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──論歐盟對WTO爭端解決小組的判決執行

The dispute and settlement of GMO case between EU and US under WTO framework---The EU implementation on the WTO panel report

歐盟與美國的GMO產品爭端案經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、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「卡特吉那議定書（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？又歐盟的多層次治理在GMO爭端案的判決執行中，各會員國是否能有效遵行？歐盟執委會如何在其執行GMO決策程序中兼顧WTO爭端解決小組的仲裁執行，皆為本文探討的方向。

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. 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.