論技術中立原則於GATS之法律地位

在美國賭博案及中國視聽案中，當事會員國雙方及爭端解決機構的小組都曾分別於訴狀及小組報告裡提及「技術中立原則」，有的會員國主張，因為技術中立原則，所以一個服務的提供係不應該因技術使用的不同而有區分，故服務特定承諾表的範圍自是包括實體服務及其線上服務；有的會員國則認為承諾表的解釋應該依循當事人填寫時的意向而定，不應擅行擴張至線上服務，故技術中立原則除有悖於當事人的意思外，也與「漸進式自由化原則」相違；爭端解決機構時而興起提出自己的看法，時而則選擇作壁上觀。本文的目的有二，第一是釐清大家在服務貿易領域中所討論的技術中立原則的意涵究為何？第二則是因為服務貿易協定中本來就沒有明文規定技術中立原則的字眼存在，且目前也未發展出此原則的案例法，則會員國屢屢在爭端案例中主張時，在沒有討論過法律基礎的情況下，也難怪會爭論不休，而本文在這部分則嘗試在現有的服務貿易協定的文字中，找尋技術中立原則存在的法律依據，除了本身認為其存在有正當性外，最大的貢獻則是期望在未來的爭端案例中可以協助會員國在主張並引用法律依據時能有所參考。最後，本文的題目係「論技術中立原則於GATS之法律地位」，未免使讀者誤解其法律地位的位置係及於GATS中的所有領域，故有必要先行闡釋之。本文所討論的法律地位適用的領域僅含括承諾表解釋的範圍及資通科技下國內管制的相同服務應給予相同的對待。不含括不歧視原則下的同類服務的認定等其他領域。

關鍵字

技術中立原則；漸進式自由化原則；服務貿易協定；承諾表解釋；資訊通訊科技；國內管制；不歧視原則

並列摘要

In “U.S - Gambling” case and “China - Publications and Audiovisual Products” case, Members and the panels mentioned the principle of “technological neutrality” in their plaints and reports respectively. Some Members urged that Mode 1 under the GATS encompasses all possible means of supplying services, whether by mail, telephone, Internet etc., unless otherwise specified in a Member's Schedule. They noted that this is in line with the principle of technological neutrality. The other members, otherwise, urged that the task of ascertaining the meaning of a Member's Schedule involves identifying the common intention of Members as a counterplea. In addition, they also urged that the principle of technological neutrality is contrary to the principle of progressive liberalization. However, the Panel and the Appellate body did not put the arguments down. There are two purposes in this thesis. One is to clarify the meaning of the principle of technological neutrality which has been widely discussed in the field of GATS. The other is to establish the legal grounding to the principle of technological neutrality from GATS, since the principle itself is still neither the case law or codified in GATS yet. As to the establishment of the legal grounding to the principle itself, it might be helpful as references for Members who would like to claim “technological neutrality” in their plaints for future disputes. At last, as the clarification as well as the quick start, the discussion and the application of this thesis only go to the “scope of the commitment” and the equal treatment of the equal services under “national regulatory of ICT”. Other fields such as “the like services” are not included.

並列關鍵字

technological neutrality ； progressive liberalization ； GATS ； scope of the commitment ； ICT ； national regulatory ； non-discrimination principle

參考文獻

6. 張心悌（2004）。〈從法律經濟分析觀點論WTO爭端解決機制〉，《中正法學集刊第十五期》，頁188~193。

4. 彭心儀 (2010)。〈論頻譜「稀有資源」的管制原則〉，《台北大學法學論叢》，75期，頁219。

3. 彭心儀（2011）。〈科技匯流與條約解釋—探討「服務業特定承諾」的時代性兼評WTO中國視聽服務案〉，《政大法學評論》，120期，頁10~12。

2. Peng, Shin-yi, Renegotiate the WTO “Schedules of Commitments”: Technological Development and Treaty Interpretation, Cornell International Law Journal, 14 (2012).

16. WTO (2013)。《Welcome remarks by WTO DDG Harsha V. Singh》。載於：https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/serv_e/wkshop_june13_e/singh_e.pdf。

國際替代計量

論技術中立原則於GATS之法律地位

全文下載

主題瀏覽