透過您的圖書館登入
IP:3.239.15.46
  • 學位論文

消費者知情權於WTO規範之探討-以美國COOL法案為研究中心

A Study of Consumer Right to Know under the WTO rules-Centralizing on the Country of Origin Labeling of the U.S.

指導教授 : 鄺承華
若您是本文的作者,可授權文章由華藝線上圖書館中協助推廣。

摘要


美國於2008年開始執行強制性原產地標示措施(簡稱COOL法案),以提供消費者正確且充分的產地資訊為目的,並規範零售商與供應商基於該標示資訊所應負之責任,惟卻使貿易夥伴加拿大與墨西哥向WTO爭端解決機構提出諮商要求,指責美國實行不公平且具歧視性之貿易限制手段,造成不必要之成本與經濟衝擊。因此,本文主要以加拿大及墨西哥向WTO爭端機構控訴乙案開啟,探討COOL法案是否符合WTO相關協定,並以TBT協定及SPS協定為主軸進行分析。   由於加州的大腸桿菌菠菜、美國花生醬沙門氏菌以及中國三聚氰胺奶製品等事件爆發後,全球消費意識逐漸抬起,消費者愈趨重視消費者「知」的權利。即消費者於決定購買食品或產品前,有權利知悉了解箇中成分與組織,而此正是美國所推行之原產地標示制度。然而,在消費者尋求「知」的權利之際,逐漸與國際貿易、國內市場形成衝突,在通常情況下,國家為創造國際經濟繁榮的共同利益,無可避免地必須屈服於國際貿易,惟當出現了非經濟性議題,如消費者知情權,是否仍須將此非經濟利益排除呢?因此,本文將探討消費者知情權在法規範與政策面之性質及其適法性,以及其是否足以成為獨立理由而立足於WTO規範下,以解決消費者權益與自由貿易間分歧問題。   另一方面,由於現代經濟活動日趨多變,已無法期待消費者能夠即時作出正確判斷與選擇,產生經營者與消費者間資訊不對稱的狀態,消費者處於弱勢地位,故須藉由賦予經營者產品資訊之揭露義務,讓消費者獲得正確且充分的產品資訊,以達消費者權益之保護。標示,係消費資訊類型之一,亦係展現消費者「知」權利的重要一環,惟標示制度於我國法制下,散見於各類法規或標示基準中,且其標示內容及事項亦無統一,亦造成法令遵循與安全疑慮。是以,本文以我國商品標示制度為基礎,再輔以特定產品之標示規範與我國對進口牛肉之限制措施,研析相關標示制度之現況及於WTO規範下之適法性,並舉以他國標示方案為例,希冀借鏡美國之COOL法案,解決經濟利益與消費者權益間之問題。

並列摘要


In 2009, the United States began to perform the mandatory Country of Origin Labeling measures (COOL) in order to provide consumers with accurate and sufficient information for the purpose of country of origin and impose the duty of disclosure on the retailers and suppliers. In response, Canada and Mexico accused the United States of imposing unfair and discriminatory trade restrictions, resulting in unnecessary costs and detrimental economic impacts on their respective markets in a case before the WTO Dispute Settlement Body. The author of this paper opens by examining the complaint charged by Canada and Mexico, and discusses whether the COOL Act conforms to WTO Agreements, and analyzes based on the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade and Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures. After the outbreaks of colon bacillus in California spinach, salmonella in American peanut butter, and melamine in dairy products from China, consumers are increasingly demanding respect of their right to know. Consumers consider that before they decide to buy food or products, they should have the right to know the ingredients, elements, and country of origin of the products or food, and this is the reason that the Country of Origin Labeling has been implemented by the United States. However, while consumers seek the "right to know", the new labeling laws will gradually come into conflict with international trade regulations and domestic markets. Under general circumstances, countries hoping to create prosperous and robust economies must inevitably submit to the international trade. Nevertheless, when there is a non-economic issue, such as a consumers’ right to know, is it necessary to exclude this non-economic benefit or not? Therefore, in order to resolve the differences between consumers’ rights and free trade, the author discusses the legality of the "Consumer’s Right to Know" on the nature of law and policy and whether this issue could become an independent reason under the WTO rules. On the other hand, modern economic activity is increasingly volatile and we are unable to expect that consumers could make the right judgments and choices instantly. As consumers are in a weak position because they have asymmetric information compared to the marketers, so the government must impose the obligations of product information on marketers to ensure that consumers can get the accurate and adequate information, and to achieve the purpose of protecting the consumers’ rights. Labeling, is not just a type of consumer information, but also an important part to show the "Consumer’s Right to Know". Although the labeling policies under our legal system are scattered in various regulations or labeling standards and are not standardized, they have some influence on legal compliance and security concerns. Therefore, the author studied the status of the relevant labeling policies and analyzed their legality under the WTO rules, based on the labeling regulations of the specific products and the restrictive measures on imported beef in Taiwan. Further, the author provided examples of labeling schemes from the Canadian and Australian markets in order to show how the conflict between economic interests and consumers’ rights could possibly be reconciled with the COOL Act in the United States.

參考文獻


1.牛惠之,WTO技術性貿易障礙(TBT)協定就安全貿易之適用與限制-環保標示、GMO標示之評析,政大法學評論,第95期,頁323-383(2007)。
26.WTO與區域貿易協定原產地規則及我國相關規定,經濟部國際貿易局編制,頁1-72(2012)
19.陳耀祥,論菸品內容標示義務與基本權利之限制-評司法院釋字第577號解釋,月旦法學雜誌,第116期,頁215-222(2005)。
23.廖舜右、張照勤,進口美國牛肉的科學、法律以及政治爭議:牛海綿狀腦病的討論,台灣公共衛生雜誌,第31卷第6期,頁502-511(2012)。
7.劉春堂,消費者保護與消費者法,行政院消費者保護委員會編印(2000)。

延伸閱讀