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.