WTO“公共道德例外”条款研究
|
摘要
旨在平衡自由贸易与公共道德之关系的WTO“公共道德例外”条款,寥寥数十字的规则却在沉寂了半个多世纪之后成为贸易各方关注的焦点。这是因为WTO规则肩负着双重使命：一方面强调成员方必须坚持自由贸易与公平贸易；另一方面又强调在成员方的公共道德已经受到或可能受到自由贸易损害时,则有权采取贸易限制措施。但问题的关键是：如何平衡协调此二者的关系?换言之,如何使得贸易各方在保护公共道德时,不致滥用权利而变相推行贸易保护主义?实践表明,WTO“公共道德例外”条款因表述简洁(允许各国采取“必要的保护公共道德”的贸易措施)而颇具争议性,以致成员方之间和DSB历任专家至今未能达成一致解释。这就为后续研究留下了诸多思考探讨的空间。
本文分为引论、本论和结语三个部分。其中,“本论”共分六章展开论述。
为使后文的论述存在话语背景及探讨基础,本文第一章主要介绍了WTO“公共道德例外”条款的概念、特征、法理基础及制定情况。
考虑到“公共道德”的内涵解读是正确理解和援用WTO“公共道德例外”条款的关键,因而本文的第二章专门探讨了该条款的解释问题。在WTO规则体系内,由“模糊条款”导致的争端需要由DSB来进行解释澄清。这一行为的法律依据就是《维也纳条约法公约》和实际遵循的DSB裁决“先例”。DSB采用的解释方法主要包括客观解释方法、有效解释方法和动态解释方法等。但问题是,即便存在这些法律依据和解释方法,DSB也不曾清楚地阐释“公共道德”的内涵。在“美国博彩案”与“中美出版物市场准入案”中,DSB也未过多阐释“公共道德”的内涵,只是倾向于认同成员方在界定“公共道德”方面的一定自主权。从对成员方关于“公共道德”的立法和司法实践看,他们对其内涵及概念并未形成一致,尽管可能基于地域、历史、文化或政治等原因而形成了一些区域性的共识。
此外,鉴于GATS第14条(a)款“公共道德和公共秩序例外’条款中增加了“公共秩序”术语,因而本章有必要对“公共道德”和“公共秩序”稍加论述,并将其描述为“两个不同但有重叠”的概念。
毋庸置疑,作为法律规则之一,“公共道德例外”条款的援用必须符合一定条件,即：违背WTO其他规则、符合必要性原则、满足GATT序言宗旨。本文的第三章主要讨论了WTO“公共道德例外”条款的适用条件。针对各项条件之间适用的先后顺序、必要性要件和序言要求,本章考察了它们各自的要素及其形成的历史,结合判例实证分析了各项条件的具体适用情况并归结出其对例外条款适用条件的发展：“磋商和谈判”不再是必要性检验的替代措施；必要性检验中替代措施的举证责任由被投诉方转移至投诉方。这些发展对于衡平贸易自由与公共道德之关系显然有益。
有鉴于WTO“公共道德例外”条款并未规定其适用的范围,本文第四章从横向与纵向两个层面探讨了“公共道德例外”条款的适用范围。在横向层面,探讨了“公共道德例外”条款能否在协定外适用的问题。从“中美出版物市场准入案”来看,GATT第20条的适用范围就已经扩展至GATT之外,即适用于入世文件。从遵循先例的角度看,“公共道德例外”条款的适用范围还可能继续扩展至其他WTO协议文件上。在纵向层面,针对“公共道德例外”条款能否适用于域外(措施实施国之境外)的问题,传统理论认为,该条款的初衷是旨在保护成员方境内的公共道德,而随着公共道德内涵的不断涵摄进包含人权、劳工标准、动物福利等在内的因素,一些主要WTO成员(如美国)为保护他国的公共道德而纷纷制定了贸易限制措施。但无论如何,为防止该条款被滥用,本文主张,依据国际法关于管辖权原则的一般规定,只有在一国实施了违反国际强行法的行为时,才可能将“公共道德例外”条款适用于该国。
立足于WTO“公共道德例外”条款的适用现状,第五章主要就其适用前景进行了展望。该条款已渐成关注“热点”,中国等发展中国家也开始积极援用一般例外条款进行自我保护；DSB也致力于公共道德与贸易权利之间的平衡努力。从一定程度上讲,这些即是WTO“公共道德例外”条款的适用现状。
更为重要的是,随着世界贸易的迅猛发展,“公共道德例外”条款将呈现出三大发展趋势：其一,该条款将被大量援用；其二,公共道德的内涵将进一步扩展并囊括进有限人权(包括人权、劳工权益等)；其三,在平衡贸易自由与公共道德的努力中,DSB仍将起主导作用。为了维护好各国保护公共道德的诉求和有效防止该条款被滥用,DSB一方面应谨慎引导公共道德内涵的扩展趋势,另一方面要适度运用“公共道德例外”条款的适用条件
鉴于针对中国的投诉逐年上升的趋势,要切实维护好中国的贸易利益,中国政府和学者必须加强对WTO“公共道德例外”条款的研究。针对“中美出版物市场准入案”暴露出的主要问题,如立法存在漏洞和举证存在不足等,本文第六章提出了一些完善相关立法、培养WTO诉讼人才等方面的建议。
The exception clause of public morals in WTO rules only with a dozen of words, in order to balance the free trade and public morality, become the focus of attention from the trading parties, after in silence for more than half a century. It is the reason that the WTO rules have a dual mission:on the one hand, it stressed that the members must adhere to free trade; on the other hand, it stressed that the members have the right to take trade restriction measures, when their public morality have been or may be subject to damages from free trade. However, the key issue is: how to realize the coordination of this relationship between the twos? In other words, how to make the trading parties do in the protection of public morals, without abuse of rights in disguise to implement trade protectionism? The trade practice shows that, the terms of the WTO public morals exception (allowing countries to take "necessary to protect public morals" trade measures) are quite controversial, because of it's expression in simple, so that members of the parties and the DSB served as an expert so far failed to reach a consistent interpretation. This left a lot of thinking space to explore.
This article is divided into three parts of the introduction, the body and the conclusion. Among them, the "body" is divided into six chapters discussed next.
For the discourse background and discuss basis of the exposition on the body, so that the first chapter introduces the concept, characteristics, the legal basis and formulation of WTO public morals exception.
Taking into account the connotation of "public morals" interpretation is the key to understand and invoke the WTO public morals exception clause, the second chapter devoted to the interpretation of the provisions. Within the WTO system of rules, the dispute caused by the "fuzzy terms" is duty by the DSB to explain clarify. The legal basis of this behavior is the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, and the DSB actually following precedent "case rules". The interpretations adopted by the DSB include objective interpretation methods, effective interpretation methods and dynamic interpretation methods. But the problem is, even if there is a legal basis and interpretation methods, the DSB had not clearly explained the connotation of "public morals". In "American Gambling Case" and "Sino-US market access for publications case", DSB is still not explain clearly the connotation of "public morals", but tend to agree with the members of the party some having the autonomy in defining the "public morals". From the legislative and judicial practice of "public morality exceptions", there is not a consistent connotation, but a number of regional consensu based on geographical, historical, cultural or political reasons.
In addition, in view of the GATS section14(a) added an concept "public order", therefore, it's necessary for this chapter to discuss the "public morals" and "public order", and described them as a "two different but overlapping" concept.
Needless to say, as a rule of law, quoting the "public morals exception" must meet certain conditions, namely:contrary to other WTO rules, in line with the principle of necessity, to meet the purpose of the GATT preamble. The third chapter focuses on the applicable conditions of the WTO public morals exception. To direct at the applicable order of the conditions, the necessity of the elements and the requirements of the preamble, this chapter examines their respective elements and their formation history, combined with case to analyze the applicable conditions, and concluded with the development of conditions of application of the exceptions:consultation and negotiation is no longer the need to test alternative measures; the need to test alternative measures of the burden of proof by a complaint transferred to the complaining party. These developments are clearly beneficial for equitable free trade and the public morality of the relationship.
In view of the WTO public morals exception clause does not provide for its scope of application. Chapter IV of this article discusses the scope of application of the public morals exception clause from the horizontal and vertical two levels. To discuss whether the "public morals exception" could be applied beyond the agreement from the horizontal dimension. From the "Sino-US market access for publications case", the applicable scope of Article20of the GATT has been extended to the GATT, applied to the accession package. From the point of view of stare decides, the applicable scope of the "public morals exception" may continue to be extended to other WTO agreements. Vertical level for the "public morals exception" clause can be applied to extra-territorial (measures have been implemented outside of the country), the traditional theory that the original intention of the provision is aimed at protecting members of the party within the territory of public morality, and as public moral connotation continue to contain the factors included human rights, labor standards, animal welfare, including some of the major WTO members (such as the United States) have developed a trade-restrictive measures for the protection of other countries'public morality. Nevertheless, in order to prevent the clause being abused, this paper argues that the country violating of international jus cogens under international law, according to the general provisions on the principle of jurisdiction, may be applied to the "public morals exception" clause.
Based on the application situation of the "public morals exception clause" in the WTO, to forcast the future for its application in the fifth chapter. The terms had become concerned about the "hot spots", China and other developing countries also began to actively invoking the general exception clauses to protect themselves; the DSB also committed to a balance of efforts between public morality and the right to trade. To a certain extent, these are the current applicable situation of the provisions of WTO public morals exception.
More importantly, with the rapid development of world trade,"public morals exception" will appear in the three major trends:Firstly, the clause will be invoked greatly; Secondly, the public moral connotation will be further expanded and include into the limited human rights (including human rights, labor rights, etc.); Thirdly, in balancing the freedom of trade and public morality efforts, the DSB will continue to play a leading role. In order to safeguard the States to protect public morality demands and effectively prevent the abuse of the terms, the DSB, on the one hand, should be careful to guide the expansion trend of the public of the ethical dimension; on the other hand, moderately use of the applicable conditions of the "public morals exception".
