WTO爭端解決小組於二００四年三月底針對「美國控告安地瓜禁止線上賭博案」（WT/285）乙案提出保密的期中報告。蕞爾小國安地瓜巴布達擊敗美國獲得勝訴的判決。期中報告指出，美國對於安地瓜線上博奕服務業者所提供之跨境線上博奕服務，在「市場進入」及「國民待遇」未予開放，違反了其於「服務貿易貿易總協定」所為之承諾。 此期中報告對於服務貿易有特殊之意義。不只因為本案為WTO爭端解決程序中第一個涉及網際網路的案子，本案更是第一個關於服務貿易分類之案例。本案爭點在於安地瓜之線上博奕業者是否得對美國境內之消費者提供線上博奕服務。 安地瓜認為，根據「聯合國中央產品暫行分類標準」（CPC pro.）及「服務部門分類表」（W/120），美國在其承諾表10.D確承諾跨境線上博奕服務之開放，然美國之國內規章對境外所提供之線上博奕服務卻造成全面禁止之效果，故已違反其所為之承諾。然而美國則認為秘書處所提出之W/120文件並不具有法律拘束力，因此美國承諾表並不受CPC分類之限制。 W/120文件在解釋承諾表時的法律地位究竟為何，為本案最重要的爭點，本論文將深入探討之。 / Late March in 2004, WTO panel released a confidential report of the WTO dispute” United States– Measures Affecting the Cross-Border Supply of Gambling and Betting”（WT/285）.The finding is that the tiny nation of Antigua and Barbuda beat the United States that the United States violates its commitments under the General Agreement on Trade in Service(GATS) by not providing market access and/or national treatment under GATS to on-line cross-border gambling service providers licensed by Antigua and Barbuda. The panel report has significant ramification for trade in service. The reason is that this panel decision is not only the first one on Internet-related dispute, but also the first one concerning the general service issues- service classification. Antigua asserted that United States has made a GATS commitment for gambling and betting service within Sector 10.D of U.S schedule corresponding Provisional United Nations Central Production Classification (CPC) and the Service Sectoral Classification List(MTN.GNS/W/120). At issue in this case is the provision of internet gambling service to customers in the United States from operators located in Antigua and Barbuda. Antigua and Barbuda argued that the domestic regulation of United States has made total prohibition on the supply of gambling and betting service from outside the United States. However, United States responded that the document W/120 provided by the GATT Secretariat is not legally binding so it’s schedule is not bound by the category of CPC. It means that the United States has no responsibility to allow on-line cress-border gambling service. This thesis has a deeply discussion on the legal status and value of W/120 in interpreting GATS schedules which is the most important issue in this case.

烏拉圭回合談判時期，GATT締約成員首次將服務貿易談判納入GATT體系下，為讓談判代表效率地針對服務項目進行服務貿易市場開放之談判，秘書處參考聯合國CPC暫行版的服務分類，提出了W／120。儘管秘書處於「承諾表填寫準則」中明確地指出，成員得以使用W／120以外的方式填寫承諾表，然而，W／120仍成為多數成員填寫承諾表之主要依據。而自WTO成立至今，多數會員仍係依W／120之分類填寫其承諾表。 然而，在這二十年間服務貿易之蓬勃發展下，有些服務已逐漸轉型，亦有些新興的服務項目產生，致使會員開始討論W／120服務分類不足的問題。從會員討論之過程中，得以發現W／120各服務部門幾乎皆存在著不同的分類問題，而亦有不少會員提案建議如何改善之。 相較於目前有些會員選擇以爭端解決的方式處理服務分類之問題，本文更為支持會員主動改善W／120，並且讓一種新分類被會員接受與使用之程度達到目前W／120被使用之程度。本文認為，由於改善W／120此解決方式得以處理的分類問題較個案解釋方式更為廣泛與全面，又得以兼顧會員之需求，設計出最適合會員使用的新分類，以及使新分類維持得更為持久，是故，將分類改善得更為清楚以及更具彈性，不僅得以避免爭端發生，亦得以確保未來談判時會員承諾之穩定性，實為較案例解釋方式更佳之解決途徑。

觀察目前服務貿易總協定(General Agreement on Trade in Services, GATS)案件，涉及GATS第2條最惠國待遇與第17條國民待遇之數量佔有極高比例。適用第2條與第17條規定時，須先認定案件之服務或服務供給者符合「同類服務與服務供給者」，唯有確定會員系爭措施規範對象與其他會員之服務或服務供給者，抑或是國內服務或服務供給者為同類服務或同類服務供給者，方能檢驗會員系爭措施有無對同類服務與服務供給者為差別待遇，因此，「同類服務與服務供給者」乃第2條與第17條之先決要件，具有極關鍵性地位。 由於服務具有不可識別性與不可儲存性，欲判斷服務或服務供給者間是否為同類服務或服務供給者有相當困難度，加上GATS原文對「同類服務與服務供給者」之服務與服務供給者係以「和」為連接詞，引發學者與會員就如何解釋「同類服務」與「同類服務供給者」適用關係之爭議；甚而，GATS第1條第1項將規範之服務貿易區分為四種不同供給模式，以不同供給模式提供之服務或服務供給者是否會因供給模式而被認定為不同類服務或不同類服務供給者，亦是「同類服務與服務供給者」與GATS規範架構之適用爭議；此外，GATS第2條與第17條「同類服務與服務供給者」之適用範圍，應如何與其規範目的為相呼應之解釋，亦是極具挑戰性之課題。