關稅暨貿易總組織自從一九四七年成立以來，由於成員日增，已經涵蓋了全球百分之九十以上之貿易量，並將其影響力從單純的關稅問題，逐漸擴大至非關稅，甚至服務業與智慧財產權等和貿易有關之經濟活動等層面。在這種堅實的基礎上，使得取而代之的世界貿易組織成為對國際貿易最有影響力之國際組織 。雖然烏拉圭回合談判中，仍有一些問題未獲解決，例如環保問題、勞動條件、人權問題、電影、競爭法之執行問題等，但是僅就目前已通過之協議架構審視，其對即將加入之我國所帶來之衝擊，就已超越過去我國所面臨之任何重大經貿問題。國際貿易新規範之制訂，雖然未必可以因此完全消除貿易國家間的爭執，甚至在可以預見之將來，由於國際間貿易、經濟等相互依賴之關係逐日加深，在往來密切之情況下，發生國際貿易爭端的機會應是不減反增。而在進步的改革下，未來可預期的是世界貿易組織下的爭端解決機制，將成為會員國之間貿易爭端之主要解決工具。此不但與關稅暨貿易總協定時代，各國趨向尋求體制外之解決方式顯著不同；更代表國際間國際貿易合作與發展之進步指標。因此，透過對國際經貿活動主要爭端解決機制之研究，有助於私人從事國際貿易行為時有所遵行，亦可提供相關行政機關於研擬相關對策時，熟悉國際實務，符合國際現實需求。 第一章 緒論 第一節 研究動機 第二節 研究方法 第三節 研究方法 第二章 國際貿易紛爭之理論探討 第一節 國際貿易紛爭之主體類型及救濟樣態 第一目 私人與私人間之國際貿易紛爭 第二目 私人與國家間之國際貿易紛爭 第三目 政府與政府間之國際貿易紛爭 第四目 小結 第二節 國際貿易紛爭之理論爭議 第一目 前言 第二目 國際經貿組織法規之功能 第三目 國際貿易糾紛解決體制之設計途徑 第三節 小結 第四節 世界貿易組織爭端解決體制取向 第三章 爭端解決規制沿革 第一節 關稅暨貿易總組織一九四七年之爭端解決程序 □□第二節 爭端解決暸解書之改革及其所設之一般原則 第四章 爭端解決程序改革之檢討 第一節 進行爭端解決制度前之重要程序 第一目 通知 第二目 諮商 第三目 斡旋、調停與調解 第二節 爭端解決小組之程序 第一目 前言 第二目 爭端解決小組之程序 第三目 爭端解決機構的上訴程序 第四目 建議及裁決之執行 第五目 補償與暫停實施減讓 第五章 爭端解決制度延伸問題 第一節 爭端解決制度程序效率之檢討 第二節 爭端解決小組之定位 第三節 世界貿易組織秘書處之責任 第四節 爭端解決程序期限違反之效果 第五節 仲裁制度在世界貿易組織爭端解決機制中之運用 第六節 開發中國家在國際貿易爭端解決機制中之角 色 第七節 標準條款之解釋原則 第八節 爭端解決小組建議及裁決之執行 第六章 爭端解決機制對世界貿易之影響兼論我國因應 對策 第一節 美日汽車貿易之戰適用爭端解決程序之結果 第二節 爭端解決程序與其他國貿易政策干預工具之競合─從美國綜合貿易法三０一條款立論 第一目 肯定說 第二目 否定說 第三目 折衷說 第三節 美國貿易法三０一條款在現今世界貿易組織下之地位兼論美國國際經貿取向 第四節 爭端解決機制在化解國際貿易爭端中所發揮之功能 第五節 我國之因應政策 第一目 我國與世界貿易組織之關係 第二目 國內廠商於爭端解決程序中之地位 第三目 考慮設立爭端處理專責機構及專業人

摘 要 「世界貿易組織」（World Trade Organization，以下簡稱WTO）爭端解決下之貿易制裁，對於確保其任務之達成，扮演著十分重要的角色。惟自WTO成立後至今的數年間，所出現之「爭端解決機構」（The Dispute Settlement Body）授權貿易制裁之實例，透露了本機制之引發之問題，例如除了被制裁國強力反彈外，採取制裁措施之國自身也倍嚐其苦。針對上述問題，不論是學界或WTO會員國均有一些檢討改革的方案。 上述改革方案包括倡議以其他手段完全取代現行「爭端解決程序與規則瞭解書」（Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes，以下簡稱DSU）之貿易制裁者，經過本文之分析，發現此等手段縱然取代DSU之貿易制裁，仍無法解決問題，蓋彼等或不具可行性、或有強制執行之困難。 鑑於貿易制裁對WTO規範遵循之確保，目前無可取代，故本文肯定其繼續存在之必要，同時強調貿易制裁之法制化並無礙WTO協定整體架構之邏輯一貫性。此外，法制化的結果，不但可確保貿易制裁受到監督，降低濫用的空間，更可藉由內建之定期檢討與修正，促使授權貿易制裁得以持續獲得改善，將負面影響降到最低。 / The authorization of trade sanction, which secures the objectives of the World Trade Organization (hereinafter the “WTO”) to be achieved, plays a very important role in WTO dispute settlement mechanism. However, since the establishment of the WTO, the DSB authorization of trade sanctions in some cases has revealed some problems. In some instances, the exercise of the trade sanctions triggers counter-measures of the respondent member, while in others, the complaint member also suffers for the trade sanction it imposes as authorized. In response to the aforementioned problems, commentators as well as WTO members have proposed some ideas of reform. The reform proposals include replacing the WTO trade sanctions with alternative measures. Nevertheless, after careful analyses of these proposals for alternatives, it is found in this thesis that the replacement of the WTO trade sanctions cannot resolve the aforementioned problems, in the sense that those alternatives suggested are not feasible or lack of ways to enforce them. In light of the fact that currently