In view of the complaints against China increased year by year, to safeguard the trade interests of China, the China government and scholars must strengthen the clause of public moral exception in the WTO. For the "Sino-US market access for publications" exposed major problems, such as legislative existence of the vulnerability and the existence of proof, the sixth chapter of this paper made a number of improvement of legislation, developing the recommendations of the WTO litigation and personnel.
本文分为引论、本论和结语三个部分。其中,“本论”共分六章展开论述。
为使后文的论述存在话语背景及探讨基础,本文第一章主要介绍了WTO“公共道德例外”条款的概念、特征、法理基础及制定情况。
考虑到“公共道德”的内涵解读是正确理解和援用WTO“公共道德例外”条款的关键,因而本文的第二章专门探讨了该条款的解释问题。在WTO规则体系内,由“模糊条款”导致的争端需要由DSB来进行解释澄清。这一行为的法律依据就是《维也纳条约法公约》和实际遵循的DSB裁决“先例”。DSB采用的解释方法主要包括客观解释方法、有效解释方法和动态解释方法等。但问题是,即便存在这些法律依据和解释方法,DSB也不曾清楚地阐释“公共道德”的内涵。在“美国博彩案”与“中美出版物市场准入案”中,DSB也未过多阐释“公共道德”的内涵,只是倾向于认同成员方在界定“公共道德”方面的一定自主权。从对成员方关于“公共道德”的立法和司法实践看,他们对其内涵及概念并未形成一致,尽管可能基于地域、历史、文化或政治等原因而形成了一些区域性的共识。
此外,鉴于GATS第14条(a)款“公共道德和公共秩序例外’条款中增加了“公共秩序”术语,因而本章有必要对“公共道德”和“公共秩序”稍加论述,并将其描述为“两个不同但有重叠”的概念。
毋庸置疑,作为法律规则之一,“公共道德例外”条款的援用必须符合一定条件,即：违背WTO其他规则、符合必要性原则、满足GATT序言宗旨。本文的第三章主要讨论了WTO“公共道德例外”条款的适用条件。针对各项条件之间适用的先后顺序、必要性要件和序言要求,本章考察了它们各自的要素及其形成的历史,结合判例实证分析了各项条件的具体适用情况并归结出其对例外条款适用条件的发展：“磋商和谈判”不再是必要性检验的替代措施；必要性检验中替代措施的举证责任由被投诉方转移至投诉方。这些发展对于衡平贸易自由与公共道德之关系显然有益。
有鉴于WTO“公共道德例外”条款并未规定其适用的范围,本文第四章从横向与纵向两个层面探讨了“公共道德例外”条款的适用范围。在横向层面,探讨了“公共道德例外”条款能否在协定外适用的问题。从“中美出版物市场准入案”来看,GATT第20条的适用范围就已经扩展至GATT之外,即适用于入世文件。从遵循先例的角度看,“公共道德例外”条款的适用范围还可能继续扩展至其他WTO协议文件上。在纵向层面,针对“公共道德例外”条款能否适用于域外(措施实施国之境外)的问题,传统理论认为,该条款的初衷是旨在保护成员方境内的公共道德,而随着公共道德内涵的不断涵摄进包含人权、劳工标准、动物福利等在内的因素,一些主要WTO成员(如美国)为保护他国的公共道德而纷纷制定了贸易限制措施。但无论如何,为防止该条款被滥用,本文主张,依据国际法关于管辖权原则的一般规定,只有在一国实施了违反国际强行法的行为时,才可能将“公共道德例外”条款适用于该国。
立足于WTO“公共道德例外”条款的适用现状,第五章主要就其适用前景进行了展望。该条款已渐成关注“热点”,中国等发展中国家也开始积极援用一般例外条款进行自我保护；DSB也致力于公共道德与贸易权利之间的平衡努力。从一定程度上讲,这些即是WTO“公共道德例外”条款的适用现状。
更为重要的是,随着世界贸易的迅猛发展,“公共道德例外”条款将呈现出三大发展趋势：其一,该条款将被大量援用；其二,公共道德的内涵将进一步扩展并囊括进有限人权(包括人权、劳工权益等)；其三,在平衡贸易自由与公共道德的努力中,DSB仍将起主导作用。为了维护好各国保护公共道德的诉求和有效防止该条款被滥用,DSB一方面应谨慎引导公共道德内涵的扩展趋势,另一方面要适度运用“公共道德例外”条款的适用条件
鉴于针对中国的投诉逐年上升的趋势,要切实维护好中国的贸易利益,中国政府和学者必须加强对WTO“公共道德例外”条款的研究。针对“中美出版物市场准入案”暴露出的主要问题,如立法存在漏洞和举证存在不足等,本文第六章提出了一些完善相关立法、培养WTO诉讼人才等方面的建议。
The exception clause of public morals in WTO rules only with a dozen of words, in order to balance the free trade and public morality, become the focus of attention from the trading parties, after in silence for more than half a century. It is the reason that the WTO rules have a dual mission:on the one hand, it stressed that the members must adhere to free trade; on the other hand, it stressed that the members have the right to take trade restriction measures, when their public morality have been or may be subject to damages from free trade. However, the key issue is: how to realize the coordination of this relationship between the twos? In other words, how to make the trading parties do in the protection of public morals, without abuse of rights in disguise to implement trade protectionism? The trade practice shows that, the terms of the WTO public morals exception (allowing countries to take "necessary to protect public morals" trade measures) are quite controversial, because of it's expression in simple, so that members of the parties and the DSB served as an expert so far failed to reach a consistent interpretation. This left a lot of thinking space to explore.
This article is divided into three parts of the introduction, the body and the conclusion. Among them, the "body" is divided into six chapters discussed next.
For the discourse background and discuss basis of the exposition on the body, so that the first chapter introduces the concept, characteristics, the legal basis and formulation of WTO public morals exception.
Taking into account the connotation of "public morals" interpretation is the key to understand and invoke the WTO public morals exception clause, the second chapter devoted to the interpretation of the provisions. Within the WTO system of rules, the dispute caused by the "fuzzy terms" is duty by the DSB to explain clarify. The legal basis of this behavior is the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, and the DSB actually following precedent "case rules". The interpretations adopted by the DSB include objective interpretation methods, effective interpretation methods and dynamic interpretation methods. But the problem is, even if there is a legal basis and interpretation methods, the DSB had not clearly explained the connotation of "public morals". In "American Gambling Case" and "Sino-US market access for publications case", DSB is still not explain clearly the connotation of "public morals", but tend to agree with the members of the party some having the autonomy in defining the "public morals". From the legislative and judicial practice of "public morality exceptions", there is not a consistent connotation, but a number of regional consensu based on geographical, historical, cultural or political reasons.
In addition, in view of the GATS section14(a) added an concept "public order", therefore, it's necessary for this chapter to discuss the "public morals" and "public order", and described them as a "two different but overlapping" concept.
Needless to say, as a rule of law, quoting the "public morals exception" must meet certain conditions, namely:contrary to other WTO rules, in line with the principle of necessity, to meet the purpose of the GATT preamble. The third chapter focuses on the applicable conditions of the WTO public morals exception. To direct at the applicable order of the conditions, the necessity of the elements and the requirements of the preamble, this chapter examines their respective elements and their formation history, combined with case to analyze the applicable conditions, and concluded with the development of conditions of application of the exceptions:consultation and negotiation is no longer the need to test alternative measures; the need to test alternative measures of the burden of proof by a complaint transferred to the complaining party. These developments are clearly beneficial for equitable free trade and the public morality of the relationship.
In view of the WTO public morals exception clause does not provide for its scope of application. Chapter IV of this article discusses the scope of application of the public morals exception clause from the horizontal and vertical two levels. To discuss whether the "public morals exception" could be applied beyond the agreement from the horizontal dimension. From the "Sino-US market access for publications case", the applicable scope of Article20of the GATT has been extended to the GATT, applied to the accession package. From the point of view of stare decides, the applicable scope of the "public morals exception" may continue to be extended to other WTO agreements. Vertical level for the "public morals exception" clause can be applied to extra-territorial (measures have been implemented outside of the country), the traditional theory that the original intention of the provision is aimed at protecting members of the party within the territory of public morality, and as public moral connotation continue to contain the factors included human rights, labor standards, animal welfare, including some of the major WTO members (such as the United States) have developed a trade-restrictive measures for the protection of other countries'public morality. Nevertheless, in order to prevent the clause being abused, this paper argues that the country violating of international jus cogens under international law, according to the general provisions on the principle of jurisdiction, may be applied to the "public morals exception" clause.
Based on the application situation of the "public morals exception clause" in the WTO, to forcast the future for its application in the fifth chapter. The terms had become concerned about the "hot spots", China and other developing countries also began to actively invoking the general exception clauses to protect themselves; the DSB also committed to a balance of efforts between public morality and the right to trade. To a certain extent, these are the current applicable situation of the provisions of WTO public morals exception.
More importantly, with the rapid development of world trade,"public morals exception" will appear in the three major trends:Firstly, the clause will be invoked greatly; Secondly, the public moral connotation will be further expanded and include into the limited human rights (including human rights, labor rights, etc.); Thirdly, in balancing the freedom of trade and public morality efforts, the DSB will continue to play a leading role. In order to safeguard the States to protect public morality demands and effectively prevent the abuse of the terms, the DSB, on the one hand, should be careful to guide the expansion trend of the public of the ethical dimension; on the other hand, moderately use of the applicable conditions of the "public morals exception".