由此可見，「同類服務與服務供給者」存在諸多適用上爭議，尤其在爭端解決小組與上訴機構尚未就「同類服務與服務供給者」適用爭議提出說明之情形，研究「同類服務與服務供給者」乃刻不容緩之事。 鑑於世界貿易組織(World Trade Organization, WTO)之爭端解決小組與上訴機構對關稅與貨品貿易總協定(The General Agreement on Tariff and Trade, GATT)與WTO「同類產品」已大致建立認定方法，並對「同類產品」之適用爭議提出見解，GATS於談判過程中曾有會員建議以「同類情形」作為適用最惠國待遇與國民待遇之規範要件，本文除論述GATS涉及「同類服務與服務供給者」案件之爭端解決小組與上訴機構見解，亦分析GATT/WTO「同類產品」案件與北美區域自由貿易協定(North American Free Trade Agreement, NAFTA)牽涉「同類情形」案件之判決經驗，為認定GATS「同類服務與服務供給者」與相關適用爭議找尋可能之解決方案。 / Observing recent GATS(The General Agreement on Trade in Services)cases, there are almost quart cases relevant to non-discrimination regulations of GATS, Article 2 and 17.As applying to non-discrimination regulations of GATS, before examining whether Members’domestic measures have discriminated effects to block the international services market, applicants, the Panel or Appellate Body need to determine whether the services and services suppliers concerned are ‘like services’or ‘like service supplier’. For‘like services and service suppliers’being a crucial requirement of non-discrimination regulations in GATS, researching how this requirement is applied to dispute settlement cases is an important mission to GATS. Actually, the vital issues of ‘like services and service suppliers’include: how to determine the ‘like services’and ‘like service suppliers’, how to decide whether the services and service suppliers through different supply modes are like services and like service suppliers, and how to interpret the application between ‘like services’ and ‘like service suppliers’. Moreover, interpreting the coverage of ‘like services and service suppliers’ under GATS is also a tough issue. Notwithstanding the requirement of non-discrimination principles -‘like services and service suppliers’rises many applied issues, there are no regulations of GATS to define the meaning of ‘like services’ and ‘like service suppliers', and no regulations or explanatory footnotes to clarify the applied problems of ‘like services and service suppliers’. The only way for Members or scholars to realize how to apply to this requirement or to determine ‘like services and like service suppliers’ is to analyze relevant judgments of dispute settlement cases relevant. However, WTO dispute settlement panel or appellate body did not analyze the relevant applied issues of‘like services and services suppliers’, and not resolve those applied issues completely. For resolving those issues of ‘like services and service suppliers’, this article make relevant material divided into four parts. First of all is to discuss what issues‘like services and service suppliers’arises, and what the factors cause ‘like services and services suppliers’ is hard to be practiced. The second part is referring to the judgments of dispute settlement panel and appellate body in GATT(The General Agreement on Tariff and Trade)/WTO cases regarding the applications of ‘like products’. Then, referring to the judgments of NAFTA(The North American Free Trade Agreement) dispute settlement organization in NAFTA cases considering ‘like circumstances’. Finally, this article not only advances the resolutions to resolve those issues of ‘like services and service suppliers’, in order to improve the practice of this requirement, but also recommends several suggestions about modifying the content of this requirement.