no feasible alternative can have the function as trade sanction has in assuring the compliance of the WTO rules, this thesis argues that it needs to be preserved. Besides, this thesis believes that it does not cause any conflict in the current WTO legal framework. To preserve it under the WTO framework, the abuse can be avoided through the surveillance of the DSB. Moreover, the built-in review mechanism, which will continue reform trade sanction measures, can minimize their negative effects.

臺灣與中國大陸加入WTO後，其貿易互動將更趨頻繁，此現象除了帶來兩岸經濟的活絡外，也將提高兩岸貿易糾紛發生的可能性，因此熟悉WTO爭端解決機制的運作是臺灣做為一個經貿小國必學的課題；又兩岸糾紛不同於一般國際經貿糾紛，牽涉到敏感的政治因素，臺灣面臨的是對我主權不尊重也不認同之國家，在這樣的情況下，臺灣必須學習如何訴諸WTO爭端解決機制的法律途徑以保障臺灣經貿。 WTO爭端解決機制包含諮商、斡旋等雙邊協商，協商不成則可提請爭端解決機構(DSB)成立爭端解決小組(panel)以為因應，透過小組對兩造意見之書面審查、口頭辯論等意見表達，及蒐集相關資訊蒐集後，最後由小組做成「期中報告」，若成員國無其他意見表述，則「期中報告」即為「最終報告」，DSB有權要求被控訴履行裁決。 在整個WTO爭端解決過程中，臺灣必須面臨的挑戰有：中國大陸認定臺灣無提請訴訟資格的主權抗議、國際現實的壓力、龐大的訴訟費用，以及曠日費時的訴訟期間等。倘最後中國拒絕履行義務，臺灣雖可請求DSB授權對中國大陸進行貿易制裁，但其亦將蒙受本身產業在貿易制裁過程中的損失。這些因素使得臺灣政府在對中國大陸發動WTO爭端解決程序時有所顧忌。 但將兩岸爭端訴諸WTO爭端解決程序有一好處，即使兩岸貿易 回歸到規則導向的互動，亦可嚇阻中國大陸不尊重我為WTO會員國之相關行動，使兩岸貿易走向法制化的互動。 / After Taiwan and China accession to the WTO, the activities of bilateral trade will be more frequent. Besides the busy business, the possibility of trade disputes between cross-strait parties will be arisen as well. Therefore Taiwan needs to have more intimate knowledge of WTO dispute settlement mechanism. On the other hand, the disputes between cross-strait is different to other international disputes. The opponent that Taiwan faces to is a country which doesn’t respect Taiwan’s state sovereign. In such a circumstances, Taiwan have to learn how to protect the benefits of domestic industries through resorting to the legal access of WTO dispute settlement mechanism. The procedures of WTO dispute settlement mechanism contains bilateral negotiation like consultation、good-offices etc. If the consultation is in vain, the complaining party could request the DSB to establish the panel. The panel has the rights to review the written requests、consider the rebuttal submissions、and seek concerning information, then the panel should issue an “interim report ”.If no other Member State has different requests, the “interim report ”shall be considered “ the final panel report “, and the DSB has the right to ask the defendant party to practice the recommendations. During the whole process of WTO dispute settlement, Taiwan has to face these challenges as follows: the sovereign protest from China、the pressure from international reality、huge expenses of the proceedings, long time in the proceedings etc....If China refuse the recommendations, Taiwan could request the authorization from the DSB to suspend the application to Taiwan concerned of trade sanction. But the sanction will also injury Taiwan’s own domestic industries. Those consideration make Taiwan feel fearful of operating the WTO dispute settlement procedures against China. There is an advantage of resorting to the WTO dispute settlement procedures against China, that is lead the trade activities between cross-strait to the operation of rule-oriented access ,and it also can stop China continue using the measures that will violate Taiwan’s sovereign. Those changes can legalize the trade activities between cross-strait.

