由於TBT協定第2.1條與GATT第3.4條同為規範「國民待遇原則」，TBT協定卻缺乏如同GATT第20條一般例外之規定，致使TBT協定之規範似乎較諸GATT嚴格，而造成與TBT協定序言所肯認WTO會員國在在不構成恣意或無理歧視之手段，或成為國際貿易之隱藏性限制的情況下，擁有實行政策空間權力之宣言不符。 學者提出有三種解決方式：第一種為透過允許援引GATT第20條之一般例外以正當化TBT協定之違反；第二種為透過解釋之方式，將「同類產品」此一要件納入一般例外之彈性；第三種同樣主張以解釋之方式，惟係欲透過對「較低待遇」之解釋以達成彈性。現行實務係採第三種解釋方式，惟本文認為現行實務所新創之「正當管制區分」，其內涵涉及的是「可比性」，不應置於「較低待遇」中討論，因為此可能使得「同類產品」之認定變得較無意義。另一方面，「較低待遇」之通常意義無法容納上訴機構現在所為之「正當管制區分」之分析，而有司法造法之疑慮。因此，現行實務於理論之形塑似有不妥。 據此，本文認為透過對「同類產品」之解釋，將WTO會員國之政策空間納入，可能為一較合適之選擇。而此選擇可以有二種方法：第一、以「管制目的」而不以「市場競爭關係」為詮釋BTA方法中四項「指標」之核心概念。第二、以「管制目的」作為認定系爭產品是否為同類之「指標」。而由於前者有受限於BTA四項「市場經濟面向」指標，可能將使政府因非經濟因素之政策考量所採行之技術性法規，仍舊受到限制，故本文認為以「管制目的」作為認定「同類產品」之額外指標，為較妥適之方法。

服務貿易總協定（General Agreement on Trade in Services，GATS）秉持WTO之中心精神，以不歧視原則為重要基礎原則之一，分別規定於GATS第2條之最惠國待遇原則與第17條之國民待遇原則。 依據GATS第2條及第17條之規定，不歧視原則之要件包括：1)會員所採影響服務貿易之措施之要件；2)會員在特定承諾表做出開放承諾之要件（僅國民待遇原則）；3)來自其他會員之類似服務及服務供給者之要件；以及4)歧視性待遇之要件。 相較於GATT貨品貿易之不歧視原則而言，目前涉及GATS不歧視原則之要件與爭議問題等研究，仍處於發展階段，部分要件甚至仍未出現有力之實務見解，例如「服務及服務供給者之類似性」等，本文即希望透過拆解GATS不歧視原則之要件的方式，提出各要件可能發生之爭議問題，歸納分析目前WTO爭端解決實務見解及相關學術意見，一方面釐清GATS不歧視原則之法律全貌，一方面則藉由這些爭議的提出，期能拋磚引玉，對於將來有更多深化且精闢之相關研究之提出，有所助益。 最後，本文並依分析結果，針對各項爭議問題，提出我國目前法規體制在這些爭議問題下可能產生之疑義及我國主管機關可能之採行策略及方向建議。 關鍵字：服務貿易、服務貿易總協定、不歧視原則、最惠國待遇原則、國民待遇原則。 / Non-discrimination is one of the fundamental principles under the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS). It is embodied as the most-favored-nation treatment and the national treatment under the Articles 2 and 17 of the GATS. According to the Articles 2 and 17 of the GATS, the elements of non-discrimination include: 1) must be measures by Members affecting trade in services, 2) Members have made commitments in its Schedule (national treatment applies only), 3) likeness of services and service suppliers of Members, and 4) must be no less favourable treatment. Compared with non-discrimination under the GATT, which has been developed more completely, the elements and their related issues of non-discrimination under the GATS are still lacking representative or binding opinions. For example, the issue of “likeness of services and service suppliers” has not been addressed officially on findings of panel or appellate body reports. This article tries to analyze all elements under non-discrimination of the GATS, raise possible issues, and conclude related findings of WTO dispute settlement and opinions of academic publications. By doing this, the legal structure of GATS non-discrimination and possible issues would be clarified more completely. More importantly, we are hoping this beginning would help forward more and more future profounder researches focusing on issues of GATS non-discrimination. Finally, based on the research results, this Article brings up some potential problems which may happen under the legal system of our country and proposes possible strategies and measures to be taken. Key Words: Trade in services, GATS, non-discrimination, most-favored-nation treatment, national treatment.

