世界貿易組織與區域貿易協定管轄權衝突之調和方式

Abstract

摘要 在過去幾十年以來，隨著各類特殊法規範體系的大量產生、以及各個國際法庭的齊頭發展，國際法的破碎現象（包括規範意義與組織意義的破碎）已然引發多方的關切。然而，若能予以善加運用，國際法中的調和原則可資用以確保某種程度的協調性、並在各種國際法規範中尋求一個有意義的關連性。其中，維也納條約法公約第31(3)(c)條可用以確保國際法實體規範的系統性整合，而在各個規範間因有真實的衝突而無法加以協調時，國際法亦含有若干衝突解決規範，可依個案狀況用以在各個彼此衝突的規範中找出一個優先順序。從而，國際法規範的破碎現象得以緩和，而國際法秩序的協調性亦得獲得確保。 就國際法組織的破碎現象而言，其中一個環節，乃係各個國際法庭間缺乏充分協調及互動所致。其結果，最嚴重者，莫過於各個國際法庭就同一事件做出不一致、甚至相互衝突的判決。 為了提升各個依條約成立的國際法庭間的協調性，一般而言，國際法庭可仰賴若干管轄權規範（例如一事不再理原則）用以解決各個法庭間的管轄權衝突問題。然而，在世界貿易組織（WTO）裁決機構與區域貿易協定（RTA）下裁決機構間的關係中，管轄權衝突問題乃係一個益加困難的現象。本文就不同的RTA管轄權條款加以分析、分類後，發現其中有幾類管轄權條款，不但規定RTA裁決機構就若干事項具有專屬管轄權，並進而禁止當事國就此等事項提起WTO訴訟。在若干情況下，一個WTO會員國可能甘冒違反此等RTA管轄權條款之風險，就若干事項提起WTO訴訟；此等訴訟相當有可能被認定為相關訴訟權利的濫用。類此情況，在過去已有先例（如墨西哥軟性飲料稅捐案），且在未來發生的可能性，亦可能隨著RTA的大量增加而提升。當此種情況發生時，WTO裁決機構處理的方式即帶有根本、系統性的影響。若WTO裁決機構對於原告國起訴乃係明顯違反RTA管轄權條款、且有權利濫用的事實，予以完全漠視、進而就實體問題加以裁決，不但有違國際法下的調和原則，更有可能影響其正當性，蓋其裁決相當可能與RTA裁決機構就同一案件所做認定嚴重扞格。另一方面，若WTO裁決機構意欲積極處理此一問題，並展現開放的態度，欲考量相關RTA管轄權條款以及國際法下的管轄權規範，則WTO裁決機構即必須面對一個具有高度爭議性的問題：在WTO相關法規範以外，WTO裁決機構是否有權適用其他國際法規範？持平而言，WTO裁決機構所面臨的問題是相當困難的。 為解決此等問題，本文首先探究WTO裁決機構的管轄權範圍，並特別處理幾個基本原則，包括：WTO裁決機構的管轄權，係基於爭端當事國的同意；以及指出管轄權及案件可受理性兩個概念間的差異性。在此方面，本文特別強調：雖然WTO會員國依爭端解決瞭解書（DSU）第23.1條享有提起WTO訴訟之權利，此等起訴之權利並非完全沒有限制。 就爭議性極大的適用法規範範圍問題，本文仔細分析各種差異性極大的學術見解，並在其差異中，尋求折衷的立場。本文達到的重要結論是：若就一個程序問題而言，DSU並未設有任何明文規範，則WTO裁決機構為了適當地履行其作為司法裁決機關的功能，得以超越WTO法規範的範圍，援引其他相關的國際法規範。從而，WTO裁決機構乃有權援引相關RTA管轄權條款、以及國際法下的管轄權規範，用以評估此等國際法規範對於WTO裁決機構的管轄權究竟發揮了何等影響。 為了幫助WTO裁決機構能夠有系統地處理此類問題，本文基於現有的WTO法律體系，提出一套雙軌架構，或可提供若干解決方案。依此架構，若原告國提起WTO訴訟因明顯違反RTA管轄權條款、或因其他因素而認有權利濫用之情形，WTO裁決機構應可直接駁回訴訟，而其駁回之理由可能是WTO裁決機構就該爭端無管轄權、亦可能是雖有管轄權但無法受理。必須強調的是：WTO裁決機構駁回訴訟，並不代表向RTA裁決機構退讓或低頭；在此等狀況下，WTO裁決機構若能駁回訴訟，乃係展現其發現、認知到相關當事國間的真意、並就當事國的真意賦予法律上的意義。若此，則WTO裁決機構不但能減低國際法規範面及制度面的破碎程度，更能有效地促進國際法體系的協調性。