隨著WTO爭端解決機構近年來的實踐，許多制度性問題紛紛浮現，特別是WTO爭端解決小組或上訴機構在反傾銷爭端中審查基準實踐上所引發之爭議。批評者主要認為上訴機構於反傾銷規範之法律解釋上不當適用解釋規則，並未遵循反傾銷協定第17.6(ii)條之規範。另外，上訴機構實質上近乎重新審理被訴會員之法律見解，似乎違反第17.6(ii)條之規範意旨。本文嘗試整理相關經由WTO上訴機構裁決之反傾銷爭端，觀察及彙整第17.6(ii)條於現行運作中之實踐情形，並檢視上述兩項爭議之正反意見。經分析後發現，上述兩項爭議皆涉及不同之政策考量與WTO組織間的互動。易言之，除爭端解決機構對於協定條文之法律解釋外，偏重與選擇不同之政策考量做為正當性基礎，將決定著審查基準之面貌。在進一步分析並檢討在反傾銷制度下可能影響審查基準之政策價值後，本文認為WTO爭端解決機制為維繫其準司法機關之正當性與確保經由多邊架構所帶來之合作利益，有統一法律解釋與重新審理被控訴會員之法律解釋之必要。另外，反傾銷協定第17.6(ii)條審查基準之解釋上，不宜採取其立法來源—美國法Chevron doctrine—之規範內涵。同時，為避免反傾銷制度遭濫用成為貿易保護政策之工具，應賦予WTO爭端解決機構於審理反傾銷爭端時較為自主之法律解釋權力。然而，基於適度尊重WTO會員主權之考量與司法自制之要求，本文建議，WTO爭端解決機構在審理反傾銷案件時，除須正確地援引並靈活運用國際法上習慣解釋規則外，更需適度參照第17.6(ii)條之立法目的，藉由嚴格適用WTO協定，以充實其所採取審查基準之正當性基礎。 / With practices of WTO Dispute Settlement Body (DSB), the institutional issues on Standards of Review have emerged, especially on WTO Anti-dumping disputes. Contestations are focus on whether Appellate Body has mal-applied rules of interpretations on Anti-Dumping Agreement (ADA) as to go beyond Article 17.6(ii). Moreover, Critics query whether Appellate Body De Novo reviewed member’s legal interpretations as to disregard purpose of Article 17.6(ii). By examining relevant anti-dumping penal and appellate body reports, current modes of practices on ADA Article 17.6(ii) are concluded, and probed to its different critiques. Further, issues of such are result from policy considerations of Standards of Review under Anti-Dumping System. In other words, apart from penal and appellate body’s interpretations on ADA, different policy ends will influence current practices of Standards of Review. Consequently, the article checks on and assays on relevant policy justifications of deferential standards of review under anti-dumping system. Concluded, for retaining its institution justifications and ensuring the cooperation gains under multilateral approach, WTO dispute settlement institutes have the necessities in de novo review and leveling legal interpretations. Moreover, due to the different characters, the Chevron mode interpretations on standards of review is without analogy to ADA article 17.6(ii); meanwhile, for preventing distorting antidumping measures as trade protection tools, WTO dispute settlement institutes should have much room on discretion of reviewing members’ ADA legal interpretations. However, in respecting WTO Member’s sovereignty and the requiring of judicial restraint, when taking the standards of review on examining anti-dumping disputes, WTO dispute settlement institutes would strictly and nimbly retain customary rules of interpretation of public international law with considering purposes of ADA article 17.6(ii).