2005年3月14日通過「反分裂國家法」，把廿多年來對台方針政策法律化，不僅上升為國家意志，且規範兩岸關係，使反分裂、維護國家主權領土完整有法可依。中共的「反獨」政策是配合國際戰略，為其「和平崛起」創造穩定的週邊環境，以「爭取談、準備打、不怕拖」作為「反獨」的最高原則。因此，我們可發現，中共制定「反分裂國家法」後，對台是以「底線清晰、彈性務實」與「軟硬兼施、分而治之」為指導方針，更特別強調如何與台灣推展交流合作。所以在對台交流作法上更趨靈活細緻，如釋放選擇性利益，拉攏我特定地域、黨派、階層、行業，以及擴大交流，深化兩岸經貿關係，更強調「主動出撃、區別對待、軟硬兼施、入島入心」，積極推動兩岸交流、給予我國民待遇以及廣邀我青年學子赴大陸交流等等。 本論文共分六章，茲將其內容分述如下： （一）第一章為緒論，主要說明本文的研究動機與目的，相關文獻回顧、研究途徑與研究方法、研究範圍與限制以及研究架構等。 （二）第二章探討中共對台交流策略的環境因素，先以中國大陸內部因素加以分析，再對國際因素以及台灣因素進行探討。 （三）第三章敘述胡錦濤主政下「反分裂國家法」制定之內容與意涵，首先分析胡錦濤主政下對台政策新思維，其次探討「反分裂國家法」之內容及意涵，最後分析「反分裂國家法」之意涵。 （四）第四章是探討中共制定「反分裂國家法」後對台交流策略與作法，首先探討「反分裂國家法」之目標，再討論中共制定「反分裂國家法」後對台交流策略。最後探討中共制定「反分裂國家法」後對台交流作法。 （五）第五章探討中共對台交流策略之評估，如中共在「反分裂國家法」後對台交流作法更趨務實，企圖打開兩岸僵局，並且以國民待遇化爭取民間，以及造成我政府壓力。 （六）第六章結論，探討中共對台交流策略之研究發現與建議，為使台海地區保持和平，應繼續爭取美國的支持以及加強兩岸交流合作。 / Ever since the “Anti-Secession Law” passed on March 14, 2005, it has legalized Taiwan policy in the last twenty years, which has not only elevated national volition but also confined the cross-Straits relations to gain a legal ground for “anti-secession” and to preserve national right and its territorial intact. The “anti-idependence”policy of Chinese Communists is tied in international strategy to create stable surroundings for its “peace initiatives,” and to observe the ultimate principle of “anti-independence” in the context of “negotiation first, ready for war and no fears of prolonging.” Therefore we found out that after Chinese Communists have set their“Anti-Secession Law,”with provided guidelines to treat Taiwan under“clear bottom line, flexible and practical” and “hard and soft play, splitting will rule” principles and a strong emphasis on promoting interexchange collaborations with Taiwan. Therefore the execution of interexchange collaborations with Taiwan are seen rather flexible and thorough in terms of optional interest concerns with an intention to release preferential to certain regions, parties, bureaucracy and industries and expanding interexchange scope, deepening cross-Straits economic relations. Furthermore stressed on the propaganda of “making initiatives, discrepancy treatments, hard and soft play, penetrating island to win hearts” with such aggressive interexchange activity promotions and an offer of national treatment and wide open policy for academics exchange in Mainland China to our youngsters. This thesis contains six chapters and the descriptions of each chapter as follows: A. Chapter One is a preface, which mainly describes research motive and objective of this article, and it includes the related literatures with research channels and methods, scope and limitation and the research restructure. B. Chapter Two is discovering the environmental factors of Taiwan interexchange strategy by the Chinese Communists, first part will analyze the internal factor of Mainland China and then global and Taiwan accordingly. C. Chapter Three describes the contents and meanings of “Anti-Secession Law” led by Hu Jintao, first will be the analysis of new aspirations toward Taiwan by Hu Jintao, second will discuss the contents and meanings of “Anti-Secession Law” and last will be the analysis of the meanings of “Anti-Secession Law.” D. Chapter Four is discussing the Taiwan interexchange strategy and execution of “Anti-Secession Law” set by the Chinese Communists. It will discuss the objective of “Anti-Secession