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

聯合國教科文組織於二○○五年十月二十日通過文化多樣性公約。從談判歷史觀之，「文化多樣性」似乎是歐盟會員國於烏拉圭回合時在GATS下倡議「文化例外」之延續，也因此公約通過後，主張貿易自由化之一方擔心公約將限制貿易，而與GATS產生衝突；另一方面，主張文化保護之一方則認為公約可助其在GATS下續行推動「文化例外」，亦即將視聽服務排除GATS之適用。 本文研究之目的係在探討文化多樣性公約對於GATS視聽服務之影響。首先，本文就文化多樣性公約下的重要規定進行研析，並以視聽服務為論述核心，探討公約與GATS間的可能衝突。在綜合考量規範衝突及談判現況後，本文最後試評估公約對於GATS視聽服務之影響，並提出對未來視聽服務談判之展望。 公約下的義務，由於締約國在履行上多保有裁量權，解釋上尚難構成貿易限制或具歧視性；另一方面由於GATS規範極具彈性，WTO會員國本不負絕對的特定承諾義務。依此，公約與GATS發生衝突發生之可能性並不大。至於公約的權利規定，或有違反GATS義務之虞，惟由於締約國可選擇不行使公約權利而履行GATS義務，因此公約權利與GATS義務的衝突得以事先避免。 由於公約對GATS之衝擊有限，再加上公約將可提供一個文化議題協商之平台，公約或可紓解WTO會員國對於文化保護之關切，進而摒除彼等國家在GATS下基於文化保護而不願開放之疑慮。依此，本文研判公約對於GATS視聽服務自由化將是助力，有助於視聽服務談判之進行。鑒於GATS下並無文化一般例外以調和兩套規範，本文建議未來在WTO下可透過增訂「部長決議」，要求WTO會員國於解釋並適用GATS規定時應將公約之相關規定列入考量，俾達成公約與GATS間相互支持之目標。 / On 20 October 2005, the UNESCO General Conference approved the “Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions.” Judging by the negotiating history, “cultural diversity” appears to be the continuation of “cultural exception” invoked by the European Communities under the GATS negotiations during the Uruguay Round. Therefore, after the Convention is approved, free trade supporters worry that the convention might restrict trade and conflict with the GATS rules. On the other hand, cultural protectionists argue that the Convention has merits in moving forward “cultural exception,” i.e. to prohibit the application of the GATS rules on the audiovisual services. The objective of the thesis is to analyze the impact of the Convention on the audiovisual services under the GATS. The thesis first studies the rules under the Convention and discusses potential conflicts between the Convention and the GATS in terms of audiovisual services. Considering both the conflicts of norms and current negotiations, the thesis attempts to assess the impact of the Convention on the audiovisual services and forecast the future of negotiations on the audiovisual services under the GATS. The obligations of the Convention may not be easy to be interpreted as trade restrictions or discriminations because States Parties can mostly reserve their rights to perform. On the other hand, GATS rules is so flexible that WTO Members need not make specific commitments under the GATS. Accordingly, the possibility of conflicts is not high. Though the rights of the Convention might be contradictory to the obligations of the GATS, States Parties can choose to perform their obligations of the GATS rather than exercise their rights of the Convention in order to preclude the existence of the conflicts. The Convention only has limited impact on the GATS. In addition, the Convention provides a forum of negotiations on cultural issues so that it might smooth over WTO Member’s concern with cultural protection and remove their doubts of liberalization on the basis of cultural protection. Judging from this, the Convention can give a boost to the liberalization of audiovisual services and facilitate the negotiations. In light of the fact that there is no general exception clauses of cultural protection under the GATS to harmonize the two international instruments, this thesis suggests that “Ministerial Decision” be adopted to request WTO Members to take relevant rules of the Convention into consideration when interpreting and applying the GATS rules in order to achieve the goal of mutual supportiveness between the Convention and the GATS.