WTO「資訊科技協定」(ITA)於1996年底通過後成效彰顯，為多邊貿易體系部門別自由化方案之典範。然而當前快速的科技發展帶動新興資訊科技產品持續問世，以致該等產品究否屬於ITA通過當時所規範零關稅之產品範圍產生爭議，問題殊值深究。ITA生效以來首宗爭端解決個案即屬適例。按該案係我國、美國與日本於2008年間共同指控歐盟在機上盒、多功能事務機與液晶顯示器等三項資訊科技產品之課稅措施，違反WTO關稅減讓之規範。WTO爭端解決機制如何就科技發展實況解讀ITA產品範圍，對於ITA未來的執行成效具關鍵地位。 有關前揭個案之WTO適法性研究，本文認為WCO/HS公約稅則歸列見解可為參據，另可依據維也納條約法公約(VCLT)第31條與32條之解釋規則，考量全部或是多數會員對於系爭產品關稅待遇的「共同意願」。具體而言，基於VCLT第31條揭示的「本文內容」、「目的與宗旨」、「上下文脈絡」、「後續實務措施」與「相關國際法規範」等，通盤考量解讀歐盟關稅減讓表意涵，倘據此解讀後仍舊模糊難定，則依據VCLT第32條揭示的「條約協定的相關準備工作」與「完成當時的情境」等為輔助判斷。 鑑於此類爭議將演變為體制性問題，本文提出二項建議方案。第一，採行ITA委員會通知處理機制尋求通案解決，討論過程納入貨品貿易規範在其他領域敘及之「同類產品」的認定要素，基於創新產品變動並參照當前科技發展等市場實務進行考量，合理擴張ITA產品範圍。第二，爭取在當前杜哈回合談判通過相關部門別自由化方案擴大ITA產品範圍，建構零或低關稅的資訊科技產品貿易環境，其落實將有助於全球資訊科技產業之發展，亦可強化多邊貿易體系之整體運作。 / Information Technology Agreement (hereinafter ITA) has made significant contribution to the free trade in IT products since its conclusion at the end of 1996. It has been recognized as a successful model of sectorial trade liberalization in the WTO multilateral trading system. However, with the rapid advent of new technology, challenges arising from the determination of tariff treatment on newly innovated IT products become outstanding. Indeed, whether those innovated products are subject to the duty-free treatment of ITA merits intensive considerations. As demonstrated in the first dispute specifically on the prodcut coverage of ITA, where Taiwan, United States and Japan filed against the European Communities in 2008 for three IT products, i.e. set-top box, multi-functional office machine and LCD monitor, how the disptue settlement institutions respond to the applicability of the ITA in the context of techonogical develpment would be critical to the effectiveness of future ITA. In this study, the author argues that relevant factors to be taken into account by the panel adjudicating the ITA dispute include the tariff classification principle embodied in the Harmonized System Convention of the WCO, as well as the “common intention” of all or a great majority of ITA participants pursuant to Article 31 and 32 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT). Specifically, an examination of the EC’s commitments under schedules of tariff concession by virtue of text (ordinary meaning), object and purpose, context, subsequent practice and relevant rules of international law as stipulated in Article 31 of the VCLT are of importance. Furthermore, looking at elements as to preparatory work and circumstances of the conclusion of the EC’s schedule in accordance with Article 32 of the VCLT is also relevant. On systemic issues, the author proposes two solutions. First, the inclusion of a new notification mechanism into the ITA Committee could be feasilbe. By adopting the concept of “like products” applicable to other fields of trade in goods, the ITA’s product coverage can be reasonably expanded on the basis of the modification of innovated products and advent of modern technology in the market. Second, achieving the consensus on sectorial liberalization of expanded IT products under on-going Doha Round would contribute to establish zero (or low) tariff environment for IT products, which would benefit not only to the global IT industry but also to the multilateral trading system as a whole.