Law” first and then Taiwan interexchange strategy after the setting of “Anti-Secession Law” by the Chinese Communists, finally, it will discuss the implementation of Taiwan interexchange of “Anti-Secession Law” set by the Chinese Communists. E. Cheaper Five is a discussion of Taiwan interexchange strategy assessment by the Chinese Communist such as pragmatic ways of dealing Tawain interexchange after setting “Anti-Secession Law” by the Chinese Communists in order to break the deadlock of the cross-Straits and treat our civil with national treatment to put pressures on our government. F. Chapter Six will be the conclusion of this thesis; the main emphasis will be on exploring the discovery and proposition of Taiwan interexchange strategy research by the Chinese Communist with an objective in maintaining peaceful state of Taiwan Strait and continuously rallying for the support form the United States and reinforce the collaborations of cross-Straits interexchange.

文化是一種民族精神、社會價值、生命哲學與生活方式的體現，而創意是人類文化定位的重要成份，而以各式各樣的形式表現，兩者皆能透過產業流程與全球分銷去複製、推廣。文創產業是「那些以無形、文化為本質的內容，經過創造、生產與商品化結合的產業」，因此文創產業不僅涉及文化與創意，也包含由創意衍生之「文化商品及服務」（cultural goods and services）的經濟價值與商業運作。 我國為使發展文創產業之政策制度在施行上於法有據，經濟部乃多次召集會議邀請各部會及學者專家討論研擬《文化創意產業發展法》（以下簡稱《文創法》），並於92年9月24日函報行政院審核修訂，經過多年的推動與研議，該法終於2010年1月7日三讀通過，完成立法程序，並於2月3日以華總一義字第09900022451號總統令制定公布，相關子法亦陸續公布施行。 然而《文創法》內立意甚佳的產業措施，因台灣加入世界貿易組織(World Trade Organization, WTO)而不得不受到WTO相關協定的規範。作為掃除關稅與非關稅貿易障礙、確保自由貿易之WTO，經由多回合的貿易談判逐步開放市場，並藉由對關稅與補貼之約束以及服務業市場准入、國民待遇之承諾等建立市場開放之可預測性。文化商品與服務在其規範下並無例外，同樣必須接受WTO上述原則，即最惠國待遇、國民待遇與市場准入等義務的檢驗。鑑於《文化創意產業發展法》所具備產業扶植之本質，及其涵蓋之16種文化創意產業多屬服務部門，本文遂將檢驗重點聚焦在該法之獎補助及租稅優惠措施與GATS的互動關係上，尤其是《文創法》在服務業補貼暫行定義、第17條國民待遇、國內規章第6.1條與第23.3條非違反協定控訴之適法性分析，以作為日後執法或修正之參考。 但值得注意的是，相對於WTO以降低貿易壁壘，促進貿易自由化為職志，文化商品與服務之雙重特質在WTO無法獲得特殊之待遇或保障，2005年10月UNESCO通過之《保障及促進文化表現多樣性公約》(以下簡稱《文化多樣性公約》)卻主張國家有促進與保護文化表現多樣性之權利，並具有採行其認為適當之政策與措施達成該目的之主權。若《文創法》有其適用《文化多樣性公約》之可能，則我國在採行諸多文創產業推展措施卻有違WTO內括協定所涉及之貿易原則或義務時，是否得根據《文化多樣性公約》正當化該等爭議措施? 當《文化多樣性公約》與WTO內括協定產生規範衝突時，兩者之適用與解釋是否有互補或調和之可能? 在文化產業與貿易活動上，《文化多樣性公約》若能正當化違反WTO規範之政策措施，則我國《文創法》所擬定之政策措施在GATS框架下之解釋與義務即有所不同。因此在檢驗《文創法》與GATS之互動關係前，本文將先簡單介紹《文化多樣性公約》之優劣特性，及公約與WTO規範競合之解決與適用結果。 關鍵字：文化創意產業發展法、世界貿易組織、文化多樣性公約、國民待遇、非違反協定控訴 / Culture is the embodiment of a national spirit, social values, people’s worldview and life style, while creativity in all its manifestations presents an essential constitution of human culture. By way of industrialization and global distribution, the two are allowed to copy repeatedly and promote worldwide. Cultural and creative industries are “those industries that combine the creation, production and commercialization of contents that are intangible and cultural in nature”, which involve not only abstract culture and creativities but also material economic value and commercial operations of cultural goods and services derived from human ingenuity and originality. To make sure the policy and measures implemented in Taiwan to promote and flourish cultural and creative industries are legally based, the Ministry of Economic Affairs had invited the relevant ministries, scholars and experts in the field to deliberate and prepare the Cultural and Creative Industry Development Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") since mid-‘90s, and finally submitted the draft Act to the Executive Yuan for review and approval on September 