114 年 國立臺灣大學法律系碩士班庚組《國際經貿法》
第 Question 1 題50 分
On July 26, 2024, the European Union ("EU") requested consultations with Taiwan regarding Taiwan's measures related to local content requirements in investments in off-shore wind installations.
As the background, Taiwan started to develop offshore wind generation capabilities in 2013 through rounds of capacity allocations. In each round of auction, developers bid to develop offshore windfarms up to the allocated generation capacity. In the Phase 3.2 auction, Taiwan allegedly adopted the following measures, including:
- requiring bidders to commit, in their bids, to a minimum degree of local content to be eligible to participate in the auction;
- using the local content commitment committed by bidders as a tiebreaker in the award procedure;
- contractually binding successful bidders to achieving the committed local content degree during the implementation and operation of their windfarm projects, and subjecting them to contractual penalties if the committed degree is not achieved.
The EU raised the concern that Taiwan's above measures were inconsistent with Taiwan's WTO obligations, specifically Article III:4 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (“GATT"), in that the above alleged measures require and incentivize bidders to commit to using a significant level of Taiwan's domestic products in their windfarm projects, thereby according less favourable treatment to imported products than to like domestic products.
On November 8, 2024, the EU and Taiwan reached understandings on the above dispute.
Assuming you represented Taiwan in this dispute. Please analyze the potential defenses that Taiwan may consider for defending the GATT-consistency of the measures at issue, including defenses related to GATT Art. III:4 and GATT Art. XX. In your analyses, please also analyze the expected limits of these defenses.
登入後即可作答並保存紀錄。
本題考查 GAT T Article III:4 關於國民待遇原則的適用，以及 GATT Article XX 一般例外條款的適用性。考生需分析台灣的離岸風電在地含量要求措施是否違反 Article III:4，並進一步探討 Article XX 的例外條款是否能作為辯護依據，以及這些辯護的預期限制。
核心觀念：
- GATT Article III:4 (國民待遇)：要求締約方不得對進口產品給予比對國內生產的同類產品較不利的待遇。
- GATT Article XX (一般例外)：列舉了締約方為達成特定公共利益（如公共道德、人類、動物或植物生命或健康的保護、國家安全等）而採取的措施，即使這些措施違反了 GAT T 的其他規定，在符合該條款前言（chapeau）和具體例外條款的前提下，仍可能被允許。
解題分析：
一、 台灣措施是否違反 GATT Article III:4？
- 「同類產品」(Like Products)：離岸風電設備的進口產品（如來自歐盟的風力渦輪機、零組件等）與台灣國內生產的同類產品。此處認定應無太大爭議。
- 「待遇」(Treatment)： Article III:4 關注的是「法律與規定」對產品的影響，而非實際結果。台灣的措施，包括要求競標者承諾在地含量、將在地含量作為決標的「比價考量」(tiebreaker)，以及將未達標者納入合約違約處罰，這些措施都對進口產品造成了不利影響。
- 要求競標者承諾在地含量：這直接要求競標者必須規劃使用台灣本地產品，否則將無法參與競標，對進口產品構成直接的限制。
- 將在地含量作為比價考量：即使進口產品在價格、技術上有優勢，但因未承諾在地含量，可能因此落選，這是一種較不利的待遇。
- 合約處罰：成功得標者若未能達到承諾的地含量，將面臨罰款，這增加了使用進口產品的成本與風險，變相鼓勵使用本地產品。
- 「較不利的待遇」(Less Favourable Treatment)：這些措施明顯地迫使或誘使開發商優先考慮使用台灣本地產品，從而給予進口產品較差的待遇。因此，台灣的措施很可能被認定違反 GATT Article III:4。
二、 台灣可考慮的辯護理由：GATT Article XX
如果台灣的措施被認定違反 Article III:4，台灣可以嘗試援引 GATT Article XX 的例外條款作為辯護。考慮到離岸風電產業的發展可能涉及國家能源安全、環境保護等公共利益，以下是可能被援引的條款：
-
Article XX(d) - 締約方為執行與本協定不符的法律或規章所必需的措施：
- 此處可能較難適用。台灣的措施本身就是為了促進在地產業發展，而非為執行某項「與本協定不符」的外部法律或規章。
-
Article XX(f) - 為維持符合締約方關於藝術、歷史或考古性質的國家文物的保護所必需的措施：
- 顯然不適用。
-
Article XX(g) - 為保護人類、動物或植物的生命或健康所必需的措施：
- 離岸風電的發展可能與能源轉型、減少碳排放有關，進而對氣候變遷、環境保護產生正面影響，間接有益於人類健康。
- 預期限制：此處的連結較為間接。GATT 案件中，對於環境保護作為 Article XX(g) 的辯護理由，通常要求措施與環境保護目標之間有直接的關聯性，且應優先考慮對貿易限制最小的措施。單純的在地含量要求，其與環境保護的直接關聯性較弱，較難以此辯護。
-