ABSTRACT The phenomenon of fragmentation of international law, both in its normative and institutional aspects, has generated much concern over the past decades, together with the surge of specialized rule-systems and various treaty-based international tribunals. Albeit that, the principle of harmonization in international law seeks to secure certain level of coherence and identify a meaningful relationship between different norms of international law. This is achieved mainly through the systemic integration as promoted by Article 31(3)(c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, as well as relevant conflict-resolution techniques that would serve to justify a choice of priority to norms of international law that genuinely conflict. As such, the normative aspect of fragmentation in international law can be alleviated, and coherence of the international legal system secured. As a specific facet of the institutional fragmentation in international law, the fragmentation between international tribunals is resulted from poor levels of coordination and interaction between different tribunals created by different treaty regimes. The most acute consequence is the risk of inconsistent and mutually conflicting judgments/rulings that may be rendered by different tribunals in respect to the same or similar matters. To increase coherence, international tribunals generally can resort to certain traditional jurisdiction-regulating norms, such as lis alibi pendens, res judicata and comity, so as to minimize jurisdictional conflicts. However, in the context of jurisdictional conflicts between the WTO Tribunal and RTA Tribunals, particular difficulties are encountered. As identified and classified in this thesis, certain types of RTA jurisdictional clauses not only preserve jurisdiction exclusively to RTA Tribunals, but also preclude RTA parties from instituting WTO litigation over a matter which is amendable to the jurisdiction of RTA Tribunals. In certain circumstances, a WTO Member may decide to initiate WTO litigation even though doing so would breach such RTA jurisdictional clauses, and upon legal analysis, the manner in which such WTO litigation is instituted may be considered to be genuinely abusive. Indeed, this is a real possibility, in light of past cases (e.g. Mexico – Taxes on Soft Drinks) as well as the proliferation of RTAs. When that happens, the manner in which the WTO Tribunal approaches such problem would be of cardinal and systemic importance. If the WTO Tribunal entertains such claims without paying any regard whatsoever to the abusive manner in which the WTO litigation is instituted, it would seem to depart from the principle of harmonization in international law and thereby undermine its own legitimacy, as the WTO Tribunal may ultimate rule in a way that is irreconcilable with a ruling by the relevant RTA Tribunal over the same dispute. On the other hand, if the WTO Tribunal wishes to confront this issue and take into consideration the abusive manner in which the WTO litigation is filed, the RTA jurisdictional clauses in question as well as contemplate the possibility of applying jurisdiction-regulating norms, the WTO Tribunal would need to face another highly controversial issue that has long divided commentators: whether, and if yes to what extent, can the WTO Tribunal apply these norms of international law that stand outside the four corners of the WTO legal system. Indeed, it appears that the WTO Tribunal would easily find its own hands tied up. To address these issues, this thesis first examines the jurisdictional scope of the WTO Tribunal. In the course of this, several significant points are made, including that the jurisdiction of the WTO Tribunal, as a treaty-based international tribunal, is also consent-based, and that there is a need to maintain a distinction between jurisdiction and admissibility, both of which can serve as legal basis for preliminary objections that would, if sustained, preclude the WTO Tribunal from entering into the merits of a dispute. Also, this thesis submits that the right to initiate WTO litigation, as provided for in Article 23.1 of the DSU, is by no means an absolute one. Turning to one of the most controversial issue concerning the applicable law in WTO dispute settlement, this thesis surveys relevant academic views that seem to stand diametrically opposed to each other, and, upon engaging in critical analysis of these divergent views, this thesis seeks to identify unity within diversity and endeavors to bridge the chasm. The conclusion thus attained is: in the determination of procedural issues that are not dealt with anywhere in the DSU, the WTO Tribunal, for the purpose of discharging its judicial functions, is in the position to have recourse to norms of international law external to the WTO legal system. Though this, the WTO Tribunal is fully capable of applying certain jurisdiction-regulating norms as well as relevant RTA jurisdictional clauses for the purpose of ascertaining whether and how its jurisdiction is affected in situations where WTO litigation is being abused. In light of the desirability that the WTO Tribunal confront these issues of systemic importance, this thesis aims to present a framework, consisting of two tracks of analysis, that can hopefully serve to offer solutions on the basis of the current WTO legal system as it stands today. Under this framework, where WTO proceedings are initiated in a genuinely abusive manner, the WTO Tribunal would be able to, and indeed expected to dismiss the WTO complaint for lack of jurisdiction or on the grounds of inadmissibility. To do this is not to show a general deference to RTA Tribunals, but, rather, would reflect the WTO Tribunal’s cognizance of the relevant WTO Members’ true intentions; by giving effect to the Members’ true intentions, the WTO Tribunal could mitigate fragmentation of international law in both the normative sense and the institutional sense, thereby securing and promoting the coherence in the international legal system.