Your browser does not support JavaScript!
å›žé¦–é 
WTO 爭端解決程序介紹 (1) ─訴訟前的諮商
WTO 爭端解決程序介紹 (1) ─訴訟前的諮商
眾律國際法律事務所 黃文政
2014.11.21

一、 前言

WTO爭端解決程序的目的,在於謀求快速解決會員間的貿易爭端,以保障會員在WTO協定下享有的權利 ,並確保整個WTO全球多邊貿易體系的安定性與可預測性 。

WTO爭端解決程序的特徵之一,在於偏好在當事人兩造會員間透過雙邊協商以求彼此可接受的方案藉此解決紛爭,而非直接訴諸正式訴訟程序 。因此在整個WTO爭端解決程序設計上,諮商必先於正式審判程序,惟諮商結果仍需符合WTO實體規範 ,並通知WTO組織中負責管理貿易爭端的「爭端解決機構」(Dispute Settlement Body, DSB)。


二、 訴訟前的「諮商」(Consultation)

(一) 諮商的重要性

「上訴機構」(the Appellate Body, WTO爭端解決機制中最高法律審)在「墨西哥玉米糖漿案」 中指出,當事國可藉由諮商可交換資訊,藉以評估雙方在案件中主張之優劣,進一步可以達成合意解決紛爭,避免走向訴訟。退一步,可以限縮彼此未來訴訟上爭執的範圍。

(二) 開啟諮商
原告國可依GATT第22條或第23條開啟諮商,惟諮商請求必須與之後進入正式審判程序的第一審訴訟請求保持「同一性」。「上訴機構」(the Appellate Body)在「美國高地棉案」 中指出,未於諮商請求中列出的被告國「受控措施」或「違反的WTO協定法條」,不能之後增列於正式審判程序的第一審訴訟請求中,從而不納入第一審爭端解決小組的審判範圍。

(三) 諮商的具體步驟

首先,被告國在收到諮商請求後,十日內不回應或於三十日內不進入諮商程序,請求諮商國得直接請求第 一審爭端解決小組成立,進入第一審程序。

諮商採不公開原則 。

諮商不應有礙於當事國在後續程序中應享有之權利。「爭端解決小組」(Panel)因此於「美國內衣案」 中指出,諮商期間提供的證據,包括諮商期間對某些爭議事實的承認或自認,對其後的第一審程序沒有法律效力,亦即當事國仍然可以繼續爭執該事實,不受其先前承認所拘束。

只有基於GATT第22條之諮商請求,當事國以外的第三國才可以加入諮商 。

第一審爭端解決小組只需要確定諮商是否舉行或請求,無須判斷也無權判斷諮商之進行是否足夠。如被告國「適時」(視訴訟進行時程)提出未經諮商或無諮商請求之程序抗辯時,第一審爭端解決小組應作出其無權審查之結論。

(四) 諮商的結果

其一、諮商如有成果,應通知「爭端解決機構」(Dispute Settlement Body, DSB),非當事國的第三國會員國有權評論諮商成果。

其二、諮商後六十日內無成果,原則上原告國可以請求成立第一審爭端解決小組。

其三、如果諮商涉及之被告國為開發中國家時,當事國可以請求延長六十日期限,「爭端解決機構」(Dispute Settlement Body, DSB)主席應在諮商當事國後,決定是否延長與可延長之期限 。

其四、即便進入第一審爭端解決小組程序,當事國兩造仍可進行諮商。如兩造達成諮商合意,第一審爭端解決小組不應作出判決,僅在報告中簡述爭端事實並公布即可 。




---------------------------------------------------
[1] DSU 3.3 provides that, the ‘prompt settlement’ of situations in which a Member considers that any benefits accruing to it directly or indirectly under the covered agreements are being impaired by measures taken by another Member is essential to the ‘effective functioning’ of the WTO and ‘the maintenance of a proper balance between the rights and obligations of Members’.

[2] DSU 3.2 stipulates that, the dispute settlement of the WTO is a central element in providing ‘security and predictability’ to the multilateral trading system.

[3] See Peter Van den Bossche and Werner Zdouc, The Law and Policy of the World Trade Organuization-Text, Cases and Materials, Cambridge 2013, pp. 183-184.

[4] DSU 3.7 provides that, the aim of the dispute settlement mechanism is to secure a positive solution to a dispute. A solution ‘mutually acceptable’ to the parties to a dispute and ‘consistent with the covered agreements’ is clearly to be ‘preferred’.

[5] See Appellate Body Report, Mexico-Corn Syrup (21.5-US) (2001).

[6] See Appellate Body Report, US-Upland Cotton (2005).

[7] See DSU 4.6.

[8] See Panel Report, US-Underwear (1997).

[9] See DSU 4.11.

[10] DSU 12.10 provides that, in the context of consultations involving a measure taken by a developing country Member, the parties may agree to extend the periods established in paragraphs 7 and 8 of Article 4. If, after the relevant period has elapsed, the consulting parties cannot agree that consultations have concluded, the Chairman of the DSB shall decide, after consultation with the parties, whether to extend the relevant period and, if so, for how long.

[11] DSU 12.7 stipulates that, where a settlement of the matter among the parties to the dispute has been found, the report of the panel shall be confined to a brief description of the case and to reporting that a solution has been reached.
瀏覽數  
將此文章推薦給親友