世界貿易組織關於中國大陸限制原物料出口案之研究

Abstract

《中國大陸¬—有關多種原物料出口措施案》（中國大陸—原物料案）於2009年引起了世界各國的關注，其主要原因有三：首先，中國大陸限制稀土等原物料出口到日本等國家，被視為是一種外交戰略手段，特別是當許多遭到限制出口的原物料皆是眾多已開發國家在工業發展上不可或缺的原料。其次，中國大陸與控訴方在WTO爭端解決制度底下進行的爭辯，凸顯出了WTO此一治理全球貿易的國際組織在出口限制規範上的不足。最後，本案也暴露出中國大陸的《加入議定書》與WTO諸多協定間的缺乏法律性定位，以及爭端解決小組和上訴機構在審議方法方面頗有值得爭議之處。 本論文嘗試從三個面向分析《中國大陸—原物料案》：新自由制度主義、本案爭端解決過程和報告、以及WTO內《加入議定書》的定位和GATT/WTO的出口限制規範。筆者首先介紹國際關係理論中的新自由制度主義，並用以分析本案的爭端解決過程和WTO爭端解決制度，最終明確地發現WTO的爭端解決機制實乃充分地體現了新自由制度主義的主張與期望。但是若進一步從國際政治現實的角度觀察，則可發現仍有以新現實主義的圍堵理論補強解釋的空間。 在本案發生以前，很少有學者專家對於WTO會員國的出口限制措施和GATT的出口限制規範作出深入或系統性的研究。絕大多數的討論都聚焦在有關進口的關稅或非關稅障礙，有關出口限制者卻付之闕如。中國大陸與日本在釣魚台海域附近發生船隻碰撞、進而激化主權爭議之後，由於中國大陸以禁運稀土到日本為外交談判籌碼，使得世界各主要工業國開始有了警覺。美國、歐盟、以及墨西哥三國對中國大陸限制多種原物料出口的措施在WTO提起了訴訟，其最主要的目的就是要確保未來在工業和軍事發展上的重要原料能夠供給無虞。另一方面，此次爭端的解決過程與報告中，由於中國大陸的《加入議定書》本身定位不明、爭端解決小組與上訴機構對條約的解釋方法上頗具爭議，再加上WTO諸多協定本身原本就缺乏有關出口限制措施的詳細規範，所以使得學術界開始對於本案有關問題作出了許多深入的剖析與評論。這些都讓世界貿易中的出口限制成為新興的國際貿易法研究領域。 本論文點出了《中國大陸—原物料案》所代表的理論意涵和和制度限制，並且鉅細靡遺地介紹爭端解決過程和有關的GATT規範，足可作為讀者認識爭端解決制度和GATT與出口有關規定的有用參考。最後更根據在《中國大陸—原物料案》對正在進行中的《中國大陸—有關出口稀土、鎢、鉬措施案》做出了分析與推斷。在《中國大陸—原物料案》被視為未來WTO在裁決出口限制措施爭議的試金石的同時，本論文也可視為是一個理解這類議題與制度背景的一個不錯的起點。

WTO dispute case, China – Measures Related to the Exportation of Various Raw Materials, was focused by the world because the restrictions on exporting various raw materials was seen as a China’s strategic method to against Japan. Besides, the critical debate which is between complainants and respondent and under WTO dispute system has highlighted the insufficiency of GATT/WTO rules on export restrictions. Finally, the case has also exposed that China’s accession protocol is lacking in defined legal relations with WTO agreements, as well as the huge controversy over the Panel and Appellate Body’s explanation of the meaning of treaties and sentences in GATT and accession protocol. This paper analyzes the dispute with three aspects: neoliberal institutionalism, Panel report and Appellate Body report, and the review of the position of China’s accession protocol in WTO rules over export restriction. The author introduced neoliberal institutionalism and used it to dissect the process and system for resolving quarrels of this case for a start, and confirmed its ideas and expectancy about the international institution such as WTO. Obviously, WTO dispute settlement reflects ideas and expectancy of the theory about the international institution such as WTO. However, if we ponder over the reasons behind the dispute settlement system and the resolving procedural, we can find that there is still room for considering reinforcing the explanation with the containment argument of neorealism. Before this case, there are few scholars or experts who had conducted systematized or thorough investigations into the export restrictions carried out by the members of WTO. Most of the studies were concentrated on the contentions of tariff or nontariff obstacles of import but export. Until the sovereign dispute between China and Japan was intensified by the Senkaku boat collision incident, major industrial countries such as United States and European Union had not paid attention to this kind of restrictions. The lawsuit instituted by United States, European Union, and Mexico was a strategic trial to ensure the supply of vital materials to these countries’ industrial development actually. In addition, owing to the undefined position of China’s accession protocol, controversial method of explanation by Panel and Appellate Body, and the original inadequacy of regulations about export restrictions in GATT/WTO, the measures related to export restrictions have been an emerging research field to international trade law studies. This paper outlines the theoretical implication for China – Raw Materials case and the limitation of WTO regulations. It is surely useful for readers to understand WTO dispute settlement and the GATT rules related to export measures. Furthermore, the author has inferred the judgment of the progressing case, China — Measures Related to the Exportation of Rare Earths, Tungsten and Molybdenum, based on the adjudication of China – Raw Materials case. After all, this paper can be a good threshold to comprehend this kind of subjects and the background of these disputes while China – Raw Materials case is regarded as a touchstone for WTO deliberate on the cases concerned with export restrictions.