WTO爭端解決機構所適用審查基準之研究－以SPS協定之風險評估為中心

Abstract

審查基準（Standard of Review）為近期WTO審判過程中最為爭議的主題之一。審查基準的概念存在於所有WTO的爭端解決程序中，即使隨著審理的客體不同而適用不同的協定規範，審查基準在每個案件中仍為進入實質審理時須決定的問題。審查基準將影響小組或上訴機構成員解釋法律、發現事實的態度，不同的審查基準將影響審理的結果。

世界貿易組織架構下的SPS協定要求各會員國為避免進口食品貨物造成境內自然環境與國民健康風險而採取防疫檢疫措施時，應儘可能符合調和原則，否則應具有風險評估報告支持其措施的維持。但是，從最早的歐盟荷爾蒙案、到前年底的澳洲蘋果案循線觀察，得以發現小組或上訴機構在某些案件中對於被訴國的風險評估要求較為寬鬆，有時即使被訴會員已盡其最大努力提供適法性依據，仍無法達成爭端解決機構的要求。

審查基準為影響小組及上訴機構審理SPS爭端的根本因素。即使所適用的審查要件相同，仍然會因為審查基準的不同而影響其對於會員科學證據、風險評估的要求。然而，爭端解決小組與上訴機構通常並未於爭端解決報告中表示其所採取的審查基準，亦無表達其選擇審查基準理由，使得關於風險評估報告的審查基準不具有可預測性，而影響會員在進行風險評估、採取措施的決策方向。

本研究藉由審查基準對於小組及上訴機構審查風險評估要件所造成影響結果，推論過去已發生爭端案件所適用的審查基準，發現從過去到近期的審查基準呈現擺盪的趨勢。

但是，如將各爭端的情況加以分析，得以觀察到「協定的規範義務」與「措施所管制的風險類型」會影響小組及上訴機構所選擇的審查基準。因此在目前情況下，各會員在採取措施與評估風險時，應將此兩點納入參考，以預測WTO對於風險評估的要求，而通過小組及上訴機構對於SPS協定的檢驗。但是，本研究認為小組及上訴機構區分審查基準的理由並不適當，因而建議WTO應採納統一、且較為寬鬆的審查基準於SPS類型的爭端程序。

The question of standarad of review has become one of most controversial aspects of the WTO dispute settlement jurisprudence. The concept of standard of review generally applies to all WTO disputes. When the examination of a domestic measures falls within the jurisdiction of panels and the Appellate Body, the question to what depth and with what intensity the WTO member determination should be reviewed arises.

Risk assessment is the core element of the Agreement on the Sanitary and Phytosnitary (SPS) Measure. When the measures at issue are not based on the relevant international standardsm guidelines or recommendations, the Agreemnt requires members shall ensure the measures are based on an assessment of the risks to human, animal or plant life or health. The standard of review applied by WTO panels and the Appellate Body in disputes under the SPS Agreement plays a critical role in determining to what extent the risk assement afforded by national authorities would be consistent with the SPS Agreement rules. However, there are few statements setting out positively the nature of the standard of review that is applied to risk assessments.

This thesis considers past six cases to study the tendency of the standard of review applied in SPS disputes. The study shows that the panels and Appellate Body tend to depend on the agreement obligation at issue and the categories of risks to determine the applied standard of review in disputes. This thesis argues that such distinction failed to find a strong ratioale basis. Therefore, the study concludes that it is more appropriate for the panels and Appellate Body to develope a single, more deferential standard of review for all SPS cases.