24, 2003. After years of promotion and negotiations, the Act was passed its third reading in the Legislative Yuan on January 7, 2010 and promulgated on February 3 by Presidential Decree Hwa Zong Yi Zi No. 09900022451. The related rules and regulations were also proclaimed in effect one after another ever since. However, as a WTO (World Trade Organization) member, it is our duty to keep the deliberately constructed measures set in the Act in line with the WTO-related disciplines. WTO, acting as an international forum calling for free trade, vows to eliminate tariff and non-tariff trade barriers, facilitate further market opening by multiple rounds of trade negotiations, and increase the predictability of market dynamics through the establishment of binding tariff rates, subsidy disciplines, specific commitments and various requirements such as most-favored-nation treatment, market access and national treatment. The same principles and obligations mentioned above apply to goods and services with culture in nature equally with no exception. In this regard, the paper will examine how the Cultural and Creative Industry Development Act, especially its subsidy and tax preference measures legally interact with the articles related including Article 15 Subsidy, Article 17 National Treatment, Article 6.1 Domestic Regulation and Article 23.3 Non-violation complaints (in view of the measures adopted in the Act are industry-supportive oriented and most industries categorized in the same act are belonging to service sector) in General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) for reference of law enforcement and further amendments in the future. But it is worth noting that, while WTO (the organization and covered agreements) are dedicated to exterminate trade barriers, promote trade liberalization and ignore cultural goods and services have both an economic and a cultural nature, the UNESCO Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Cultural Expressions (hereinafter referred to “the UNESCO Convention”) adopted by the General Conference of the United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESC) on October 20, 2005 recognizes member countries have their sovereign right to formulate and implement their cultural policies and to adopt measures to protect and promote the diversity of cultural expressions when necessary. If the rules and principles of the UNESCO Convention apply to the Cultural and Creative Industry Development Act, then is it possible for the Convention to justify the measures we adopt to nourish the cultural industries, but somehow in violation of WTO principles and obligations? And if the answer is “Yes”, all the interpretation and obligations derived from the Act will not be the same as those covered by GATS only. Therefore, the potential conflicts and the harmonization between the UNESCO Convention and WTO covered agreements (GATS in particular) will be explored before the legal relationship between the Act and GATS is examined. Keywords: Cultural and Creative Industry Development Act, World Trade Organization, UNESCO Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Cultural Expressions, National Treatment, Domestic Regulation, Non-violation complaints