No description available.

本論文目的在藉由研析美國聯邦政府採購規則、歐盟採購指令及大陸政府採購法救濟制度，並比較GPA爭端解決機制及我國政府採購救濟制度，論述政府採購協定適用主體、適用客體及其爭端解決機制，從中尋求GPA與我國政府採購救濟制度規範不一致之處，為與政府採購協定之爭端解決機制之規範一致，並建立一個公平、公正及公開爭端解決機制，以吸引更多國外廠商來台參與投標，並帶動國際貿易商機。本研究結論建議如下： 一、建立異議及申訴前之諮商制度，經由爭議廠商與採購機關之事先諮商，有助爭端事先解決，以機先解決爭議。 二、廢除異議前置失權效規定，賦予爭議廠商得直接提起申訴之權，以加速程序進行並保障採購廠商應有之權益。 三、放寬異議及申訴主體資格，廠商採購權益之相關利害關係人，即得具有提出申訴之主體資格，以擴大解決採購紛爭。 四、增加異議或申訴之原因與事由，擴及未違反法令或條約、協定，廠商政府採購權益直接或間接遭受損害，即得提起救濟，以擴大行政自我預先審查功能與範圍。 五、採公開審議程序，以維護政府採購審議公平、公開審理，並保障申訴廠商之採購權益，避免造成書面審議失去公平判斷之可能。 六、明確規範暫停採購程序事由，避免事後因無法即時改正招標機關錯誤採購行為，而影響異議人之權益。 七、改正採購爭議審議委員會審議判斷，以符合政府採購協定（GPA）救濟有效性之要求。 / The purpose of the research is to study the inconsistency between GPA and Government Procurement Act in Taiwan by analyzing the subject, object and the dispute settlement mechanism and making comparison among U.S Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), EU Procurement Directives and China Government Procurement Law dispute settlement .In order to attract more foreign firms to participate in the vendors, and promote international trade opportunities. The main conclusion of the research is as follows: 1. It is suggested to establish a consultation mechanism to assist disputing parties to discuss and resolve their differences prior to the protests and appeals. 2. It is advised to add “causes and reasons” to protest and appeal on Government Procurement Act of Taiwan to expand administrative function and the scope of self-examination in advance. 3. In consideration of the interests of the vendors, it is recommended to abolish the regulation on the loss of efficiency right without protest. 4. To ensure the interests of the complained vendors, it is advised to broaden the qualification of objections and appeals. 5. Implement a transparent and open public review process to maintain the fairness of government procurement and secure the interests of the complained vendors. 6. It is important to define suspend procurement procedure clearly to avoid jeopardizing the rights of complaining suppliers and the entity. 7. In order to comply with the effectiveness of the relief requested under Government Procurement Agreement (GPA), it is necessary to correct the review decision of the Complaint Review Board for Government Procurement (CRBGP).