In view of the complaints against China increased year by year, to safeguard the trade interests of China, the China government and scholars must strengthen the clause of public moral exception in the WTO. For the "Sino-US market access for publications" exposed major problems, such as legislative existence of the vulnerability and the existence of proof, the sixth chapter of this paper made a number of improvement of legislation, developing the recommendations of the WTO litigation and personnel.
引文
① See Daniel T.Griswold, Seven Moral Arguments for Free Trade, Cato Policy Report July/August 2001, at 12.
①例如,王贵国教授的《服务贸易游戏规则是与非》,《法学家》2005年第4期,该文评析了美国博彩案中DSB对公共道德例外条款的适用情况；龚柏华的《“中美出版物市场准入WTO案”——援引GATT第20条“公共道德例外”的法律分析》,《世界贸易组织动态与研究》2009年第10期,以及彭岳的《贸易与道德：中美文化产品争端的法律分析》,《中国社会科学》2009年第2期,这两篇文章对最新的2007年WTO中美出版物市场准入案做了一些分析。
② Steve Charnovitz,The Moral Exception in Trade Policy,38 Va.J.Int'l L.689,704(1998).
③ Jeremy C.Marwell,Note,Trade and Morality:The WTO Public Morals Exception After Gambling,81 N.Y.U.L.Rev.802(2006).
④ Mark Wu,Free Trade and the Protection of Public Morals:An Analysis of the Newly Emerging Public Morals Clause Doctrine,33 Yale J.Int'l L.215(Winter 2008).
⑤ Claire Wright, Censoring the censors in the WTO:reconciling the communitarian and human rights theories of international law.3 J. Int'l Media & Ent. L.17-119 (2010).
⑥ Elanor A.Mangin, Maket Access in China-Pulication and Audiovisual Materials:a Moral Victory with a Silver Ling, Berkeley Technology Law Journal Vol.25:279.
⑦ Michael J. Trebilcock & Robert Howse, Trade Policy & Labor Standards,14 Minn. J. Global Trade 290(2005)..
⑧ Sarah H. Cleveland, Human Rights Sanctions and International Trade:A Theory of Compatibility,5 J. Int'l Econ. L.157(2002).
① Stephen J. Powell, The Place of Human Rights Law in World Trade Organization Rules,16 Fla. J.Int'l L.219,223(2004).
② Salman Bal, International Free Trade Agreements and Human Rights:Reinterpreting Article XX of the GATT,10 Minn. J. Global Trade 62,78 (2001); see also Gabrielle Marceau, WTO Dispute Settlement and Human Rights,13 Eur. J. Int'l Law 753,789 (2002).
③ Office of the U.N. High Comm'r for Refugees, Human Rights and World Trade Agreements: Using General Exception Clauses to Protect Human Rights, at 5, U.N. Doc. HR/PUB/05/5 (Nov.2005).
④在新加坡部长会议中,确认“劳工标准问题”宜由国际劳工组织处理,从而阻止了部分发达国家试图通过增设“社会条款”将“劳工标准”纳入WTO的企图。World Trade Organization, Ministerial Declaration of 13 December 1996, WT/MIN(96)/DEC,36 I.L.M. 218,221 (1997).
⑤ Robert Howse, The World Trade Organization and the Protection of Workers' Rights,3 J. Small & Emerging Bus. L.131,169-71 (1999).
⑥ See, e.g., Anjli Garg, Note, A Child Labor Social Clause:Analysis and Proposal for Action,31 N.Y.U. J. Int'l L.& Pol.473,526 (1999).
① Liane M. Jarvis, Note, Women's Rights and the Public Morals Exception of GATT Article 20, 22 Mich. J. Int'l L.219,236-37 (2000).
② Edward M.Thomas, Playing Chicken at the WTO:Defending an Animal Welfare-Based Trade Restriction Under GATTs Moral Exception,34 B.C.Envtl.Aff.L.Rev.605(2007),http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/ealr/vol34/iss3/8.
③ Fitzgerald, Peter L.,'Morality' May Not Be Enough to Justify the EU Seal Products Ban: Animal Welfare Meets International Trade Law (May 1,2011). Journal of International Wildlife Law & Policy, Vol.14, p.85,2011. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1864659.
④ See Gareth Davies, Morality Clauses and Decision-Making in Situations of Scientific Uncertainty:The Case of GMOs, Presented at a Roundtable on"GMOs and International Trade", held at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem(2006), www.ssrn.com/abstractid=920754.
①陈卫东：《WTO例外条款解读》,北京：对外经贸大学出版社2002年版,第198页。
②参见曹建明：《国际经济法学》,北京：中国政法大学出版社1999年版,第198页。
③其中包括美国。有学者分析认为,GATT争端解决机制的不完善是促使美国绕开GATT的多边争端解决机制转而实施单边报复的重要原因之一,亦即是是美国使用”301条款”的一个主要理由。参见杨国华：《美国贸易法”301条款”研究》,北京：法律出版社1998年版,第62页。
①参见杨国华：《美国贸易法"301条款”研究》,北京：法律出版社1998年版,第16页。
②陈立虎：《现代国际贸易法》,北京：中国商业出版2002年版,第774-775页。
③DSU对报复措施规定了严格的限制,主要表现在：(1)禁止单方面报复；(2)报复措施应限定在相同部门(特殊情况下的交叉报复除外),中止减让的幅度应与受侵害的程度相等；(3)成员方实施报复措施须得到争端解决机构的授权。
④DSU第24条是有关最不发达国家的特殊程序。发展中国家的特殊地位在DSU中也得到了充分的考虑,分散规定在各有关条款中,例如,第21条、第12条等的有关规定。姜作利：《WTO争端解决机制对发展中国家的特殊规定》,《对外经贸实务》2002年第4期。
⑤譬如,有关裁决能否有效执行问题、报复条款的缺陷问题、程序时效过长问题等,参见T. Jennings, Trade Dispute:Canadian Conference Examines the Role of the WTO Dispute Settlement Mechanism, International Economic Review, May/June 1999:12.
⑥何茂春：《对外贸易法比较研究》,北京：中国社会科学出版社2000年版,第69页。
⑦曾令良、陈卫东：《论WTO一般例外条款(GATT第20条)与我国应有的对策》,《法学论坛》2001年第4期,第33页。
①Treaty of Peace, Friendship, and Commerce, May 13,1881, U.S.-Madag., art. IV(1),22 Stat. 952,955,956.
② See generally JSaxon Mills, The Genoa Conference 419 (1922).
③ International Convention Relating to the Simplification of Customs Formalities, Nov.3,1923, 30 L.N.T.S.373.
④ Abolition of Import and Export Prohibitions and Restriction, Commentary and Preliminary Draft International Agreement drawn up by the Economic Committee of the League of Nations to serve as a Basis for an International Diplomatic Conference, League of Nations Doc. C.E.I.22.1927 II.13-21 (1927).
① Dep't of State, The Secretary of State to the Minister in Switerland (Wilson), in Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States,1927,254-57 (1942).
② International Conference for the Abolition of Import and Export Prohibitions and Restrictions, Proceedings of the Conference, at 95, League of Nations Doc. C.21.M.12.1928Ⅱ.107-08 (1928).
③ See Steve Charnovitz,The Moral Exception in Trade Policy,38 Va.J.Int'l L.689,711(1998).
① See Steve Charnovitz,The Moral Exception in Trade Policy,38 Va.J.Int'1 L.689,711(1998).
② See Slavery-Report of the Advisory Committee of Experts, League of Nations Doc. C.112.M.98.1938.VI, Annex 21, at 125 (1938). An Act for the Abolition of the Slave Trade, Mar.25,1807,47 Geo.3, ch.36 (1807) (Eng.). See also Le Louis,2 Dods.210 (1817),165 Eng. Rep.1464.
③ An Act to consolidate the Customs Laws, July 24,1876,39 & 40 Vict., ch.36,42 (Eng.).
① See An Act to provide revenue from imports, and to change and modify existing laws imposing duties on imports, and for other purposes, Aug.30,1842,28,5 Stat.548,566.and An Act To amend the penal laws of the United States, June 5,1920,41 Stat.1060 (repealed).
② T.E.G. Gregory, Tariffs:A Study in Method 115 (1921).
③ George Mygatt Fisk & Paul Skeels Peirce, International Commercial Policies with special reference to the United States, A Text-Book 80 (1923).
④ See Lowell v.Lewis,15(a.1018 No.8568)(C.D.Mass.1817),quoted in Chisum and Jacobs, p.2.5.I
⑤ U.S. Dep't of State, Publ'n No.2411, Proposals for the Expansion of World Trade and Employment (1945).
① See United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment, Apr.10,1947, Report of the Second Session of the Preparatory Committee, U.N. Doc. E/PC/T/186 (Sept.10,1947); United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment, Jan.20-Feb.25,1947, Report of the Drafting Committee of the Preparatory Committee, art.37(a), U.N. Doc. E/PC/T/34/Rev.1 (Mar.5, 1947); United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment, Oct.15-Nov.26,1946, Report of the First Session of the Preparatory Committee, art.32(a), U.N. Doc. E/PC/T/33.
② United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment, Nov.21,1947-Mar.24,1948, Final Act and Related Documents, U.N. Doc. E/Conf./2/78 (Apr.1948).
③ Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties art.32,1155 U.N.T.S.331,8 I.L.M.679.
④ See Steve Chamovitz, The Moral Exception in Trade Policy,38 Va. J. Int'l L.689 (1998) at 704-06.
⑤ United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment, Draft Report of the Technical Sub-Committee,32, U.N. Doc. E/PC/T/CII/54 (Nov.16,1946).
① See Report of the Drafting Committee of the Preparatory Committee, art.37(a), U.N. Doc. E/PC/T/31/Rev.1 (Mar.5,1947).