隨網際網路、行動載具及數位科技之進步，金融服務之提供不再受限於地域上之隔閡。邇來，有許多國際性投資銀行擬透過其所經營之網路交易平台向我國投資人提供證券經紀服務，然因我國現今並未開放外國證券商得跨境提供我國投資人證券經紀服務，在相關規範上付之闕如。 然而，法律上之禁止並無法阻止科技進步興起之跨境證券活動浪潮。如有朝一日我國擬開放外國證券商跨境提供我國投資人證券經紀等金融服務時，應採取何種規範方式及相關規範內容為何，有其討論之需要性及必要性。 按此，本文首先將介紹我國現行證券商相關之規範制度，後參酌美國、澳洲及德國對於外國證券商跨境提供其國內投資人證券經紀服務之規範方式及內容，輔以國際證券管理機構組織所歸納使用於跨境證券活動之三種規範制度，嘗試提出我國對外國證券商跨境提供我國投資人證券經紀服務得採行之規範方式及內容之建議。 本文研究結果建議，我國應針對不同身分別之投資人分別採用國民待遇規範制度及認可規範制度。即在非屬專業投資人部分，採用國民待遇規範制度；而在專業投資人部分，採用認可規範制度。同時，建議就有關跨境提供證券經紀服務之開放可分階段進行。最後，針對我國現行證交法及其相關規定，本文亦參考美國、澳洲及德國在相關規範架構下之細部規定，提出法規修正之建議及我國可能可以考慮之細部規範內容。 在跨境金融服務興起的今日，重新思考及架構一套符合證券及金融市場國際化之規範架構及方式是一個必經的歷程，希望透過本文之研究結果及建議，能幫助我國在此波金融國際化之浪潮中立足國際。 / With the progress of the Internet, mobile vehicles and digital technology, the provision of financial service is no longer limited to geographical barriers. Recently, there are a lots of international investment banks intend to provide securities brokerage services to our domestic investors through their electronic trading platform. However, since Taiwan is not yet open to foreign securities firms to provide securities brokerage service to our domestic investors on a cross-border basis, there is lack of any relevant regulation. Nonetheless, the legal prohibition on the provision of service on a cross-border basis can not stem the tide of the cross-border securities activities resulted by the technological advancement. If one day Taiwan opens the foreign securities firms to provide securities brokerage services and/ or other financial services to our domestic investors on a cross-border basis, it is necessary and a must for Taiwan to consider what regulatory model and what regulations should be taken. Given the above, this study will first introduce the current regulatory regime related to the securities firms in Taiwan, and then take the regulatory regime and regulations governing the foreign securities firms providing securities brokerage service to the domestic investors on a cross-border basis adopted by the US, Australia and Germany and the three types of regulatory regimes summed up by the IOSCO, which are used for the regulation of cross-border securities activities, into account to try to propose the suggestions on the possible regulatory regime and regulations for Taiwan to adopt for this issue. The results of this study suggest that Taiwan should adopt the regulatory tools called National Treatment and Recognition and used them depend on the type of investor. That is, as to the non-professional investor, Taiwan should adopt National Treatment to regulate the cross-border securities brokerage service; and as to the professional investor, Taiwan should adopt Recognition to regulate the same. At the same time, this study suggests the cross- border provision of securities brokerage service could be considered to be opened by phases. Finally, as to the current Taiwan Securities and Exchange Act and its relevant regulations, this study also provide the proposed amendments and the relevant details by making reference to the regulations adopted by the US, Australia and Germany under the regulatory regime of each of them. In today’s world, it is a must to rethink and structure a regulatory regime and regulations that conform to the internationalization of securities and financial markets. It is hopeful that the results and suggestions in this study could assist Taiwan to gain a footing in the arena of the international financial market.