由於數位化科技、盜版等因素影響，台灣音樂產值逐年驟減，產業步入寒冬。面對中國大陸越來越富裕的十三億人口、對於娛樂文化等資訊需求直線上升的廣大消費市場，全世界的音樂廠商彷彿看見曙光，積極搶進中國，台灣音樂相關從業人員亦紛紛移往彼岸尋求生路。雖然兩岸音樂交流頻繁，然而台灣音樂廠商面對中國大陸陌生的行政、司法體制與繁複的異地法律，產生諸多佈局大陸、保護智慧財產權與解決紛爭的疑難。身為中國大陸流行音樂最主要的輸入源頭，我們自無法置身事外，而有必要對於中國大陸音樂產業法制環境做一深入的探討，從產業角度檢視現有智慧財產問題並提出對策。本研究首先從中國大陸與音樂產業相關之內國法制做一整體性之探討，釐清中國大陸對於外資進入音樂產業所設下市場進入障礙及審批制度之雙重限制，並介紹大陸音樂集體管理組織之運作情形與兩岸合作之問題所在，最後針對大陸近年來關於音樂著作權重要之法令與司法實務、在大陸解決智慧財產爭端之策略、台灣音樂產業在大陸面臨的智慧財產保護問題深入研究，並試圖提出可行之解決方案。由於中國大陸已成為台灣音樂產業的主要市場，本研究除整理前揭發展趨勢外，並提出給音樂業者與政府部門的建議，希望在極力發展文化創意產業、兩岸邁向經濟區域整合之今日，音樂業者得以妥善保護自身智慧財產，維持台灣為全球華語音樂中心之地位，使音樂產業能夠真正成為台灣文化創意產業重要的一環。 / The industry value of Taiwan music industry declines due to the rapid growth of digital technology and internet piracy. On the other hand, music companies around the world invade China Market for its vast population and increasing market demand. Taiwan music talents are no exception. Though the cross-strait communication in music is frequent, Taiwan music companies are not familiar with the complicated legal and administrative system in China and thus usually trapped in intellectual property disputes. Taiwan is the precursor for China’s popular music and it become a necessity for Taiwan music companies to fully understand the law and regulation about music industry in China and frame the strategy for current intellectual property problems from the industry perspective. This thesis begins with a general introduction and analysis on China’s law and regulation concerning music industry, elaborating the dual restrictions of investment examination system for foreign companies which plan to enter the China market. It will also describe the practice of music copyright associations in China and problems in cross-strait collaborations. The thesis will also discuss topics about important issues on music copyright law and legal practice, strategy of intellectual property dispute resolution, and intellectual property protections with which Taiwan music companies are confronted in China. Feasible solution will as well be advised in this thesis. China has become the main market for Taiwan music industry. This thesis will elaborate the developments of the industry and provide some advices for music companies and government. Culture industry is now the focus of government policy in Taiwan and in China while cross-strait economic integration becomes the trend. Hopefully, Taiwan music companies can, through a well-structured intellectual property protection, stay as the heart of global Chinese music and make music industry an important part for Taiwan culture industry.

伴隨著全球化潮流的來臨，國際直接投資金額大幅成長，相對的，投資爭端案件亦持續增加，國際投資人於是迫切期待一個有效而公平之國際投資爭端解決機制。台灣經過多年經濟發展，已成為全球重要對外投資國家，惟根據調查，台灣廠商發生投資爭端，並不擅於利用國際仲裁維護其本身權益。據此，本論文乃針對國際投資協定有關投資人與地主國爭端解決法制加以研析，並希望能對我政府對外談判及廠商對外投資提供具體實用之對策，惟國際間對於投資人與地主國爭端解決機制研究面向相當廣泛，本文研究主軸則以世界銀行於1965年成立之國際解決投資爭端中心(ICSID)之管轄權為中心。 本論文先自投資人與地主國爭端解決機制之發展背景介紹起，並論述1966年生效的ICSID公約主要條款與其他國際投資協定的關係，其後則進一步從ICSID管轄權角度切入，對ICSID對人(ratione personae)及對物(ratione materiae)管轄權相關法律問題逐一說明，並輔以個案加以研析之。 經過上述分析後，本文繼而對現行投資人與地主國投資爭端解決機制提出評論，在制度面方面，本文對ICSID未來運作提出放寬對物管轄範圍、檢討投資未予定義之作法、雙重國籍認定及外國控制的程度與形式等四項改革建議。此外，本文亦針對ICSID管轄權與BITs最惠國待遇條款問題、BITs不同的爭端解決機制所引發程序衝突問題，以及仲裁判斷衝突(conflicting award)問題，說明ICSID公約與BIT所產生之一些法律問題。在未來展望方面，則分析在多邊投資架構是否為解決現階段投資人與地主國爭端解決機制之新契機，以及WTO納入投資人與地主國爭端解決條款之可能性分析，本文末並對我國政府與廠商現階段利用ICSID機制提出建議。 / While the inexorable trend towards globalization has caused international direct investment to grow dramatically, it has also led to a steady increase in the number of investment disputes. International investors therefore eagerly look forward to the institution of an effective and impartial international investment dispute resolution mechanism. Although Taiwan, through its many years of economic development, has become a major source of foreign investment, surveys show that Taiwan firms are not good at using international arbitration to protect their rights and interests in investment disputes. This study accordingly analyzes the investor-State dispute settlement provisions in international investment agreements(IIAs) in an effort to provide