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