② See John H. Jackson, The World Trading System:Law and Policy of International Economic Relations 36-41 (1997).
③在这几轮谈判中,谈判方关注的都是有关1947GATT的其他主题,如反倾销措施和非关税壁垒等。
①Patents:Ordre Public and Morality, CY564-Unctad-vl 377 (2004)
①这两项内容在GATT中是分别由GATT第20条(b)款和(g)款来保护的。
② See Patents:Ordre Public and Morality, CY564-Unctad-vl 379 (2004)
①参见黄志雄：《WTO自由贸易与公共道德第一案——安提瓜诉美国网络赌博服务争端评析》,《法学评论》2006年第2期。
② Appellate Body Report on U.S.-Gambling P 291.
① Panel Report on U.S.-Gambling, P 6.461.
① See China-Measures Affecting Trading Rights and Distribution Services for Certain Publications and Audiovisual Entertainment Products, WT/DS363.
① See Claire Wright, Censoring the Censors in the WTO:Reconciling the Communitarian and Human Rights Theories of International Law, J. Int'l Media & Entertainment Law, Vol.3, No.1.pp.60-76.
①参见伯纳德·霍克曼、迈克尔·考斯泰基：《世界贸易体制的政治经济学——从关贸总协定到世界贸易组织》,北京：法律出版社1999年版,第159页。
① See Anne O. Krueger (ed), The WTO as an International Organization. The University of Chicago Press,1998, pp.214-215.
①参见赵维田：《世贸组织(WTO)的法律制度》,长春：吉林人民出版社2000年版,第325页。
②参阅陈卫东：《WTO例外条款解读》,北京：对外经济贸易大学出版社2002年版,第7页。
③还有学者从条约的条文、条约条文的上下文语境及其实施的法律后果的角度出发,认为“WTO例外条款”的法理基础是“协调说”,即例外条款体现了对各成员在特定情形下实施例外措施的权利的“事先的协调同意”,也同时体现了承认各成员实施例外措施的权利与要求及尊重其他成员在WTO实体性规则下的权利之间的协调与平衡。参阅陈卫东：《WTO例外条款解读》,北京：对外经济贸易大学出版社2002年版,第7页。
④ See Claire Wright, Censoring the Censors in the WTO:Reconciling the Communitarian and Human Rights Theories of International Law, J. Int'l Media & Entertainment Law, Vol.3, No.1.pp.76-92.
①参见王贵国：《世界贸易组织法》,北京：法律出版社2003年版,第136页。
②对此,周永坤先生也曾指出：民众的广泛认同是法安定的社会基础,如果法律远离民众,甚或与民众处于对立状态仅凭强制力推行,则不管强制力多么强大,法律也是不安定的。参见周永坤：《法理学———全球视野》, 北京：法律出版社2000年版,第438页。
③周永坤先生也认为,法的安定不仅要求法体系本身是健康的而且要求它成为社会现实,即法适用过程高度的合法性与确定性。参阅周永坤：《法理学——全球视野》, 北京：法律出版社2000年版,第438页。
① Appellate Body Report on United States-Standards for Reformulated and Conventional Gasoline (WT/DS2/AB/R),p17.
② India-Patent Protection for Phamacentical and Agricultural Chemical Products (WT/DS5 0/AB/R),at para.46.
③ Appellate Body Report on Japan-Alcoholic Beverage Ⅱ, p.10,
④上诉机构的行为“不仅已超出个案审查范围,具有一般意义,而且超越先前争端解决实践,解释并界定了《维也纳条约法公约》第31条的意义及其国际法地位。”参见张乃根：《论WTO争端解决的条约解释》,《复旦学报(社会科学版)》2006年第1期,第124页。
①考虑到WTO争端解决中条约解释的重要性,DSB已将所有专家组和上诉机构报告所涉条约解释,分门别类地建立了一个数据库,按“协定或条文”与“主题词”(如“反倾销”、“鞋类”“相同产品”)两种检索法查找相关条约解释内容。该数据库的说明使用了“法理学”(jurisprudence)一词。See WTO Analytical Index available at http://www.wto.org
② Appellate Body Report on Japan-taxes on Alcoholic Beverages (WT/DS8/AB/R) p14.
③张乃根：《论WTO争端解决的条约解释》,《复旦学报(社会科学版)》2006年第1期,第123页。
①彭岳：《条约的解释——以DSB上诉机构的裁决为例》,《南京大学法律评论》2004年秋季号,第43-45页。
②赵维田：《举证责任——WTO司法机制的证据规则》,《国际贸易》2003年第7期。
③参见胡建国：《论WTO法中的狭义解释原则》,《探索与争鸣理论月刊》2007年第9期,第100页。
① Meinhard Hilf.Power, Rules and Principles-Which Orientation for WTO/GATT Law? Journal of International Economic Law2001,(1).
② Appellate Body Report on EC-Measures concerning meat and meat products (hormones)
③ Pascal Lamy. The WTO in the Archipelago of Global Governance, speeches at Institue of International Studies,2007.
① Appellate Body Report on US-Gasoline, p23.
②参见黄东黎：((WTO协定法律解释的基本原则》,2006年9月20日。网址：http://rmfyb. chinacourt.org/public/detail.php?id=101037最后访问日期：2012年3月22日。
③曾令良教授将其称之为“演变解释或当代意义解释法”,并认为该方法并非WTO专家组或上诉机构所独有,而似乎是当今国际司法(或准司法)机构解释条约术语的一种新的趋势。参见曾令良：《从“中美出版物市场准入案”上诉机构裁决看条约解释的新趋势》,《法学》2010年第8期,第12页。
①Appellate Body Resort on U.S.Shrimp,pp.129-130.
②曾令良：《从“中美出版物市场准入案”上诉机构裁决看条约解释的新趋势》,《法学》2010年第8期,第14页。
① The Universal Dictionary of the English Language 745 (Henry Cecil Wyld ed,1932).
② Webster's New International Dictionary of the English Language 1592 (William Allan Neilson et al. eds.,2nd ed.1946).
③ Nicolas F. Diebold, The Morals and Order Exceptions in WTO Law:Balancing the Toothless Tiger and the Undermining Mole, Journal of International Economic Law, March 2008, p.55.
① Christoph T. Feddersen. Focusing on Substantive Law in International Economic Relations: The Public Morals of GATT's Article XX(a) and "Conventional" Rules of Interpretation,7 Minn. J. Global Trade 75.
② See generally Kenneth W. Dam, The GATT:Law and the International Economic Organization 10-16 (1970).
③ See generally The Law of the WTO (Philip Raworth & Linda C. Reif eds.,1995).
① Ernst-Ulrich Petersmann, International and European Trade and Environmental Law after the Uruguay Round 51 (1995).
② John H. Jackson, The World Trading System:Law and Policy of International Economic Relations 206 (1989). See also William Adams Brown, Jr., The United States and the Restoration of World Trade 415 (1950).
③ Meinhard Hilf, Die Auslegung mehrsprachiger Vertrge 86 (1973).
④ See Steve Charnovitz, The Moral Exception in Trade Policy,38 Va. J. Int'l L.689 (1998) at 704-06.
①也有些学者估计高达五百起,因为GATT并不要求所有争端的专家小组报告都公开发表,所以造成学者们对案件数量统计差异,Hudec认为GATT解决了大概207件争端,而Jackson则统计为超过500件。See Robert E. Hudec, Enforcing International Trade Law:The Evolution of the Modern GATT Legal System (1993) and Jackson, The World Trading System: Law and Policy of International Economic Relations 120 (1997).
② See Chronological List of Disputes, http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/dispu status_e.htm (last visited Nov.15,2007).
③ Panel Report on US-Gambling, p 6.465.
④ Panel Report on US-Gambling, P 6.461.
⑤ Panel Report on US-Gambling, P 6.461.
①评议组发现以色列和菲律宾已经基于对道德的保护禁止或限制与赌博相关的服务与产品。另有16个成员国(地区)都已经或者正意欲限制或禁止国际赌博。如,爱沙尼亚、香港、冰岛、挪威和乌拉圭已经禁止或者严格限制在线赌博。澳大利亚、瑞士和英国已经或者正在对在线赌博进行法律限制。基于这一证据,专家小组认为这项美国禁令可以归于“公共道德例外”条款。
② Panel Report on US-Gambling, pp.296-299.
③彭岳：《贸易与道德：中美文化产品争端的法律分析》,《中国社会科学》2009年第2期,第143页。
④刘勇：《论WTO体制内公共道德例外规则——兼评中美文化产品市场准入案相关争议》,《国际贸易问题》2010年第5期,第123页。
①就笔者看到的资料而言,国内绝大多数学者都认为公共道德的内涵由各国自由确定,但国外许多学者表达了不同的观点,如Mark Wu、Marwell等都认为美国博彩案中专家组和上诉机构并没有确定公共道德应该由谁界定。See Jeremy C. Marwell, Trade and Morality:The WTO Public Morals Exception after Gambling, New York University Law Review, May 2006;Mark Wu. Free Trade and the Protection of Public Morals:An Analysis of the Newly Emerging Public Morals Clause Doctrine, The Yale Journal of International Law, Winter,2008.
② Miguel A. Gonzale, NOTE:Trade and Morality:Preserving "Public Morals" Without Sacrificing the Global Economy,39 Vand. J. Transnat'l L.960 (2006).
③包括阿拉巴马、亚利桑那、密西西比、佛罗里达、堪萨斯、康涅狄格、路易斯安那、内布拉斯加、印第安纳、田纳西等各州的相关法律规定。See Miguel A. Gonzale, NOTE:Trade and Morality:Preserving "Public Morals" Without Sacrificing the Global Economy,39 Vand. J. Transnat'l L.961 (2006).
