade. Food and Drug Law Journal, 65, 1-36.
18.Victor, D. G. (2000). The Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement of the World Trade Organization: An Assessment after Five Years. New York University Journal of International Law and Politics, 32[4], 865-937.
19.Wagner, W.E. (1995). The Science Charade in Toxic Risk Regulation. Columbia Law Review, 95, 1613-1723.
20.Walker, V. R. (1998). Keeping the WTO from Becoming the “World Trans-Science Organization”: Scientific Uncertain, Science Policy, and Fact finding in the Growth Hormones Dispute. Cornell International Law Journal, 31, 251-296.
21.Wirth, D. A. (1994). The Role of Science in the Uruguay Round and NAFTA Trade Disciplines. Cornell International Law Journal, 27,817-859.
22.Zarrilli, S. (1997). Trade and Environment - The Rules, Panels and Debate in the World Trade Organization. World Competition: Law and Economics Review, 20[3], 93-130.
23.Zedalis, R. J. (1994). A Theory of the GATT “Like” Product Common Language Cases. Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, 27[33], 77-86.

三、國際組織報告
（一）爭端案件報告
I.GATT時期
1.Belgian Family Allowances, G/32, adopted 7 November 1952, BISD 1S/59.
2.Canada – Administration of the Foreign Investment Review Act, L/5504, adopted 7 February 1984, BISD 30S/140.
3.Canada – Import, Distribution and Sale of Alcoholic Drinks by Canadian Provincial Marketing Agencies, L/6304, adopted 22 March 1988, BISD 35S/37.
4.Canada, Japan – Tariff on Imports of Spruce, Pine, Fir (SPF) Dimension Lumber, L/6470, adopted 19 July 1989, BISD 36S/167.
5.EEC – Measures on Animal Feed Proteins, L/4599, adopted 14 March 1978, BISD 25S/49.
6.Italian Discrimination Against Imported Agricultural Machinery, L/833, adopted 23 October 1958, BISD 7S/60.
7.Japan – Customs Duties, Taxes and Labelling Practices on Imported Wines and Alcoholic Beverages, L/6216, adopted 10 November 1987, BISD 34S/83.
8.Spain – Tariff Treatment of Unroasted Coffee, L/5135, adopted 11 June 1981, BISD 28S/102.
9.Thailand – Restrictions on Importation of and Internal Taxes on Cigarettes, DS10/R, adopted 7 November 1990, BISD 37S/200.
10.United States – Prohibition of Imports of Tuna and Tuna Products from Canada, L/5198, adopted 22 February 1982, BISD 29S/91.
11.United States – Imports of Certain Automotive Spring Assemblies, L/5333, adopted 26 May 1983, BISD 30S/107.
12.United States – Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, adopted on 7 November 1989, BISD 36S/345.
13.United States – Restrictions on Imports of Tuna, DS21/R, 3 September 1991, unadopted, BISD 39S/155.
14.United States – Denial of Most-Favoured-Nation Treatment as to Non-Rubber Footwear from Brazil, DS18/R, adopted 19 June 1992, BISD 39S/128.
15.United States – Measures Affecting Alcoholic and Malt Beverages, DS23/R, adopted 19 June 1992, BISD 39S/206.
16.United States – Restrictions on Imports of Tuna, DS29/R, 16 June 1994, unadopted.

II. WTO時期
1.Australia – Measures Affecting Importation of Salmon, WT/DS18/R, adopted 6 November 1998.
2.Australia – Measures Affecting Importation of Salmon – Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by Canada, WT/DS18/RW, adopted 20 March 2000.
3.Brazil – Measures Affecting Imports of Retreaded Tyres, WT/DS332/R, adopted 12 June 2007, as modified by Appellate Body Report WT/DS332/AB/R.
4.Brazil – Measures Affecting Imports of Retreaded Tyres, WT/DS332/AB/R, adopted 3 December 2007.
5.Canada – Certain Measures Affecting the Automotive Industry, WT/DS139/R, and WT/DS142/R, adopted as modified by Appellate Body 19 June 2000.
6.Canada – Certain Measures Affecting the Automotive Industry, WT/DS139/AB/R, WT/DS142/AB/R, adopted 19 June 2000
7.Canada – Patent Protection of Pharmaceutical Products, WT/DS114/R, adopted adopted 7 April 2000.
8.China – Measures Related to the Exportation of Various Raw Materials, WT/DS394/R, WT/DS395/R, WT/DS398/R, adopted as modified by Appellate Body 22 February 2012.
9.Dominican Republic – Measures Affecting the Importation and Internal Sale of Cigarettes, WT/DS302/R, adopted 19 May 2005.
10.Dominican Republic – Measures Affecting the Importation and Internal Sale of Cigarettes, WT/DS302/AB/R, adopted 19 May 2005.
11.European Communities – Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones), WT/DS48/R, 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.
12.European Communities – Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas, WT/DS27/AB/R, adopted 25 September 1997.
13.European Communities – 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.
14.European Communities – Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones), WT/DS26/AB/R, adopted 13 February 1998.
15.European Communities – Measures Affecting Asbestos and Asbestos-Containing Products, WT/DS135/R, adopted 5 April 2001, as modified by Appellate Body Report WT/DS135/AB/R.
16.European Communities – Measures Affecting Asbestos and Asbestos-Containing Products, WT/DS135/AB/R, adopted adopted 5 April 2001.
17.European Communities – Trade Description of Sardines, WT/DS231/R, adopted 23 October 2002, as modified by Appellate Body Report WT/DS231/AB/R.
18.European Communities – Trade Description of Sardines, WT/DS231/AB/R, adopted 23 October 2002.
19.European Communities – Conditions for the Granting of Tariff Preferences to Developing Countries, WT/DS246/AB/R, adopted 20 April 2004.
20.European Communities – Measures Affecting Trade in Commercial Vessels, WT/DS301/R, adopted 20 June 2005.
21.European Communities – Measures Affecting the Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products, WT/DS291/R, WT/DS292/R, WT/DS293/R, adopted 21 November 2006.
22.European Communities – Measures Prohibiting the Importation and Marketing of Seal Products, WT/DS400/R, WT/DS401/R, circulated to WTO Members 25 November 2013.
23.Indonesia – Certain Measures Affecting the Automobile Industry, WT/DS54/R, WT/DS55/R, WT/DS59/R, WT/DS64/R, adopted 23 July 1998.
24.Japan – Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages, WT/DS8/AB/R, WT/DS10/AB/R, WT/DS11/AB/R, adopted 1 November 1996.
25.Japan – Measures Affecting Consumer Photographic Film and Paper, WT/DS44/R, adopted 22 April 1998.
26.Japan – Measures Affecting Agricultural Products, WT/DS76/R, adopted 19 March 1999, as modified by Appellate Body Report WT/DS76/AB/R.
27.Japan – Measures Affecting Agricultural Products, WT/DS76/AB/R, adopted 19 March 1999.
28.Japan – Measures Affecting the Importation of Apples, WT/DS245/R, adopted 10 December 2003.
29.Korea – Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages, WT/DS84/AB/R, adopted 17 February 1999.
30.Korea – Measures Affecting Imports of Fresh, Chilled and Frozen Beef, WT/DS161/R, WT/DS169/R, adopted 10 January 2001, as modified by Appellate Body Report WT/DS161/AB/R, WT/DS169/AB/R.
31.Korea – Measures Affecting Imports of Fresh, Chilled and Frozen Beef, WT/DS161/AB/R, WT/DS169/AB/R, adopted 10 January 2001.
32.Mexico – Tax Measures on Soft Drinks and Other Beverages, WT/DS308/R, adopted 24 March 2006.
33.Philippines – Taxes on Distilled Spirits, WT/DS396/AB/R and WT/DS403/AB/R, adopted 20 January 2012.
34.Thailand – Customs and Fiscal Measures on Cigarettes from the Philippines, WT/DS371/AB/R, adopted 15 July 2011.
35.United States – Standards for Reformulated and Conventional Gasoline, WT/DS2/R, adopted 20 May 1996, as modified by Appellate Body Report WT/DS2/AB/R.
36.United States – Standards for Reformulated and Conventional Gasoline, WT/DS2/AB/R, adopted 20 May 1996.