Article XX(j) - 為執行締約方在國際協定下承擔的義務所必需的措施，該國際協定旨在保護人類、動物或植物的生命或健康、或為保護其環境，且該措施的實施或執行方式不致構成任意或不合理的歧視，或對國際貿易構成變相限制：
- 如果台灣參與了與離岸風電發展、氣候變遷相關的國際協定（例如聯合國氣候變遷框架公約及其協議），且這些措施是為了履行該協定的目標（例如發展再生能源以減少溫室氣體排放），則可能可以嘗試援引。
- 預期限制：同樣需要證明措施與國際協定目標的關聯性，以及其執行方式不造成任意或不合理的歧視或變相限制。
第 Question 2 (1) 題15 分
Taiwania, Berlandia, and Alto are countries located in East Africa, and all are members of the World Trade Organization. Taiwania and Alto are developed countries with well-established medical systems, whereas Berlandia is a least-developed economy. Taiwania boasts the world's largest mask industry due to a rare raw material called "Tai," which is essential for producing a special mask known as "M-59."
In 2024, a new virus, "IPA-24," was first discovered in Berlandia, leading to a soaring number of deaths. Due to its contagious nature, "IPA-24" quickly spread worldwide, becoming a global public health emergency. A few months later, a definitive scientific study revealed that wearing "M-59" masks could significantly reduce the risk of being infected by "IPA-24." Suddenly, the demand for "M-59" masks skyrocketed, and the masks became scarce in the market.
In response to this global health crisis, Taiwania implemented two measures regarding "Tai" and "M-59":
A. A 50% export tax on "Tai" was introduced, along with stringent export registration requirements that significantly delayed the exportation of "Tai."
B. The exportation of "M-59" was generally prohibited, except for exports to Berlandia due to humanitarian considerations.
Alto strongly contested these measures, arguing that they violate Taiwania's legal obligations under the WTO. In contrast, Taiwania refuted all accusations from Alto, maintaining that both measures comply with WTO laws.
Please analyzes the following questions in light of the WTO laws.
(1) Do the imposition of export tax and export registration on "Tai" constitute an "quantitative restriction" under GATT Article XI?
登入後即可作答並保存紀錄。
本題考查 GATT Article XI 關於禁止數量限制的規定，以及出口稅和出口登記要求是否構成數量限制。
核心觀念：
- GATT Article XI (General Elimination of Quantitative Restrictions)：要求締約方不得設立或維持禁止或限制進口或出口的數量限制，包括配額、進出口許可證或其他類似措施。
- 「數量限制」(Quantitative Restriction)：指對進出口數量、價值、種類或類別進行實質性限制的措施，而不僅僅是單純的關稅或行政程序。
解題分析：
一、 出口稅 (Export Tax)
- GATT Article III vs. Article XI：GATT Article III 主要處理「國民待遇」和「最惠國待遇」原則，針對進口和國內產品的待遇。Article XI 則處理「數量限制」。
- Article II vs. Article XI：Article II 規定了關稅（tariffs）的約束，並允許締約方維持或設立關稅。出口稅通常被視為一種關稅或與關稅性質類似的費用，其性質與數量限制不同。
- 定義：出口稅是對出口貨物徵收的稅，其目的是增加出口成本，而非直接限制出口的「數量」。雖然高額的出口稅可能導致出口量下降，但其措施性質仍是「價格」的影響，而非「數量」的直接控制。
- 實踐：在 WTO 爭端解決實踐中，出口稅通常不被視為 Article XI 所禁止的「數量限制」。雖然 Article III:1 提到締約方有義務避免扭曲貿易的措施，且 Article III:2 提到不得對進口產品徵收高於國內產品的內部稅，但 Article XI 是明確針對數量限制。
二、 出口登記要求 (Export Registration Requirements)
- 性質：出口登記要求本身是一種行政程序。其是否構成數量限制，取決於其實際執行方式。
- 「顯著延遲」(Significantly Delayed)：題目中提到「significantly delayed the exportation of 'Tai'」。這種「顯著延遲」可能透過以下方式產生：
- 嚴格的審批程序：登記要求可能包含複雜、耗時、且不確定的審批過程。
- 人為的拖延：主管機關可能故意拖延審批，導致出口商無法按時出口。
第 Question 2 (2) 題15 分
Taiwania, Berlandia, and Alto are countries located in East Africa, and all are members of the World Trade Organization. Taiwania and Alto are developed countries with well-established medical systems, whereas Berlandia is a least-developed economy. Taiwania boasts the world's largest mask industry due to a rare raw material called "Tai," which is essential for producing a special mask known as "M-59."