concrete, practical strategies for the government of Taiwan in international negotiations and for Taiwanese firms in their foreign investment. Since there is already extensive research literature addressing investor-State dispute settlement mechanisms, this study focuses on the jurisdiction of the International Center for Settlement of Investment Dispute(ICSID) under the aegis of the World Bank in 1965. This study first introduces investor-State dispute settlement mechanisms and their development. Next, the study discusses the main provisions of the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States (ICSID Convention) came into force on 1966 and its relationship to other IIAs. The study then explains the various legal issues connected with ICSID’s jurisdiction ratione personae and ratione materiae, and finally, analyzes specific cases. The results of the aforementioned analysis are employed to critique existing investor-State investment dispute settlement mechanisms. This study makes four system-related recommendations, namely that the ICSID convention should: 1) liberalize the scope of ICSID’s subject-matter jurisdiction; 2) review undefined investment methods; 3) recognize dual nationalities; and 4) reform the degree and circumstances of foreign control. This study further discusses legal problems related to the ICSID Convention and bilateral investment treaties (BITs), including conflicting awards, procedural conflicts stemming from different dispute settlement forum in BITs, and problems involving ICSID's jurisdiction and most-favored nation(MFN) provisions in BITs. As for future prospects, the study analyzes whether the current multilateral investment framework can resolve the problems of the current investor-State dispute settlement mechanism, and examines the possibility of incorporating investor-State dispute settlement mechanism in the WTO. This study concludes with recommendations concerning how the government and companies of Taiwan can use the ICSID mechanism at the current stage.

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.

本論文主要在討論，先決之爭點與「爭端解決規則與程序瞭解書（DSU）」第六條二項（成立小組請求）間之互動。 首先，作者區別成立小組請求兩大要件，分別為：敘明系爭措施及提供法律根據已釐清系爭案件。 其次，在此架構下，本文進而從近來所發生之四十七個爭端解決案件中，分析上訴機構對兩要件之認定標準的發展。本文發現，爭端解決小組及上訴機構透過放寬先決爭點認定標準之結果，會降低成立小組請求之明確性。同時，本文也蒐集相關實證統計資料，藉以呈現先決爭點如何影響DSU之功能。經由歸納後，本文認為，當前先決之爭點的負面影響大於正面影響。 再者，儘管先決爭點有上述問題，作者一方面仍肯定先決之爭點的正面功能，並認同爭端解決實務放寬認定標準之趨勢；另方面，則嘗試提出若干工具以避免上述負面影響大過正面影響。 最後則提出第六條第二項之修法建議。 關鍵字：爭端解決規則與程序瞭解書（DSU）第六條二項、成立小組請求、先決之爭點 / This thesis focused on the interaction between the preliminary issues and Article 6.2(panel request) of Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing The Settlement of Disputes(DSU). First, the author distinguished the two main requirements of panel request: identify the specific measures at issue, and provide a brief summary of the legal basis of the complaint sufficient to present the problem clearly. Secondly, with the two requirements as framework, the author started to scrutinize how preliminary issues affected recent 47 dispute settlement cases and analyze its implication. Then, it was observed that the Dispute Settlement Panel and the Appellate Body were broadening their review standards as to preliminary issues, which would then lead to reduce the precision of panel request. Meanwhile, this thesis collected relevant statistic data to show how the preliminary issues affected the current DSU function. Then, it was observed that the preliminary issues, so far, had strong negative effects and few positive effects on the dispute settlement system. Moreover, the author, on the one hand, recognized the function of preliminary issues and viewed current dispute settlement practice as good trend with some deficit; and, on the other hand, tried to propose some useful tools to prevent the negative effect to overcome positive effects. And eventually, proposed revision of Article 6.2 of DSU. Key words: Article 6.2 of Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing The Settlement of Disputes (DSU), panel request, preliminary issues