WTO制度下的國內管制措施——二十年來關於平衡國內管制自主權與國民待遇原則的學說與實踐

Domestic Regulations in the WTO–Twenty Years, Theories and Practice on Balancing Domestic Regulatory Autonomy and National Treatment Principle

二十年前，Hudec第一次詳細論述了世界貿易體制下國內管制自主權與國民待遇原則的關係，並提出“目的與效果”學說，主張在GATT第3條下，即使國內管制措施歧視國外產品，但如其具有合理政策目標，則也不視為違反國民待遇原則，以此放鬆對於國內管制自主權的限制。此後，國際法體系性學說與新“目的與效果”學說相繼提出，它們雖然在規則細節上的設計與“目的與效果”學說不同，但都主張超越GATT第20條範圍的合理政策目標可以正當化歧視性的國內管制措施。但WTO的司法實踐一直沒有接受這些學說。而WTO司法機構確實感到尊重國內管制措施的需要，其上訴機構在司法實踐中通過司法解釋放鬆了GATT第20條一般例外條款下的若干條件，相關司法實踐雖未建構一般理論，但方便違反了GATT第3條下國民待遇原則的國內管制措施援引第20條進行抗辯。然而，這些司法實踐對於擴大國內管制自主權作用不大。近來在國際市民社會和發達國家政府的雙重壓力下，上訴機構擴大國內管制自主權的壓力持續增大，但由於上訴機構在多個案例中已經明確拒絕了相關學說，只能另辟蹊徑，在歐盟海豹製品案中通過對GATT第20條前言的解釋，允許歧視性的國內管制措施在能夠被沒有範圍限制的合理政策目標解釋時被豁免。然而，由於上訴機構在歐盟海豹製品案中的相關表述和分析比較模糊，GATT第20條的新解釋是否能夠被澄清和確立，有待進一步觀察。

20 years ago, Hudec for the first time elaborated the relationship between domestic regulatory autonomy and the national treatment principle under the world trading system. He also proposed to introduce the “aim and effects” test into GATT Article III. According to his proposal, even if a domestic regulation discriminates imports, it would not violate the national treatment obligation under Article III if it has a legitimate policy objective. Later, the theory of international law system and the new “aim and effects” test were also proposed by scholars. These theories have a similar effect as the “aim and effect” test proposal although they differ in legal technicalities. However, none of the above theories were accepted by the WTO judiciary. The WTO judiciary did relax certain conditions under GATT Article XX to provide more accessible justifications for domestic measures violating substantive WTO obligations, however, these efforts did not really expand domestic regulatory autonomy. Recently, under the pressures from international civil society and some developed countries, the WTO judiciary seems to begin change its attitude towards domestic regulatory autonomy. However, since the Appellate Body has turned down the above proposals, it had to take a new route in EC-Seal Products to reinterpret the chapeau of GATT Article XX, allowing discriminatory domestic regulations to be justified with policy objectives not on the list as provided by the subparagraphs of GATT Article XX. But, since the Appellate Body was a little ambiguous in EC-Seal Products, it needs to be seen whether the reconstruction of the chapeau in EC-Seal Products would be firmly established.