① Mo., Kan.& Tex. Ry. v. Haber,169 U.S.613,625-26(1898).
②美国联邦宪法的商业条款赋予了国会“规范对外贸易、各州间贸易以及与印第安部落之间进行贸易”的权利。See U.S. Const, art. I,8, c1.3.
③ Champion v. Ames,188 U.S.321,322.357 (1903).
④ 44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island,517 U.S.484,514 (1996).
⑤最高法院因为该条例阻碍了特定的宗教活动而宣布该法违宪。See Church of the Lukumi BabaluAye, Inc. v. City ofHialeah,508 U.S.520,535 (1993).
⑥ Barnes v. Glen Theatre,501 U. S.560, at 575 (1991).
①缅甸对美国出口的主要商品是纺织品。目前,缅甸约有400多家制衣厂,从业工人约有35-40万人,其中90%为女工,其生产的成衣75%出口到美国。据缅甸商务部统计,2003年1-5月,缅甸的成衣出口达到了2.2亿美元。该法案的实施将对缅纺织业造成巨大的冲击,严重影响缅甸的外汇收入。信息来源：中华人民共和国驻缅甸大使馆经济商务参赞处子站http://mm.mofcom.gov.cn/aarticle/jmxw/200307/20030700113508.html
② WTO rules and animal welfare, RSPC A Australia information paper,12(2011), p7, available at www.rspca.org.au.
③ Miguel A. Gonzale, NOTE:Trade and Morality:Preserving "Public Morals" Without Sacrificing the Global Economy,39 Vand. J. Transnat'l L.967 (2006)
①Regina v.Sharpe,[2001] S.C.R.45.P231.
②Regina v.Smith,44 CCC(3d)385(Ontario Sup.Ct.1988).
③King v Connare(1939)61 C.L.R.596,597(Austl.).
① King v. Connare (1939) 61 C.L.R.622 (Austl).
② Gollan v. Nugent (1988) 166 C.L.R.21 (Austl.).
③ Regulation 4W,Customs(Prohibited Imports)Regulations 1956.
④资料来源自中国新闻网,2011年3月7日。网址：http://www.chinanews.com/hr/2011/03-07/2887406.shtml,最后访问日期：2012年3月21日。
① Patents:Ordre Public and Morality, CY564-Unctad-v1 382 (2004)
②我国法律对“公共道德”的保护也涉及了人类基因技术等新的领域,但相较于国外法律来说,规定非常有限。2001年中华人民共和国卫生部颁布的《人类辅助生殖技术管理办法》第3条规定：“人类辅助生殖技术的应用应当在医疗机构中进行,以医疗为目的,并符合国家计划生育政策、伦理原则和有关法律规定。禁止以任何形式买卖配子、合子、胚胎。医疗机构和医务人员不得实施任何形式的代孕技术。”第22条规定：“开展人类辅助生殖技术的医疗机构违反本办法,有下列行为之一的,由省、自治区、直辖市人民政府卫生行政部门给予警告、3万元以下罚款,并给予有关责任人行政处分；构成犯罪的,依法追究刑事责任：(一)买卖配子、合子、胚胎的；(二)实施代孕技术的。
③其中,第24条明确规定：“国家通过普及理想教育、道德教育、文化教育、纪律和法制教育,通过在城乡不同范围的群众中制定和执行各种守则、公约,加强社会主义精神文明建设。国家提倡爱祖国、爱人民、爱劳动、爱科学、爱社会主义的公德,在人民中进行爱国主义、集体主义和国际主义、共产主义的教育,进行辩证唯物主义和历史唯物主义的教育,反对资本主的、封建主义的和其他的腐朽思想。”第53条规定为：“中华人民共和国公民必须遵守宪法和法律,保守国家秘密,爱护公共财产,遵守劳动纪律,遵守公共秩序,尊重社会公德。”
① Wong Kam Kuen v. Comm'r for Television and Entm't Licensing, [2003] 3 H.K.L.R.D.596, 617(C.A.).
② HKSAR v. Tsang Ching Chiu, [2002] 3 H.K.L.R.D.172,175,,176 (C.F.I.).
③ HKSAR v. Tsui Ping Wing, [2000] H.K.E.C.437 (C.F.I.).
① See Nicolas F. Diebold, The Morals and Order Exceptions in WTO Law:Balancing the Toothless Tiger and the Undermining Mole, Journal of International Economic Law, March 2008, pp.64-65.
② Panel Report on US-Gambling, p.6.466.
③ Panel Report on US-Gambling, p.6.467.
④ Panel Report on US-Gambling, p.6.463.
① Appellate Body Report on US-Gambling, pp.77,298.
② See Nicolas F. Diebold, The Morals and Order Exceptions in WTO Law. Balancing the Toothless Tiger and the Undermining Mole, Journal of International Economic Law, March 2008, pp73-74.
③ UNCTAD/ICTSD Resource Book on TRIPS and Development, Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2005, at 379.
① See Nicolas F. Diebold, The Morals and Order Exceptions in WTO Law:Balancing the Toothless Tiger and the Undermining Mole, Journal of International Economic Law, March 2008, pp73-74.
② Michael Park, Note and Comment:Market Access and Exceptions under the GATS and Online Gambling Services,12 Southwestern Journal of Law & Trade in the Americas (2006) 495, at 510.
③ Panel Report on US-Gambling, p 6.469.
①Diebold认为公共道德和公共秩序虽然都要求是保护”公众”的利益,但公共秩序的情况稍微有些不同,因为秩序相对而言对”合意”的依赖更少,即使不是损及大多数人的利益仍有可能符合”公众”的要求。例如,如果某一与WTO相矛盾的措施能确保一小部分居住在遥远地区的人达到必要性要求或者能保护一小部分潜在消费者免受无资格服务提供商的侵害,那么它就应该是正当的。因此,由专家组发展出来的”大多数人”的要求在公共秩序例外方面应该作广泛解释,特别是因为GATS第14条第1款的脚注5已经用更适当的方式对后者作出了限制。参见Nicolas F. Diebold, The Morals and Order Exceptions in WTO Law:Balancing the Toothless Tiger and the Undermining Mole, Journal of I nternational Economic Law, March 2008, pp:61-62.
② Panel Report on US-Gambling, p.6.469.
① See Christoph T. Feddersen. Focusing on Substantive Law in International Economic R elations:The Public Morals of GATT's Article XX(a) and "Conventional" Rules of Int erpretation,7 Minn. J. Global Trade 91-93(1998).
①参见[美]约翰·H·杰克逊：《GATT/WTO法理与实践》,张玉卿、李成钢、杨国华等译,北京：新华出版社2002年版,第480页。
①Appellate Body Report on Korea-Various Measures on Beef pp.161-164.
②转引自王贵国：《服务贸易游戏规则是与非》,《法学家》2004年第4期,第157-158页。
③事实上,在第一次书面意见中,美国从未提到要保护公共道德。仅在第一次口头辩论之后美国才提出了这一抗辩。
① Panel Report on U.S.-Gambling, PP 3.288-91.
② See Appellate Body Report on US-Gasoline, p22; Appellate Body Report on US-Shrimp, paras.115-119; Appellate Body Report on Korea-Various Measures on Beef, para.156.
③ Panel Report on U.S.-Gambling, PP 6.472-74.
④即上文所述及的包括(1)争议措施所要保护的“利益或价值”的重要性程度；(2)争议措施对于所保护目标的贡献度。(3)争议措施对国际贸易产生的消极影响,即该措施对进口产品的限制作用。包括是否存在一项合理可用的限制更小的替代措施。
④ Panel Report on US-Gambling,p 6.492.
① Panel Report on US-Gambling, pp 6.529-31.
② Panel Report on US-Gambling, pp.6.488-6.535.
③ Appellate Body Report on US-Gambling, p317.
① See Appellate Body Report,US-Gasoline,pp.22-23,DSR 1996:I,3,at 21;Appellate Body Report,US-Wool Shirts and Blouses,pp.15-16,DSR 1997:I,323,at 337;Appellate Body Report,US-FSC(Article 21.5-EC),p.133.
② Panel Report on US-Gambling, pp.309-311.
① See Report of the panel——China-measures affecting the protection and enforcement of cement of intellectual property rights, pp 7.712-714.
② See Report of the panel——China-measures affecting the protection and enforcement of cement of intellectual property rights, pp7.815-818.
①刘瑛：《GATT第20条(a)项公共道德例外条款之研究——以“中美出版物和视听产品案”为视角》,《法商研究》2010年第4期,第36页。
② See Report of the panel——China-measures affecting the protection and enforcement of cement of intellectual property rights, pp7.822-825.
①专家组认为,即便指定制对于保护公共道德能够产生影响,这种影响也只是间接的。
② See Report of the panel——China-measures affecting the protection and enforcement of cement of intellectual property rights, p7.837.
③譬如《出版管理条例》第42条的要求。
④从中国提交的证据来看,专家组只能估算中国图书进出口总公司2006年因内容审查而增加的成本约合400万元人民币,但2006年中国图书进出口总公司进口总值却达到了1.27亿美元。
⑤譬如,环境保护、消防安全等。
①See Report of the panel——China-measures affecting the protection and enforcement of cement of intellectual property rights, pp7.826-828.
②See Report of the panel——China-measures affecting the protection and enforcement of cement of intellectual property rights, pp7.837-848.
① See Report of the panel——China-measures affecting the protection and enforcement of cement of intellectual property rights, p7.869.
② See Report of the panel——China-measures affecting the protection and enforcement of cement of intellectual property rights, pp7.872-875.
①《出版管理条例》第44条第2款已经授权适格政府部门就内容审查按照价格主管部门批准的标准收取费用。
② See Report of the panel——China-measures affecting the protection and enforcement of cement of intellectual property rights, pp 7.887-893.
