WTO中的公共道德例外条款分析

多边贸易协定一个重要目的就是消除贸易壁垒,实现贸易自由化。但是有时过度地追求贸易自由可能会给一国的公共道德造成威胁。因此,在多边贸易协定中往往内含了一些可以豁免缔约方缔约义务的例外条款。缔约方为了保护本国的公共道德,可以援引这些例外条款来对抗其他缔约方的指控。在WTO中,公共道德例外主要体现在GATT第20条﹙a﹚和GATS第14条﹙a﹚。另外,在《与贸易有关的知识产权协定》第27条第2款和《政府采购协定》第23条第2款中也规定了这种例外。     

Due Process and 'Good' Regulation Embedded in the GATS - Disciplining Regulatory Behaviour in Services Through Article VI of the GATS

On the occasion of the US – Gambling ruling, the GeneralAgreement on Trade in Services (GATS) came to the forefront.Several critiques against this ruling highlighted the urgentneed to clarify important concepts laid down in the GATS. Domesticregulation is arguably the overarching concept when it comesto trade in services, inter alia, because of the regulatoryintensity that characterizes many service sectors. Article VIof the GATS aspires to discipline non-discriminatory domesticregulatory measures. In this respect, World Trade Organization(WTO) Members are required to adhere to certain due processobligations and to develop additional rules of ‘good’regulation through the completion of the work program set outin Article VI:4 of the GATS. This paper provides a comprehensiveanalysis of Article VI. In doing this, it explores the objectivefunction and the mechanics of this provision bearing in mindthe delicate balance between trade liberalization and regulatorysovereignty that becomes apparent in Article VI more than inany other GATS provision.     

Does Dworkin Commit Dworkin's Fallacy?: A Reply to Justice in Robes

In an article entitled ‘Dworkin's Fallacy, Or What thePhilosophy of Language Can't Teach Us about the Law’,I argued that in Law's Empire Ronald Dworkin misderived hisinterpretive theory of law from an implicit interpretive theoryof meaning, thereby committing ‘Dworkin's fallacy’.In his recent book, Justice in Robes, Dworkin denies that hecommitted the fallacy. As evidence he points to the fact thathe considered three theories of law—‘conventionalism’,‘pragmatism’ and ‘law as integrity’—inLaw's Empire. Only the last of these is interpretive, but each,he argues, is compatible with his interpretive theory of meaning,which he describes as the view that ‘the doctrinal conceptof law is an interpretive concept’. In this Reply, I arguethat Dworkin's argument that he does not commit Dworkin's fallacyis itself an example of the fallacy and that Dworkin's fallacypervades Justice in Robes just as much as it did Law's Empire.     

The Proprietary Foundations of Corporate Law

Recent work in both the theory of the firm and of corporatelaw has called into question the appropriateness of analysingcorporate law as ‘merely’ a set of standard formcontracts. This article develops these ideas by focusing onproperty law's role in underpinning corporate enterprise. Rightsto control assets are a significant mechanism of governancein the firm. However, their use in this way predicates somearrangement for stipulating which parties will have controlunder which circumstances. It is argued that ‘propertyrules’—a category whose scope is determined functionally—protectthe entitlements of parties to such sharing arrangements againsteach other's opportunistic attempts to grant conflicting entitlementsto third parties. At the same time, the legal system uses arange of strategies to minimize the costs such protection imposeson third parties. The choice of strategy significantly affectsco-owners’ freedom to customize their control-sharingarrangements. This theory is applied to give an account of the‘proprietary foundations’ of corporate law, whichhas significant implications for the way in which the subject'sfunctions are understood and evaluated.     

Services Negotiations in the Doha Round: Lost in Flexibility?

The World Trade Organization (WTO) rules for services trade,under the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), arefar broader in policy coverage than their counterpart provisionsunder the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), reflecting,inter alia, the Agreement’s extension to cross-bordermovements of services consumers and factors of production. Atthe same time, the GATS is significantly more flexible in applicationthan the GATT. There are virtually no political sensitivities,protectionist or not, that could not be formally accommodatedwithin its structure. Moreover, the paucity of relevant jurisprudenceon key concepts and a yet incomplete rule-making agenda haveprovided additional scope for ‘creative’ interpretation.However, while flexibility was a sine qua non for the conclusionof the Agreement, given the diversity of institutional conditions,political concerns, and so on among participants, it has notbeen conducive to one of the key objectives: ‘early achievementof progressively higher levels of liberalization’. Thisarticle discusses possible approaches that, within the Agreement’scurrent structure, could promote the clarity, quantity, andcommercial relevance of services commitments and address remainingrule-making issues. However, there is no panacea. The challengeremains to find a reasonable balance between economically meaningfuldisciplines and their broad application across sectors, modesof supply, and WTO Members.     