觀察目前服務貿易總協定(General Agreement on Trade in Services, GATS)案件，涉及GATS第2條最惠國待遇與第17條國民待遇之數量佔有極高比例。適用第2條與第17條規定時，須先認定案件之服務或服務供給者符合「同類服務與服務供給者」，唯有確定會員系爭措施規範對象與其他會員之服務或服務供給者，抑或是國內服務或服務供給者為同類服務或同類服務供給者，方能檢驗會員系爭措施有無對同類服務與服務供給者為差別待遇，因此，「同類服務與服務供給者」乃第2條與第17條之先決要件，具有極關鍵性地位。 由於服務具有不可識別性與不可儲存性，欲判斷服務或服務供給者間是否為同類服務或服務供給者有相當困難度，加上GATS原文對「同類服務與服務供給者」之服務與服務供給者係以「和」為連接詞，引發學者與會員就如何解釋「同類服務」與「同類服務供給者」適用關係之爭議；甚而，GATS第1條第1項將規範之服務貿易區分為四種不同供給模式，以不同供給模式提供之服務或服務供給者是否會因供給模式而被認定為不同類服務或不同類服務供給者，亦是「同類服務與服務供給者」與GATS規範架構之適用爭議；此外，GATS第2條與第17條「同類服務與服務供給者」之適用範圍，應如何與其規範目的為相呼應之解釋，亦是極具挑戰性之課題。由此可見，「同類服務與服務供給者」存在諸多適用上爭議，尤其在爭端解決小組與上訴機構尚未就「同類服務與服務供給者」適用爭議提出說明之情形，研究「同類服務與服務供給者」乃刻不容緩之事。 鑑於世界貿易組織(World Trade Organization, WTO)之爭端解決小組與上訴機構對關稅與貨品貿易總協定(The General Agreement on Tariff and Trade, GATT)與WTO「同類產品」已大致建立認定方法，並對「同類產品」之適用爭議提出見解，GATS於談判過程中曾有會員建議以「同類情形」作為適用最惠國待遇與國民待遇之規範要件，本文除論述GATS涉及「同類服務與服務供給者」案件之爭端解決小組與上訴機構見解，亦分析GATT/WTO「同類產品」案件與北美區域自由貿易協定(North American Free Trade Agreement, NAFTA)牽涉「同類情形」案件之判決經驗，為認定GATS「同類服務與服務供給者」與相關適用爭議找尋可能之解決方案。 / Observing recent GATS(The General Agreement on Trade in Services)cases, there are almost quart cases relevant to non-discrimination regulations of GATS, Article 2 and 17.As applying to non-discrimination regulations of GATS, before examining whether Members’domestic measures have discriminated effects to block the international services market, applicants, the Panel or Appellate Body need to determine whether the services and services suppliers concerned are ‘like services’or ‘like service supplier’. For‘like services and service suppliers’being a crucial requirement of non-discrimination regulations in GATS, researching how this requirement is applied to dispute settlement cases is an important mission to GATS. Actually, the vital issues of ‘like services and service suppliers’include: how to determine the ‘like services’and ‘like service suppliers’, how to decide whether the services and service suppliers through different supply modes are like services and like service suppliers, and how to interpret the application between ‘like services’ and ‘like service suppliers’. Moreover, interpreting the coverage of ‘like services and service suppliers’ under GATS is also a tough issue. Notwithstanding the requirement of non-discrimination principles -‘like services and service suppliers’rises many applied issues, there are no regulations of GATS to define the meaning of ‘like services’ and ‘like service suppliers', and no regulations or explanatory footnotes to clarify the applied problems of ‘like services and service suppliers’. The only way for Members or scholars to realize how to apply to this requirement or to determine ‘like services and like service suppliers’ is to analyze relevant judgments of dispute settlement cases relevant. However, WTO dispute settlement panel or appellate body did not analyze the relevant applied issues of‘like services and services suppliers’, and not resolve those applied issues completely. For resolving those issues of ‘like services and service suppliers’, this article make relevant material divided into four parts. First of all is to discuss what issues‘like services and service suppliers’arises, and what the factors cause ‘like services and services suppliers’ is hard to be practiced. The second part is referring to the judgments of dispute settlement panel and appellate body in GATT(The General Agreement on Tariff and Trade)/WTO cases regarding the applications of ‘like products’. Then, referring to the judgments of NAFTA(The North American Free Trade Agreement) dispute settlement organization in NAFTA cases considering ‘like circumstances’. Finally, this article not only advances the resolutions to resolve those issues of ‘like services and service suppliers’, in order to improve the practice of this requirement, but also recommends several suggestions about modifying the content of this requirement.