①Appellate Body Report on US-Gambling, pp.317-318.
① Appellate Body Report on Korea-Various Measures on Beef, p.182.
② Appellate Body Report on US-Gambling, pp.319-320.
③ Appellate Body Report on US-Gambling, p.309.
① John H. Jackson, World Trade and the Law of GATT, The Bobbs Merrill Company,In c.,1969,p.743
② See Report of the Appellate Body, United States---Standards for Reformulated and Con ventional Gasoline, WT/DS2/AB/R,29 April 1996, para.21.
① See Report of the Appellate Body, United States-Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products, WT/DS58/AB/R,12 October 1998, para.159.
② See Report of the Appellate Body, United States-Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products, WT/DS58/AB/R,12 October 1998, para.157.
③ John H.Jackson,World Trade and the Law of GATT,The Bobbs Merrill Company,Inc.,1969, p.743
①参见曾令良、陈卫东：《论WTO一般例外条款(GATT第20条)与我国应有的对策》,《法学论坛》2001年第4期,第36-37页。
②参见曾令良、陈卫东：《论WTO一般例外条款(GATT第20条)与我国应有的对策》,《法学论坛》2001年第4期,第38页。
③ Appellate Body Report on U. S.Shrimp and Shrimp Products, PP 173-76,185.
① Appellate Body Report on U. S.Shrimp and Shrimp Products, P185.
② Appellate Body Report on U. S.Shrimp and Shrimp Products, p65.
③ Appellate Body Report on U.S. gasoline, pp 631-32; Appellate Body Report on U. S. Shrimp and Shrimp Products, pp 166-71.
① Appellate Body Report on U. S. Shrimp and Shrimp Products, pp166、171、174.
② Appellate Body Report on U. S. Shrimp and Shrimp Products, pp121、166.
③在韩国牛肉案中,专家组在认定了双重零售体系不符合(d)款的要求后,决定不再继续进行双层测试分析该措施是否符合第20条序言。Appellate Body Report, Korea-Various Measures on Beef,Para.156.
① Council Decision 97/602,1997 O.J. (L242) (EC); Commission Regulation 3254/91, art.3,1991 O.J.(L 308)(EC).更多关于进口禁令的背景可参见Gillian Dale, Comment, The European Union's Steel Leghold Trap Ban:Animal Cruelty Legislation in Conflict with International Trade,7 Colo. J. Int'l Envtl. L.& Pol'y,441 (1996).
② Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act,1998, Pub. L. No.105-61, §634,111 Stat.1272,1316(1997).
①朱榄叶：《世界贸易组织国际贸易纠纷案例评析》(2007-2009),北京：法律出版社2010年版,第327页。
①《入世议定书》和《工作组报告》中关于中国贸易权的承诺是根据所有WTO协定及其附件所作出的,所以此处的“WTO协议”应该包括WTO协定及其附件。这点从中国入世的《工作组报告》中也可以得到佐证譬如《工作组报告书》第84(b)段就特别列举了符合WTO规则的WTO成员政府贸易管理措施包括与WTO相一致的有关进出口的要求,如与进口许可、贸易技术壁垒和《实施卫生与植物卫生措施协定》相关的要求等。充分证明了《工作组报告书》与WTO所有协定的相关性。
②朱榄叶：《世界贸易组织国际贸易纠纷案例评析》(2007-2009),北京：法律出版社2010年版,第369页。
① Panel Report on Tuna-Dolphin Ⅰ, PP.3.31,3.36,3.49.
② Panel Report on Tuna-Dolphin Ⅱ, P.3.16.
① Panel Report on Tuna-Dolphin Ⅰ, P 4.4 and Panel Report on Tuna-Dolphin Ⅱ, P 3.35.
②此种分类方法借鉴了Charnovitz、Hudec等国外学者的观点,具体参见Steve Charnovitz, The Moral Exception in Trade Policy, Virginia Journal of International Law,Summer,19 98; and Robert E. Hudec, GATT Legal Restraints on the Use of Trade Measures again st Foreign Environmental Practices, in 2 Fair Trade and Harmonization, at 116.
③ 42 U.S.C.A.274e(a) (1991); 21 U.S.C.A.321(b) (1972)
① Tariff Act of 1930, June 17,1930,305(a),46 Stat.590,688, codified at 19 U.S.C.1305(a) (1994).
② Jennifer Merin, Customs Prevail:Know rules when bringing foreign treasures home, Chi. Trib., Apr.14,1996, at Travel-4.
①参见李先波、徐莉：《贸易制裁与国际人权保护——兼析GATT的有关规定》,《国际法与比较法论丛》(第19辑),北京：中国方正出版社2010年3月,第4页。
② See Steve Charnovitz, The Moral Exception in Trade Policy, Virginia Journal of International Law, Summer,1998.
① Panel Report on Tuna-Dolphin Ⅱ, PP 5.15-5.16.
① See WTO Appellate Body Report on United States-Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products (Shrimp/Turtle I), WT7DS58/AB/R,133,12 October 1998 (adopted 6 November 1998),
①参见《维也纳条约法公约》第31、32条。
② See GATT Dispute Panel Report on United States:Restrictions on Imports of Tuna, Aug.16, 1991, GATTB.I.S.D. (39th Supp.) atl98,199 (1993).
③参见《实施动植物卫生检疫措施的协议》(Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures)的序言及第2条第4款,来自于http://www.wto.org/english/docs-e/ legal-e/final-e.htm).
①参见邵津：《国际法》(第二版),北京：北京大学出版社、高等教育出版社2005年8月,第44页。
②李先波、徐莉：《贸易制裁与国际人权保护——兼析GATT的有关规定》,《国际法与比较法论丛》(第19辑),北京：中国方正出版社2010年3月,第3-33页。
③ Thomas J. Schoenbaum, Free International Trade and Protection of the Environment: Irreconcilable Conflict?,86 Am. J. Int'l L.700,703 (1992).
①参见余敏友：((WTO争端解决机制12年的成就与问题及其对我国的启示》,((WTO法与中国法论丛》2008年卷,北京：知识产权出版社,第95页。
②WTO争端解决机制的四大职能是：(1)向世界贸易组织多边贸易体制提供安全及预见性；(2)维护世贸组织各成员依据世贸组织协定所享有的各项权利和所承担的各项义务；(3)按照国际公法解释的习惯规则,澄清世贸组织协定的各项现行规定；(4)积极解决争端。参见余敏友：((WTO争端解决机制12年的成就与问题及其对我国的启示》,((WTO法与中国法论丛》2008年卷,北京：知识产权出版社,第117-118页。
①陈卫东：《WTO例外条款解读》,北京：对外经贸大学出版社2002年版,第201页。
②笔者统计该数据的时间范围为：1995年1月1日至2009年12月31日；主要参考资料：世界贸易组织法律事务部编,朱榄叶译：《WTO争端解决案件概要》,北京：法律出版社2008年版；朱榄叶：《世界贸易组织国际贸易纠纷案例评析》(2003-2006)北京：法律出版社2009年版；朱榄叶：《世界贸易组织国际贸易纠纷案例评析》(2007-2009)北京：法律出版社2010年版。
①王贵国：《服务贸易游戏规则是与非》,《法学家》2004年第4期,第160页。
②参见2009年6月我国常驻WTO代表团常驻代表孙振宇大使在商务部举办的”参赞访谈”活动中的发言。《与常驻世界贸易组织代表团常驻代表孙振宇大使网上交流》,http://shang wutousu.mofcom.gov.cn/aarticle/lbqz/ggswxx/200909/20090906503693.html(最后访问日期：2012年3月8日)。
① Jeremy C. Marwell, Trade and Morality:The WTO Public Morals Exception after Gambling, New York University Law Review,May 2006,p.803.
② Michael J. Trebilcock & Robert Howse, The Regulation of International Trade (2ded.1999) at 56.
③ Developing Countries in WTO Dispute Settlement, in WTO, Dispute Settlement System Training Module ch.11(2005), available at http://www.wto.org/english/tratope/dispue/disp settlement cbte/c11siple.htm#txt1.
① Mark A. Pollack & Gregory C. Shaffer, Biotechnology:The Next Transatlantic Trade War?, Wash. Q., Autumn 2000, at 41,43.
①参见GATT第20条(g)、第20条(f)及第20条(e)。
②包括强迫劳工、契约劳工、监狱劳工以及童工制造的产品(goods made with forced, indentured, or convict labour, including child labour).具体参见Tariff Act 1930, ch.497,46 Stat.689(1930).
③ An Act to Amend the Bretton Woods Agreement Act, Pub L No 95-435, §5(c),92 Stat 1051, 1052 (1978) and see Richard B. Lillich and Hurst Hannum, International Human Rights, Problems of Law, Policy, and Practice (3d edn, Boston:Little, Brown 1995) 74-75.
④ Pub L No 100-202, §562,101 Stat 1329-175 (1987); see also Pub L No 101-167, §562(a), 103 Stat 1241 (1989) (both codified at 7 USC §3602 note (1994)).
⑤ Clean Diamond Trade Act, H.R.2722,107th Cong (2001).
⑥ Council Common Position (EC) No.2007/750/CFSP of 19 November 2007 amending Common Position 2006/318/CFSP renewing restrictive measures against Burma/Myanmar art. 2(b),2007 O.J. (L308).
① See Michael J. Trebilcock & Robert Howse, Trade Policy & Labor Standards,14 Minn. J. Global Trade 290 (2005).
② See Sarah H. Cleveland, Human Rights Sanctions and International Trade:A Theory of Compatibility,5 J. Int'l Econ. L.157 (2002).