What Sorts of Things are Public Morals? A Liberal Cosmopolitan Approach to Article XX GATT

Existing theories of WTO law cannot adequately explain the form or content of the GATT exceptions, in particular Article XX(a) Public Morals. Nor, in consequence, can they satisfactorily answer the interpretive questions they raise. This article explains Article XX in terms of self‐determination as a political and moral value, and the choices it mandates peoples make for themselves. Drawing on debates in contemporary political philosophy, it distinguishes three categories of argument for self‐determination: intrinsic, expressive and instrumental, each having implications for the scope of the choices a self‐determining community must make for itself. This account of self‐determination in trade regulation is used to reconstruct Article XX, both explaining the individual provisions, and suggesting how these might be developed and interpreted. It concludes by examining Article XX(a) in detail, highlighting the interpretive questions public morals pose, and how understanding Article XX in terms of self‐determination suggests these should be answered.     

Overcoming the challenges posted by technology to traditional copyright law: from Betamax to Grokster

Legal context: Dual use technology, or technology which can be used for bothinfringing and non-infringing uses, raises interesting issuesin the area of copyright law. This note analyses inter aliathe two US Supreme Court decisions on dual use technology, separatedby a gap of over 20 years—Sony v Universal Studios (1984)and MGM v Grokster (2005). Key points: Sony lays down the famous ‘Betamax’ defence—ifthe technology is ‘capable of substantial non-infringinguses’, then it cannot be challenged as infringing. Thistest had stood the test of time, and it is only recently inGrokster that there arose an occasion to reconsider its application.The Court in Grokster, borrowing from the jurisprudence developedin Patent law, recognized a novel test of liability—basedon the active ‘inducement’ to infringe. The flawin Grokster is that despite its attempt to develop new standardsfor a digital age, the ruling leaves areas of uncertainty. Practical significance: Dual use technology has become ubiquitous in this age—fromthe iPod to YouTube to P2P software, all are capable of beingused in lawful as well as unlawful ways. Legal pronouncementshave the potential to impact not just the development of law,but also innovation in technology. Some believe that the ‘brightline’ of Sony has been muddled thereby threatening technologicalinnovation. Others, me included, believe that Sony is inapplicablein the face of new technology, and hail the decision in Groksteras a positive step forward in what it actually decides. However,in what it does not decide, Grokster still represents a lostopportunity by the Court to clear up the muddled waters.     

Eleven Years of GATS Case Law: What Have We Learned?

The General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) negotiatorsfaced a significant challenge when having to craft a comprehensiveset of disciplines governing multilateral trade in services,and the result is somewhat complex. Some obligations, in particularthe most favoured-nation treatment (MFN) obligation, apply acrossthe board. Others, like the market access and national treatmentobligations, apply only in respect of service sectors of a Member'schoosing. There is overlap between the market access and nationaltreatment obligations, and the relationship between these twodisciplines and those on domestic regulation is not clearlyestablished. Additional obligations have been adhered to ona voluntary basis, in particular in the areas of telecommunicationsand financial services. In general, the interpretation and understandingof Members’ Schedules of Specific Commitments proves tobe a laborious exercise. This provides fertile ground for difficultand often sensitive interpretive issues to arise. Although Membershave thus far not made extensive use of dispute settlement proceduresto resolve them, existing World Trade Organization (WTO) decisionsalready show the reach of GATS disciplines and their potentialimpact on Members’ policies and regulations. The Gamblingcase has, in particular, sparked a debate as to what shouldbe the right balance between trade constraints and the autonomyof Members’ service regulators. This article reviews theGATS case law with a view to offering a critical assessmentof the main systemic issues that have been addressed by WTOadjudicatory bodies. These issues are, respectively, the scopeof application of the GATS, the interpretation of specific commitmentsin Members’ Schedules, market access, non-discriminatorytreatment, and general exceptions.     

Mal dato, ma ben ricevuto

Mal dato, ma ben ricevuto is a rather untranslatable Italianexpression which refers to acts that are based on wrong assumptionsbut whose final results (might) make everybody better off. MsSueffert's article is a good example. In her article, Ms Sueffertsuggests that the USPTO might reduce patent examiners' workloads—andthe resulting tendency towards granting patents that shouldnot be granted in the first place—by using ‘softscientists’ (psychologists, economists, political scientists,     

