歐盟與美國訴諸WTO有關生技(GMO)產品貿易爭端案的衝突與解決

在生物科技蓬勃發展下，歐盟對基因改造產品（GMO）採取嚴謹的審核政策，其部分會員國甚且對歐盟已核准的產品實施防衛措施禁止其進口。導致積極發展農業生技的美國，在拓展歐洲市場受阻後，將其與歐盟的貿易爭端訴諸WTO場域。歐盟與美國的基改GMO產品爭端案經世界貿易組織WTO爭端小組判決(2006年9月)歐盟敗訴，不應遲延美國GMO產品進入歐盟的申請案，歐洲人著重之環保與人權等「歐洲價值觀」是否因GMO爭端案歐盟的敗訴而備受挑戰？對基因改造生物科技安全疑慮，是否在美國與歐盟的GMO爭端案中，有進一步的科學証據得以釐清？2000年「卡塔赫納議定書(Cartagena Protocol) 」在生物科技潛在風險的風險管理概念中，正式將「預防原則」理念納入，歐盟據以引用遭WTO爭端小組裁決不適用，是否象徵WTO作為國際典則(international regime)的侷限性？又新自由制度論者將WTO評估為國際法制化程度最高的國際典則，而本爭端案的判決執行發展，是否應證其有效性？從歐盟部分會員國的主觀因素，不願解除GMO禁令是否會改變歐盟法規對各會員國的拘束力？筆者提出三個假設: （1）歐盟會執行WTO的裁決；但會員國不一定遵行，易言之，新自由制度主義的運用有其缺陷；（2）在歐盟與WTO的互動中，新現實主義仍有其運用的有效性；(3）從歐盟在WTO爭端解決的判決案中，國際法制化的效力仍有斟酌之處。本文將驗證此三項假設。

關鍵字

WTO爭端解決；歐美貿易爭端；基因改造；新自由制度主義；新現實主義；國際典則

並列摘要

Ever since the development of modern biotechnology, the EU has taken a more careful regulatory approach. The US, on the contrary, has largely adopted GMOs in agriculture. Thus differences of regulation and acceptance of GMOs between the US and the EU has led to a crucial trade dispute in the WTO framework. The European population is not fond of GMO products. Following the adoption of the WTO panel report on 21 November 2006, the three complainants (US, Canada and Argentina) and the EU agreed to engage in constructive discussions on the implementation of the WTO panel report. Following the expiry of the extended WTO panel report, the US decided to request the authorization to retaliate against the EU. However, the US and the EU reached a procedural agreement according to which arbitration on the level of the retaliation would be suspended until such time as a compliance panel would rule on the issue. However, member States of EU have invoked the safeguard clause, banning various authorized GMOs from their territory. This paper analyzes the decision-making dynamics that led to such an outcome. It argues that the external pressures on the Member States and the Commission prevented deliberation and consensual solutions. Furthermore, the conflict between states and Commission is a testimony of the debates in International relations (IR) theory that the controversial issues between the neo-realists and the neo-liberals have defended their arguments. Neo-liberal institutionalism (NLI), with inter-disciplinary research, provides a different approach for us to understand international realities. As Robert O. Keohane suggests, NLI places more emphasis on ideas, rules, beliefs, and practice of international region such as WTO than Neorealist do. This article also would like to research the empirical evidence by building up relative ideas concerning global governance, legalization, practices and norms in WTO framework.

並列關鍵字

WTO dispute settlement ； trade dispute ； GMO ； Neoliberal ； Neorealism

參考文獻

6. 林彩瑜，〈從歐體生技產品爭端之裁決論SPS 協定對GMO 規範之影響〉，《臺大法學論叢》，第36 卷，第4 期，頁257-323。

3. 郭華仁(2009)、吳東傑，「基改作物仍應謹慎應對」，台灣經濟研究院生物科技產業研究中心出版。

1. Aaron A.Ostrovsky(2007),“Up Against a Wall: Europe’s Options for Regulating Biotechnology through Regulator Anarchy”, European Law Journal,vol.13.No.1, pp.110-134

4. Amicus Curiae Brief (2004), Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), pp. 19. European Communities – Measures Affecting the Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products (WT/DS/291, 292, and 293)”.

5. Andrea Dur(2007), “The EU in International Trade Negotiations”, JCMS, Volume 45. Number 4. pp.771-787, Cornel University

國際替代計量

歐盟與美國訴諸WTO有關生技(GMO)產品貿易爭端案的衝突與解決

全文下載

主題瀏覽