③ See Stephen J. Powell, The Place of Human Rights Law in World Trade Organization Rules, 16 Fla. J. Int'l L.219,223 (2004).
④ See Salman Bal, International Free Trade Agreements and Human Rights:Reinterpreting Article XX of the GATT,10 Minn. J. Global Trade 62,78 (2001); see also Gabrielle Marceau, WTO Dispute Settlement and Human Rights,13 Eur. J. Int'l Law 753,789 (2002).
⑤ See Liane M. Jarvis, Note, Women's Rights and the Public Morals Exception of GATT Article 20,22 Mich. J. Int'l L.219,236-37 (2000).
⑥ See Karen E. Woody, Note, Diamonds on the Souls of Her Shoes:The Kimberly Process and the Morality Exception to the WTO Restrictions,22 Conn. J. Int'l L.335,352-55 (2007) and Edward M. Thomas, Note, Playing Chicken at the WTO:Defending an Animal Welfare-Based Trade Restriction Under GATT's Moral Exception,34 B.C. Envtl. Aff. L. Rev.605 (2007).
⑦ Office of the U.N. High Comm'r for Refugees, Human Rights and World Trade Agreements: Using General Exception Clauses to Protect Human Rights, at 5, U.N. Doc. HR/PUB/05/5 (Nov.2005).
① See Robert Howse, The World Trade Organization and the Protection of Workers'Rights,3 J. Small & Emerging Bus. L.131,169-71 (1999).
② See Anjli Garg, Note, A Child Labor Social Clause:Analysis and Proposal for Action,31 N.Y.U. J. Int'l L.& Pol.473,526 (1999).
③ Shrimp/Turtle AB Report, supra note 98, P 129.
① See Sarah H. Cleveland,'human Rights Sanctions and International Trade:a Theory of Compatibility',26 JIEL.133(2002).
① See Mark Wu. Free Trade and the Protection of Public Morals:An Analysis of the Newly Emerging Public Morals Clause Doctrine, The Yale Journal of International Law, Winter,2008, 245-246.
① See Convention Concerning the Prohibition and Immediate Action for the Elimination of the Worst Forms of Child Labour, June 17,1999,2133 U.N.T.S.161.
② See ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work, art.2, June 18,1998,37 I.L.M.1233,1237-38.
③ See Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Dec.9,1948, 102 Stat.3045,78 U.N.T.S.277.
④ See Kyle Bagwell, Petros C. Mavroidis & Robert W. Staiger, It's a Question of Market Access, 96 Am. J. Int'1 L.56,73-74 (2002).
① See Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosn.& Herz. v. Yugo. (Serb.& Mont.)),2007 I.C.J. (Feb.26).
② Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, adopted Dec. 18,1979,1249 U.N.T.S.13.
③ International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, G.A. Res.2200A, art.2(1), U.N. GAOR, 21st Sess.,U.N. Doc. A/RES/2200 (Dec.16,1966),999 U.N.T.S.171.
① See Mark Wu. Free Trade and the Protection of Public Morals:An Analysis of the Newly Emerging Public Morals Clause Doctrine, The Yale Journal of International Law, Winter,2008, 247-248.
① Appellate Body Report on Korea-Beee PP179-181.
②Appellate Body Report on U.S.-Gambling AB,PP 369,371.
① Appellate Body Report on Shrimp/Turtle, pp 164-65,168,172,175.
② Panel Report on Japan Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages, P 6.23.
①参见余敏友：《中国参与WTO争端解决活动评述》,《世界贸易组织动态与研究》2009年第5期,第18页。
①参见余敏友：《中国参与WTO争端解决活动评述》,《世界贸易组织动态与研究》2009年第5期,第18页。
①刘勇：《论WTO体制内公共道德例外规则——兼评中美文化产品市场准入案相关争议》,《国际贸易问题》2010年第5期,第126页。
①参见贺小勇：《WTO框架卞中美文化作品市场准入争端的法律问题》,《国际商务研究》2008年第6期,第4页。
①参见贺小勇：《WTO框架卞中美文化作品市场准入争端的法律问题》,《国际商务研究》2008年第6期,第6页。
①参见贺小勇：《WTO框架卞中美文化作品市场准入争端的法律问题》,《国际商务研究》2008年第6期,第7页。
①参见刘瑛：《GATT第20条(a)项公共道德例外条款之研究——以“中美出版物和视听产品案”为视角》,《法商研究》2010年第4期,第40页。
①WTO:AnnualReport2006, http://www.wto.org/english/res_e/booksp_e/anrep_e/anrep06_e. pd.f
②转引自余敏友：《中国参与WTO争端解决活动评述》,《世界贸易组织动态与研究》2009年第5期,第25页。
③《与常驻世界贸易组织代表团常驻代表孙振宇大使网上交流》,来源于http://shangwutousu. mofcom.gov.cn/aarticle/lbqz/ggswxx/200909/20090906503693.html (最后访问日期：2012年3月12日)。
①参见余敏友：《中国参与WTO争端解决活动评述》,《世界贸易组织动态与研究》2009年第5期,第26页。
①刘瑛：《GATT第20条(a)项公共道德例外条款之研究——以“中美出版物和视听产品案”为视角》,《法商研究》2010年第4期,第40-41页。
②曾令良、陈卫东：《论WTO一般例外条款(GATT第20条)与我国应有的对策》,《法学论坛》2001年第4期,第49页。
③ Gregory C. Shaffer, Defending Interests:Public-Private Partnerships in WTO Litigation, Washington, D.C.:Brookings Institution Press,2003. pp.227.
④ Shaffer, Gregory C, Sanchez, Michelle Ratton and Rosenberg, Barbara, The Trials of Winning at the WTO:What Lies Behind Brazil s Success(May,27 2008).Cornell International Law Journal, Vo.141, No.2,2008; Minnesota Legal Studies Research Paper No.49. Available at SSRN:http://ssm.com/abstract=1137905
①参见余敏友：《中国参与WTO争端解决活动评述》,《世界贸易组织动态与研究》,2009年第5期第27页。
②譬如,1999年,提供网络赌博服务带来的产值占安提瓜国民生产总值(7.5亿美元)的10%,而该国政府每年2亿美元的财政收入中,约1/6来自网络赌博行业。See Warren Giles, U.S. Loses WTO Ruling Covering Online Gambling, http://www.lasvegassun. com/sunbin/ stories/gaming/2004/mar/24/516580670.htm 1.
③因为美国是世界上最大的赌博服务消费市场。世界上约二分之一的在线赌博者来自美国,这些美国人估计创造了全世界互联网赌博收入的65%。
④转引自黄志雄：《WTO自由贸易与公共道德第一案——安提瓜诉美国网络赌博服务争端评析》,《法学评论》2006年第2期,第123页。
[1]曹建明：国际经济法学,中国政法大学出版社,1999。
[2]陈立虎：现代国际贸易法,中国商业出版,2002。
[3]何茂春：对外贸易法比较研究,中国社会科学出版社,2000。
[4]赵维田：世贸组织(WTO)的法律制度,.吉林人民出版社,2000。
[5]王贵国：世界贸易组织法,法律出版社,2003。
[6]周永坤：法理学——全球视野,法律出版社,2000。
[7]周林彬等：WTO规则例外和例外规则,广东人民出版社,2001。
[8]朱榄叶：世界贸易组织国际贸易纠纷案例评析(2007-2009),法律出版社,2010。
[9]邵津：国际法,北京大学出版社、高等教育出版社,2005。
[10]朱榄叶：世界贸易组织国际贸易纠纷案例评析(2003-2006),法律出版社,2008。
[11]朱榄叶：世界贸易组织国际贸易纠纷案例评析(2007-2009),法律出版社,2010。
[12]陈卫东：WTO例外条款解读,对外经济贸易大学出版社,2002。
[13]李浩培：条约法概论,法律出版社,2003。
[14]王铁崖：国际法引论,北京大学出版社,1998。
[15]李双元、蒋新苗：世贸组织的法律制度,中国方正出版社,2001。
[16]周林彬、郑远远：WTO规则例外与例外规则,广东人民出版社,2001。
[17]高岚君：国际法的价值论,武汉大学出版社,2006。
[18]庞中英：全球化、反全球化与中国,上海人民出版社,2002。
[19]夏勇：人权概念的起源——权利的历史哲学,中国政法大学出版社,2001。
[20]宋惠昌：诚信—商道之本,民主与建设出版社,2002。