Heteronormativity and the European Court of Human Rights

This article examines a recent judgment by the European Court of Human Rights (E.B. v France) that upheld the complaint of a homosexual woman who alleged that her application for authorization to adopt a child had been refused by domestic French authorities on the grounds of her sexual orientation. I argue that the judgment constitutes an innovative and atypical legal consideration of, and challenge to, the heteronormative social relations of contemporary European societies. After exploring the evidence presented by the applicant, and the Court’s interpretation of it, I argue that in order to reach its judgment it was necessary for the Court to make a significant departure from its established jurisprudence in relation to sexual orientation. An essential element of this involved the adoption of a distinctive critical approach, strongly resonant with aspects of ‘queer theory’, which focused attention on the social, cultural and political construction of normative heterosexuality. Whilst a number of commentators have assessed the importance of the judgment in terms of its evolution of ‘gay rights’ in the area of family life, I argue that the Court’s reconceptualized ‘theoretical’ understanding of, and critical approach to, heteronormativity offers the potential to expand the scope of the European Convention on Human Rights across a number of areas of social life—in marriage, public assembly, freedom of expression, as well as family life—where non-heterosexuals continue to face discrimination in contemporary Europe.     

RECONCILING ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION WITH NATURAL RESOURCES TRADE IN INTERNATIONAL LAW: A PERSPECTIVE FROM CHINA — RARE EARTHS

This article intends to shed light on key legal issues that emerged from the recently released WTO Appellate Body’s adjudication over China — Rare Earths dispute, exploring possible policy options for China to reach its environmental goals on natural resources in a WTO-consistent manner. The article first spotlights positive variations in the Appellate Body’s interpretative approach regarding the applicability of GATT general exceptions to defend the violation of WTO-Plus commitments under China’s Accession Protocol; second, given the fact that the Appellate Body, pursuant to the elements inscribed in GATT Article XX(g), confirmed the Panel’s objective assessment based on the design and structure of the challenged measures of GATT, this paper provides reflections and recommendations on China’s domestic environmental legislation. The third part probes into the interface between the principle of permanent sovereignty over natural resources and the WTO legal regime, with an attempt to offer thought-provoking ideas on how to reconcile potential conflicts between the two.     

The Bosphorus Ruling of the European Court of Human Rights: Fundamental Rights and Blurred Boundaries in Europe

The recent case of Bosphorus Airlines v Ireland provided theEuropean Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) with an opportunity torefine further its relationship with the EU. In particular,the ECtHR was called upon to clarify when States could be heldresponsible for actions taken under the banner of the EU. Thisarticle examines the status quo prior to the Bosphorus judgment,and then scrutinises the judgment itself, focusing particularlyon the use and scope of the doctrine of ‘equivalent protection’to determine State responsibility. The doctrine as outlinedin Bosphorus is applied to some likely scenarios involving EUaction and its relative merits and disadvantages are discussed.The article also briefly addresses the further global implicationsof the judgment, namely for the legal accountability of theUN Security Council and the ongoing issue of responsibilityof international organisations under international law.     

Gaining confidence in the law of confidence

Legal context. The recent case of EPI v Symphony has left theUK law of confidentiality in an uncertain state: the extentto which recipients of confidential information may be permittedto ‘use’ mixtures of such information with publiclyavailable material remains unclear. The Court of Appeal in EPIfelt that it was hard to reconcile the principle that any claimin confidence must fail if the material in question is in thepublic domain with the ‘springboard’ doctrine; butis the distinction illusory? Key points. Issues raised in this case include considerationof what precisely is ‘use’ of confidential information,when mixed with public information, and whether a confider shoulddo more than rely on confidentiality obligations to protectthe fruits of his/her disclosures. This article asks how confidentialityobligations may be aligned with the control of statutory intellectualproperty rights. It considers whether the Court of Appeal inMarkem v Zipher has confused the issue and speculates as tohow far the general law of contract can assist the confider. Practical significance. Finally, this article discusses whichlegal tools will best assist the confider seeking to protectits intellectual property.     

'Trade mark use' in Europe: revisiting Arsenal in the light of Opel and Picasso

Legal context: The European Court of Justice (ECJ) decision in the case ofArsenal Football Club v. Reed led to uncertainty regarding thepractical scope of a trade mark proprietor's property rights. Key points: The uncertainty resulted from a failure of the ECJ to addressclearly the issue of what constitutes infringing trade markuse. The ECJ ignored the question of the High Court as to whetheruse of a trade mark as an indication of origin is necessaryfor establishing infringement. They instead established an ambiguousstandard for what constitutes infringing trade mark use, suggestingthat only use that jeopardises the essential function of a trademark is an infringing use. This ambiguity has had problematicimplications for subsequent interpretations of trade mark law,particularly in the Court of Appeal in Arsenal and the Houseof Lords in R v Johnstone. Two relatively new ECJ cases may help clarify the issue. InOPEL, the ECJ suggested that infringing use of a trade markmust be use that is perceived by the relevant public as a designationof origin. The Picasso decision limits the effect of the Arsenaldecision on the relevance of confusion in non-sale situationsto the facts of Arsenal. In particular, it stresses the pointthat when assessing likelihood of confusion in the context ofan opposition to an application for registration the court shouldfocus on the perception of the relevant public at the pointof sale. Practical significance: The benefit of these two cases is that they create some clarityfor legal practitioners and the Courts when addressing the questionof what constitutes infringing trade mark use.     

