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。

歐美葡萄酒貿易協定於2006年3月10日經歐美雙方簽署後，對於延宕多年之數項關於雙方葡萄酒貿易上之爭議，達成了一定程度之妥協。然雙方所妥協之內容均與WTO協定之規範有衝突之處；然從另一方面觀之，該協定卻有助於美國在其葡萄酒產品使用歐盟地理標示之爭議上，朝向與TRIPS協定較為合致之方向去修正。 歐美葡萄酒貿易協定最主要之爭議可分為兩大部分，一為歐盟關於葡萄酒釀造製程上之規範；另一是美國葡萄酒產品使用歐盟地理標示，本文主要將針對此二議題與WTO協定間之合致性進行探討，以了解該協定所妥協之部分與WTO協定間之合致性。由於歐盟與美國係為WTO內最具影響力之兩大會員，本文最後將探討該協定對於WTO多邊架構以及爭端解決機制上之所衝擊與影響。 / The EU-US agreement on trade in wine was signed on March 10, 2006, marking the end of a first phase in wine trading discussions began in 1983. The Agreement addresses several key issues, such as oenological practices, import certification, the use of European geographical indication on the wine label which produced in US and other labeling issues. This thesis is to analyze the most controversial parts of this agreement. This agreement compromises 17 provisions, there are two parts most controversial: one is the mutual acceptance of the EU-US oenological practice regulations, which would facilitate the trading of wine between the two parties. And the other is that finally U.S. agreed to prohibit new brands from using these names on non-European wine and grandfather those existing uses. The oenological regulation of EU is more strictly and conservative compare to the related international standard. Moreover, EU ban the import of wine which is not conform with its oenological regulation unless the exporting country meet the Derogation requirement to allow the wine to be imported and circulated in the territory of EU. This article is to analyses the consistency of the EU oenological regulation with the TBT agreement, and the MFN treatment with this derogation. And the U.S. had allowed the use of specific EU geographical indications, which is called semi-generic names in U.S. regulation, on the wine label for the wine producing in the U.S in its labeling regulation. According to the TRIPS Agreement, the use of EU’s GI is in a continuous matter before 1994 can be excepted from the regulation of additional for GI. This thesis would like to clarify which part of the use of those semi-generic names may or may not except from the context of TRIPS agreement about GI. Since the wine agreement settle down several issues which violate the WTO agreement, this thesis would like to discuss the impact of the wine agreement to the WTO multilateral system.