再論WTO執行法律本質：遵守抑或再平衡

The Legal Nature of WTO Enforcement Revisited: Compliance or Rebalancing

長期以來，學界對WTO執行的法律本質一直存在爭論。遵守說宣導者主張WT0執行的目的是促使遵守爭端解決機構專家組或上訴機構的裁決，並阻止未來對該協定的違反；再平衡說陣營則發現了WT0執行中固有的“補償或履行”邏輯。分別考察論戰雙方的主張、理論基礎和理論盲點後可以發現，爭論源於其未對WT0兩種不履行及相應後果加以區分。但是，過於強調WT0法某個特定方面，會造成對WT0—種誤導、歪曲的看法。

The legal nature of WTO enforcement has been debated in academic circles for a long time. Compliance advocates maintain that the objective of WTO enforcement is to induce compliance with DSB panel/AB rulings, and to deter future violations of the Agreement, while rebalancing camp detects an inherent 'pay- or-perform' logic in WTO enforcement. This paper examines the contentions and theoretical foundations as well as theoretical blind spots on both sides separately. The paper concludes that, the debate has not made a distinction between two kinds of non-performance and relevant consequences in the WTO. However, overemphasizing one particular aspect of the WTO law tends to create a misguided and distorted image of the WTO.