In 2024, a new virus, "IPA-24," was first discovered in Berlandia, leading to a soaring number of deaths. Due to its contagious nature, "IPA-24" quickly spread worldwide, becoming a global public health emergency. A few months later, a definitive scientific study revealed that wearing "M-59" masks could significantly reduce the risk of being infected by "IPA-24." Suddenly, the demand for "M-59" masks skyrocketed, and the masks became scarce in the market.
In response to this global health crisis, Taiwania implemented two measures regarding "Tai" and "M-59":
A. A 50% export tax on "Tai" was introduced, along with stringent export registration requirements that significantly delayed the exportation of "Tai."
B. The exportation of "M-59" was generally prohibited, except for exports to Berlandia due to humanitarian considerations.
Alto strongly contested these measures, arguing that they violate Taiwania's legal obligations under the WTO. In contrast, Taiwania refuted all accusations from Alto, maintaining that both measures comply with WTO laws.
Please analyzes the following questions in light of the WTO laws.
(2) Does the export ban on M-59 violate any of the WTO laws? (15%)
登入後即可作答並保存紀錄。
本題考查 GATT Article XI:1 對於禁止出口數量限制的規定，以及出口禁令是否違反此規定。
核心觀念：
- GATT Article XI:1 (General Elimination of Quantitative Restrictions)：禁止締約方設立或維持「禁止或限制進口或出口的數量、價值，或以任何其他方式的限制」。
- 出口禁令 (Export Ban)：指完全禁止某項產品的出口。
解題分析：
-
是否構成數量限制？
- 出口禁令，即「禁止」出口，顯然是對出口數量的最極致的限制。它直接違反了 GATT Article XI:1 的規定，即「禁止或限制進口或出口的數量」。
- 即使是「一般性禁止」(generally prohibited)，但透過「除...外」(except for exports to Berlandia) 的方式，仍然是對出口的整體限制，只是豁免了特定情況。
-
是否違反 WTO 法律？
- GATT Article XI:1：直接違反。出口禁令本身就是 Article XI:1 所禁止的「禁止或限制出口的數量」。
- GATT Article I (最惠國待遇)：如果 Taiwania 對不同國家有不同的出口禁令或豁免，則可能違反 Article I。在此案例中，出口禁令「一般性禁止」，但「除...出口至 Berlandia 外」，這似乎是在對不同目的地國家進行區別待遇。
第 Question 2 (3) 題20 分
Taiwania, Berlandia, and Alto are countries located in East Africa, and all are members of the World Trade Organization. Taiwania and Alto are developed countries with well-established medical systems, whereas Berlandia is a least-developed economy. Taiwania boasts the world's largest mask industry due to a rare raw material called "Tai," which is essential for producing a special mask known as "M-59."
In 2024, a new virus, "IPA-24," was first discovered in Berlandia, leading to a soaring number of deaths. Due to its contagious nature, "IPA-24" quickly spread worldwide, becoming a global public health emergency. A few months later, a definitive scientific study revealed that wearing "M-59" masks could significantly reduce the risk of being infected by "IPA-24." Suddenly, the demand for "M-59" masks skyrocketed, and the masks became scarce in the market.
In response to this global health crisis, Taiwania implemented two measures regarding "Tai" and "M-59":
A. A 50% export tax on "Tai" was introduced, along with stringent export registration requirements that significantly delayed the exportation of "Tai."
B. The exportation of "M-59" was generally prohibited, except for exports to Berlandia due to humanitarian considerations.