[21]王海明：公正、平等、人道：社会治理的道德原则体系,北京大学出版社,2000。
[22]徐国栋：诚实信用原则研究,中国人民大学出版社,2002。
[23]孔汉思、库舍尔：全球伦理——世界宗教会议宣言,四川人民出版社,1997。
[24]李仁武：《道德制度伦理研究——探寻公共道德理性的生成路径》,人民出版社,2009。
[25]阮成发：WTO与政府改革,经济时报出版社,2001。
[26]赵新明：非关税壁垒的应对及运用——“入世”后中国企业的策略选择,人民出版社,2001。
[27]石广生：中国加入世界贸易组织知识读本(三)——中国加入世界贸易组织法律文件导读,人民出版社,2002。
[28]王贵国：世界贸易组织法,法律出版社,2003。
[29]赵维田：世贸组织(WTO)的法律制度,吉林人民出版社,2000。
[30]朱榄叶：世界贸易组织国际贸易纠纷案例评析,法律出版社,2000。
[31]李先波、徐莉：贸易制裁与国际人权保护——兼析GATT的有关规定,国际法与比较法论丛(第十九辑),中国检察出版社,2010。
[32]余敏友：WTO争端解决机制12年的成就与问题及其对我国的启示,WTO法与中国法论丛年卷,知识产权出版社,2008。
[33]韩立余：WTO案例及评析,中国人民大学出版社,2001。
[34]石静霞、陈卫东：WTO国际服务贸易成案研究,北京大学出版社,2005。
[35]石静霞：WTO服务贸易法专论,法律出版社,2006。
[36]赵维田、刘敬东：WTO：解释条约的习惯规则,湖南科技出版社,2006。
[37]东平：WTO司法解释论,厦门大学出版社,2003。
[38]赵一凡：美国的历史文献,读书·生活·新知三联书店,1989。
[39]刘光溪：坎昆会议与WTO首轮谈判,上海人民出版社,2004。
[40]董云虎、刘武平编著：世界人权约法总览,四川人民出版社,1991。
[41]朱晓勤：发展中国家与WTO法律制度研究,北京大学出版社,2006。
[42]张云平：“WTO法的伦理学研究”,西南政法大学经济贸易法学院博士论文,2006。
[1]龚柏华：“中美出版物市场准入WTO案”——援引GATT第20条“公共道德例外”的法律分析,《世界贸易组织动态与研究》2009年第10期
[2]姜建明,陈立虎：WTO例外条款及其法理基础,《苏州大学学报(哲社版)》2007年第2期。
[3]张乃根：论WTO争端解决的条约解释,《复旦学报(社会科学版》2006年第1期。
[4]彭岳：条约的解释——以DSB上诉机构的裁决为例,《南京大学法律评论》2004年秋季号。
[5]赵维田：举证责任——WTO司法机制的证据规则,《国际贸易》2003年第7期。
[6]胡建国：论WTO法中的狭义解释原则,《探索与争鸣理论月刊》2007年第9期。
[7]曾令良：从”中美出版物市场准入案”上诉机构裁决看条约解释的新趋势,《法学》2010年第8期。
[8]刘勇：论WTO体制内公共道德例外规则——兼评中美文化产品市场准入案相关争议,《国际贸易问题》2010年第5期。
[9]余敏友：中国参与WTO争端解决活动评述,《世界贸易组织动态与研究》2009年第5期。
[10]贺小勇：WTO框架卞中美文化作品市场准入争端的法律问题,《国际商务研究》2008年第6期。
[11]黄志雄：WTO自由贸易与公共道德第一案一—安提瓜诉美国网络赌博服务争端评析,《法学评论》2006年第2期。
[12]李先波、徐莉：GATT“公共道德例外”条款探析,《湖南师范大学社会科学学报》2010年第1期,
[13]徐挥彦：世界贸易组织法律架构与人权保障理念之接轨：一般例外条款运用法理之探讨,《政大法学评论》2002年第71期。
[14]曾令良：论冷战后的国家主权,《中国法学》1998年第1期。
[15]李祥银：迈向更为人道和富有成效的制裁? “聪明制裁”初探,《国际论坛》2002年第4卷第2期。
[16]贾古玛：“联合国必须确立国际社会干预个别国家的准则”,《联合早报》1999年9月26日。
[17]王雅红、王文：“从理想主义到建构主义——试论国际体系转换的理论擅变”,《经纪人 学报》2005年第1期。
[18]李双元等：法律理念的内涵与功能初探,《湖南师范大学社会科学学报》1997年第4期。
[19]王丰：WTO还值得信赖吗?——访2001年诺贝尔经济学奖得主斯蒂格利茨,《南方周末》2004年8月5日。
[20]华东政法学院WTO研究中心：WTO的法律框架与其他制度性安排的冲突与融合,《法学》2003年第7期。
[21]陆象珍：经济全球化与当代资本主义的民主危机——西方学的若干论述,《国外社会科学》2001年第1期。
[22]曾令良：论WOT一般例外条款(GATT第20条)与我国应有的对策,《法学论坛》2001年第4期。
[23]石静霞、胡荣国：试从GATS第6条与第16条的关系角度评“美国博彩案”,《法学》2005年第5期。
[24]韩龙：WTO服务贸易中的规制纪律与规制自由——对AGTS国内规制的问题与发展趋势的透视,《法商研究》2003年第3期。
[25]沈木珠、乔生论：WTO基本原则例外条款与我国的市场对策,《山东社会科学》2002年第3期。
[26]余敏友、陈喜峰：论解决WTO法内部冲突的司法解释原则,《法学评论》2002年第6期。
[27]潘嘉玮：WTO例外条款探究,《学术研究》2003年第6期。
[28]张若思：新市视自由贸易——世界贸易组织内贸易与环境的关系,《国际贸易》2002年第8期。
[29]王贵国：服务贸易游戏规则是与非,《法学家》2005年第4期。
[30]张晓君：服务贸易多边法律制度的现状、问题与发展——以GATS为主线,《湖湘论坛》2007年第5期。
[31]郑炯：世贸组织解决贸易与环境争议的新实践,《国际贸易问题》1999年第8期。
[32]潘惜唇：论GATT环保例外条款的适用条件和发展趋势,《中国法学》2001年第5期。
[33]张若思：世贸组织关于环境措施的争端解决实践,《国际贸易问题》2000年第9期。
[34]程大为：新一轮多边贸易谈判中的“贸易与环境”问题,《国际贸易问题》2000年第2期。
[35]张康之：对道德教育有效性的怀疑,《学术界》2003年第5期。
[1]罗纳德·德沃金：认真对待权利,信春鹰、吴玉章译,上海三联书店,2008。
[2]伯纳德·霍克曼、迈克尔·考斯泰基：世界贸易体制的政治经济学——从关贸总协定到世界贸易组织,刘平等译,法律出版社,1999。
[3]约翰、H、杰克逊：世界贸易体制——国际经济关系的法律与政策,张乃根译,复旦大学出版社,2001。
[4]罗伯特·基欧汉、约瑟夫·奈：权力与相互依赖,门洪华译,北京大学出版,2002。
[5]彼德一托比亚斯·施托尔、费尔克·朔尔科普夫：世界贸易制度和世界贸易法,南京大学德法研究所译,法律出版社,2003。
[6]约翰、H、杰克逊：GATT/WTO法理与实践,张达卿、李成钢、杨国华等译,新华出版社出版,2002。
[7]丹尼·罗德瑞克：全球化走得太远了吗?熊贤良、何蓉译, 北京大学出版社,2000。
[8]安东尼·D·史密斯：全球化时代的民族与民族主义,龚维兵、良警宇译,中央编译出版社,2002。
[9]博登海默：法理学——法哲学及其方法,华夏出版社,1987。
[10]麦金太尔：谁之正义?何种合理性?当代中国出版社,1996。
[11]里查德·T·狄乔治：国际商务中的诚信竞争,翁绍军、马迅译,上海社会科学出版社,2001。
[12]彼得·斯坦、约翰·香德：西方社会的法律价值,王献平译,郑成思校,中国法制出版社,2004。
[13]科依勒·贝格威尔、罗伯特·W·恩泰戈尔：世界贸易体系政治经济学,雷达、詹宏毅译,中国人民大学出版社,2005。
[14]弗朗西斯科·洛佩斯·塞格雷拉：全球化与世界体系(上),社会科学文献出版社,2003。
[15]阿尔弗雷德·萨德一费洛、黛博拉·约翰斯顿编：新自由主义：批判读本,陈钢等译,江苏人民出版社,2006。
[16]彼得·萨瑟兰等：WTO的未来—阐释新千年中的体制性挑战,刘敬东等译,中国财经经济出版社,2005。
[17]贾格迪什·巴格沃蒂：今日自由贸易,海闻译,中国人民大学出版社,2004。
[18]A·J·M·米尔恩：人的权利与多样性——人权哲学,夏勇、张志铭译,中国大百科全书出版社,1995。
[19]路易斯·亨金：“当代中国的人权观念：一种比较考察”,夏勇主编,公法(第1卷),法律出版社,1999。
[20]杰克·唐纳利：普遍人权的理论与实践,王浦幼、张文成等译,中国社会科学出版社,2001。
[21]乔治·恩德勒：国际经济伦理学挑战与应对方法,北京大学出版社,2003。
[22]对外经贸部国际经贸关系司译：世界贸易组织乌拉圭回合多边贸易谈判结果法律文本(中英文对照),法律出版社,2000。
[23]联合国人权高级专员办事处：人权国际文件汇编(第1卷第1部分),纽约日内瓦,2002。
[1]John H. Jackson, The World Trading System:Law and Policy of International Economic Relations 206 (1989). See also William Adams Brown, Jr., The United States and the Restoration of World Trade,1950.
[2]J.G.Merrills,The Development of International Law by the European Court of Human Rights, Manchester University Press,1993.
[3]Wolfgang Friedmann, Louis Henkin and Oliver Lissitzyn ed, Transnational Law in a Changing Society Essays in Honor of Philip C. Jessup, Columbia University Press,1972.
[4]Peter Malanczuk,Akehurst's Modern Introduction to International Law(seventh revised edition), Routledge,1997.
[5]Henry G. Schermers & Niels M. Blokker, International Institutional Law:Unity within diversity, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,1995.
[6]Antonio Cassese,International Law in a Divided World, Oxford University Press,1986. Simon Chestennan, Just War or Just Peace? Humanitarian Intervention and International Law, Oxford University Press,2001.
[7]Paul Sieghart, The International Law of Human Rights, Oxford University Press,1983.
[8]Myres S. McDougal, Harold D. Lasswell and Lung-chu Chen, Human Rights and World Pub lic Order:the Basic Policies of an International Law of Human Dignity, Yale University Press, 1980.
[9]Theodor Meron, Human Rights and Humanitarian Norms as Customary Law, Oxford University Press,1989.
[10]armen Tiburcio, The Human Rights of Aliens under International and comparative Law, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,2001.
[11]Jean Pictet, Development and Principles of International and Humanitarian Law, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,1985.
[12]Lance A. Compa and Stephen F. Diamond ed., