安地瓜於2003年3月13日以美國採取全面禁止網路賭博服務之措施為由提起訴訟，小組報告於2004年11月10日出爐，美國與安地瓜均不服小組裁決分別提起上訴，上訴機構於2005年4月7日做出裁決。 上訴機構報告認定美國已對網路賭博服務做出承諾，且因美國並未於其特定承諾表中填寫市場開放及國民待遇之限制，因而美國所採全面禁止網路賭博服務之措施違反GATS第十六條第一項規定。美國接著援引GATS第十四條規定作為抗辯，後雖因其國內州際賽馬法（Interstate Horseracing Act）規定允許國內服務提供者提供網路賭博服務，而被上訴機構認定系爭措施違反第十四條前言之要求，然上訴機構最後肯認美國得採行全面禁止網路賭博之措施乃係本案最終關鍵。 為了談判結果之確定性、穩定性，及未來服務貿易談判之持續進行，是否允許會員在做出市場開放之承諾後，再援引第十四條規定改變其承諾範圍，因而影響其他會員對其開放市場之期待，並使援引第十四條規定之會員躲避其原依GATS第二十一條規定所應負之責任？而在得出會員無法援引第十四條規定改變其承諾範圍之結論後，美國在本案中是否得援引其他規定作為正當化其措施之主張？及第十四條與第六條、第十六條、第十七條間之關聯性？係本文主要探討之問題。 此案為第一個會員援引GATS第十四條作為抗辯之例子，可以預見此例對後續案件之影響，而上訴機構於本案中所得出結論是否妥適，則值得深思。 / Antigua and Barbuda sued the United States for its total prohibition of the cross-border supply of gambling and betting services on March 13, 2003. The WTO panel report was issued on November 10, 2004. Both Antigua and the United States appealed and the ruling of the Appellate Body came out on April 7, 2005. The Appellate Body held that the United States has made full market access and national treatment commitments for gambling and betting services, so the measures to prohibit the cross-border supply of gambling and betting services violated Article XVI:1 of the GATS. As a result, the United States cited Article XIV of the GATS to contradict. The Appellate Body ruled that the alleged measures violated the preamble of Article XIV because the Interstate Horseracing Act of the United States permits domestic service suppliers to provide Internet gambling and betting services. However, the Appellate Body’s recognition of the United States’ total prohibition of cross-border supply of gambling and betting services is a critical issue of this case. In order to make sure the certainty and the stability of negotiation outcomes, and keep negotiations on trade in services moving, would the WTO members be allowed to cite Article XIV to change the coverage of their commitments after having made market access commitments and to escape the obligation under Article XXI? After concluding that the members could not cite Article XIV to change the coverage of the commitments, could the United States cite other articles to justify the alleged measures? Furthermore, how are the connection between Article XIV, Article VI, Article XVI and Article XVII? All above are the main questions this thesis focuses on. This case is the first one that members cite Article XIV to contradict, and the influence on subsequent cases is foreseeable. Would such a conclusion of this case be appropriate? We might need to contemplate further.