37.United States – Measure Affecting Imports of Woven Wool Shirts and Blouses from India, WT/DS33/AB/R, adopted 23 May 1997.
38.United States – Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products, WT/DS58/AB/R, adopted 6 November 1998.
39.United states – Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports of Wheat Gluten from the European Communities, WT/DS166/AB/R, adopted 19 January 2001.
40.United States – Measures Affecting the Cross-Border Supply of Gambling and Betting Services, WT/DS285/AB/R, adopted 20 April 2005.
41.United States, Canada – Continued Suspension of Obligations in the EC-Hormones Dispute, WT/DS320/AB/R, adopted 14 November 2008.
42.United States – Certain Measures Affecting Imports of Poultry from China, WT/DS392/R, adopted 25 October 2010.
43.United States – Measures Affecting the Production and Sale of Clove Cigarettes, WT/DS406/R, adopted 24 April 2012, as modified by Appellate Body Report WT/DS406/AB/R.
44.United States – Measures Concerning the Importation, Marketing and Sale of Tuna and Tuna Products, WT/DS381/R, adopted 13 June 2012, as modified by Appellate Body Report WT/DS381/AB/R.
45.United States – Measures Concerning the Importation, Marketing and Sale of Tuna and Tuna Products, WT/DS381/AB/R, adopted 13 June 2012.
46.United States – Certain Country of Origin Labelling (COOL) Requirements, WT/DS384/R, WT/DS386/R, adopted 23 July 2012, as modified by Appellate Body Reports WT/DS384/AB/R, WT/DS386/AB/R.
47.United States – Certain Country of Origin Labelling (COOL) Requirements, WT/DS384/AB/R, WT/DS386/AB/R, adopted 23 July 2012.

（二）其他報告
1.Codex Alimentarius Commission (1997). Report of the Ninth Session of the Codex Committee on Residues of Veterinary Drugs in Foods.
2.Codex Alimentarius Commission (2003). Report of the Thirteenth Session of the Codex Committee on Residues of Veterinary Drugs in Foods.
3.Codex Alimentarius Commission (2003). Report of the Fourteenth Session of the Codex Committee on Residues of Veterinary Drugs in Foods.
4.Codex Alimentarius Commission (2004). Codex Procedural Manual 14th edition.
5.Codex Alimentarius Commission (2012). Reoprt of the Sixty Seventh Session of the Executive Committee of the Codex Alimentarius Commission, Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Programme Codex Alimentarius Commission 35th Session.
6.Codex Alimentarius Commission (2012). Maximum Residue Limits for Veterinary Drugs in Foods, Updated as at the 35th Session of the Codex Alimentarius Commission.
7.GATT (1970). Report of the Working Party, Border Tax Adjustments, L/3464.
8.World Health Assembly (1990). Forty-third World Health Assembly, Fourteenth plenary meeting, A/43/VR/14, WHA43.16.
9.World Trade Organization (2001). Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, Experiences in Recognizing Equivalence of Phytosanitary Measures, G/SPS/GEN/232.
10.World Trade Organization (2000). Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, Guidelines to Further the Practical Implementation of Article 5.5, G/SPS/15.
11.World Health Organization (1993). WHO Food Additive Series 30, Toxicological Evaluation of Certain Food Additives and Naturally Occurring Toxicants.
12.World Health Organization (2004). WHO Food Additive Series 53, Toxicological Evaluation of Certain Food Additives and Naturally Occurring Toxicants.
13.World Health Organization & Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nation (2004). Residues of some Veterinary drugs in animals and foods, Monographs prepared by the sixty-second meeting of the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives.
14.World Health Organization & Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2004). Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives, Evaluation of Certain Veterinary Drug Residues in Food: Sixty-second report of the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives.
15.World Health Organization & Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nation (2006). Evaluation of Certain Veterinary Drug Residues in Food: Sixty-sixth report of the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives.
16.World Health Organization & Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nation (2006). Residue Evaluation of Certain Veterinary Drugs, Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives, Sixty-sixth meeting 2006.
17.World Health Organization & Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nation (2010). Residue Evaluation of Certain Veterinary Drugs, Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives, Meeting 2010 - Evaluation of data on ractopamine residues in pig tissues.