The Implications of the ASLEF Case

The decision of the European Court of Human Rights in ASLEFv United Kingdom (27 February 2007) will require the governmentto re-visit the law relating to the right of trade unions toexclude and expel individuals because of their membership ofpolitical organisations perceived by trade unions to be hostileto their interests. It is now clear—as was pointed outat the time—that the changes made by the Employment RelationsAct 2004 do not go far enough to meet obligations under theEuropean Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). However, the casealso raises much wider questions about the compatibility ofother statutory restraints on trade union autonomy with Article11 of the ECHR, notably ss 64–67 (on unjustifiable discipline)and 174–177 (on exclusion and expulsion as a whole, andnot only the measures relating to membership of hostile politicalparties). This article considers both the immediate and thewider implications of the ASLEF decision for British trade unionlaw, in the context of what appears to be a greater willingnessof the Strasbourg Court to listen more carefully to trade uniongrievances than in the past. The article also draws attentionto the role of litigation as a trade union strategy to recoverlost rights, and again emphasises the importance of InternationalLabour Organisation Convention 87 and the Council of Europe'sSocial Charter of 1961 (as well as the jurisprudence thereunder)as important sources in the construction of the ECHR, Article11.     

The Court of Public Opinion and the Practice of Restorative Ordeals in Pre-Modern India

According to their standardized treatment within the Indian legal tradition (Dharmaśāstra), ordeals (Sanskrit: divya) are supposed to occur, under certain circumstances, when one person formally accused another of some crime in a court of law. While not disputing the general accuracy of this standardized treatment of ordeals, this article argues for the widespread practice in pre-modern India of another—hitherto unrecognized—type of ordeal that fails to fit this basic scenario, for such ordeals would occur when someone was widely believed to have committed some wrongdoing, but was not forced to stand trial in a formal judicial court. In order to prove his innocence and, thereby, mitigate the damage caused by his suspected guilt, such an individual could—and sometimes did—arrange for himself to undergo an ordeal at his own expense and independently of any formal plaint. After establishing the practice of ordeals of this sort in pre-modern India, this article then examines some possible explanations for their development.     

Regulatory Jurisdiction and the WTO

The WTO is not explicitly concerned with the problem of regulatoryjurisdiction in connection with prudential regulation (as opposedto industrial policy regulation). However, as the WTO has addressedincreasingly complex regulatory barriers to trade, it has developedseveral devices that have the implicit effect of allocatingregulatory jurisdiction among states.This article reviews afew illustrative cases in WTO law, including Helms–Burton,Shrimp, and Gambling. This review suggests how these cases maybe understood as dealing with allocation of regulatory jurisdiction.Negative integration rules such as national treatment or proportionalitymay serve as devices applied by tribunals for allocation ofregulatory authority. The WTO has very limited rules of positiveintegration—whereby states either harmonize regulationor agree on more specific allocations of regulatory authority,such as mutual recognition. However, it has developed a modestdegree of capacity to engage in positive regulation, or to referto positive integration rules developed in other contexts, suchas Codex Alimentarius. Finally, this article examines theoreticalbases for allocating and reallocating regulatory jurisdictionin order to establish a framework by which to analyse the roleof the WTO in this context.     

Treaty Interpretation and the WTO Appellate Body Report in US - Gambling: A Critique

‘Before the game begins players should agree on a dictionaryto use in case of a challenge.’ (from the Official Rulesof SCRABBLE®)

Treaty interpretation in WTO law continues to represent a topicof highly theoretical and practical importance. The Panel’sand the Appellate Body’s reports in the recent US –Gambling dispute have critically turned on ascertaining themeaning of the United States’ GATS Schedule and ArticleXVI GATS on the basis of the public international law rulesof treaty interpretation as codified in the Vienna Conventionon the Law of Treaties. The paper’s principal aim is toreview the interpretative approach followed in particular bythe Appellate Body in reaching its decision in US – Gambling.Its main argument is that, although the Appellate Body appearsto be trying to emancipate itself from a rigorous textual approach,it has not yet embraced a holistic approach to treaty interpretation,one in which the treaty interpreter looks thoroughly at allthe relevant elements of the general rule on treaty interpretationpursuant to Article 31(1) of the Vienna Convention.