Alto strongly contested these measures, arguing that they violate Taiwania's legal obligations under the WTO. In contrast, Taiwania refuted all accusations from Alto, maintaining that both measures comply with WTO laws.
Please analyzes the following questions in light of the WTO laws.
(3) Assuming that the measures at issue violate WTO laws, can Taiwania justify the measures under GATT Article XX or XXI? (20%)
登入後即可作答並保存紀錄。
本題要求在假設台灣的措施違反 WTO 法律的前提下，分析台灣能否依據 GATT Article XX（一般例外）或 Article XXI（國家安全例外）來為這些措施辯護。
核心觀念：
- GATT Article XX (General Exceptions)：允許締約方在特定條件下採取違反 GAT T 其他規定的措施，以達成公共利益目標，如保護人類健康、環境、國家安全等。
- GATT Article XXI (Security Exceptions)：允許締約方在特定情況下採取保護其基本安全利益的措施。
- Article XX 的前言 (Chapeau)：無論採取何種例外，措施的實施方式都不得構成「任意或不合理的歧視」或「對國際貿易的變相限制」。
- 舉證責任：援引 Article XX 或 XXI 的締約方負有舉證責任。
解題分析：
一、 針對措施 A (出口稅和出口登記要求 on "Tai") 的辯護
-
可能援引的 Article XX 條款：
- Article XX(b) - 保護人類、動物或植物的生命或健康：
- 關聯性：台灣可能會辯稱，為了確保 M-59 口罩的生產，必須確保關鍵原材料 "Tai" 的供應。M-59 口罩對於防疫至關重要，因此保護其生產鏈有助於保護人類生命健康。
- 「必需性」(Necessity)：這是關鍵的辯護點。台灣需要證明，對 "Tai" 徵收 50% 出口稅並實施嚴格的出口登記要求，是為了確保 M-59 口罩生產所「必需」的。這意味著，沒有其他貿易限制較少的替代措施（如提供補貼給國內 M-59 生產商、與出口商協商供應協議等）能夠達到同樣的保護效果。
- 「變相限制」風險：僅僅是為了確保國內生產鏈而對原材料徵收高額出口稅和實施嚴格登記，很容易被認定為 Article XX 前言所禁止的「對國際貿易的變相限制」，其真實目的是保護國內相關產業或限制出口，而非單純的公共利益。
- Article XX(d) - 執行與 GAT T 不符的法律或規章所必需的措施：
- 此處不適用，因為措施本身是為了國內目的，而非執行另一項與 GAT T 不符的外部法律。
- Article XX(b) - 保護人類、動物或植物的生命或健康：
-
可能援引的 Article XXI 條款：
- Article XXI(b) - 國家安全利益：
- 關聯性：台灣可能辯稱，M-59 口罩是應對全球公共衛生緊急事件的關鍵醫療物資，確保其生產鏈的穩定，對於維持國家應對緊急狀態的能力至關重要，這屬於其「基本安全利益」。
- 「基本安全利益」的認定：Article XXI 的解釋空間較大，但通常要求措施與國家安全有實質性關聯。在此情況下，辯護需要證明，對 "Tai" 的出口管制與台灣國家安全有直接且重要的聯繫，而不僅僅是經濟利益。
- 「任意或不合理的歧視」或「變相限制」：同樣需要符合 Article XX 前言的要求。
- Article XXI(b) - 國家安全利益：
二、 針對措施 B (M-59 口罩出口禁令) 的辯護
- 可能援引的 Article XX 條款：
- Article XX(b) - 保護人類、動物或植物的生命或健康：
- 關聯性：這是最直接且最有力的辯護理由。由於 M-59 口罩對預防 IPA-24 病毒感染至關重要，且全球需求劇增導致短缺，禁止出口以優先滿足國內需求，進而保護台灣國民的生命健康，是合理的公共利益目標。
- 「必需性」(Necessity)：台灣需要證明，實施全面的出口禁令（除對 Berlandia 的人道主義豁免外）是保護其國民生命健康的「必需」措施。例如，若國內需求遠超供應能力，且若出口可能導致國內供應不足，進而危害國民健康，則禁令的「必需性」可能較強。
- 「非任意或不合理歧視，非變相限制」：
- 歧視性：出口禁令「除出口至 Berlandia 外」，這本身就對不同目的地國家造成了區別待遇。
- Article XX(b) - 保護人類、動物或植物的生命或健康：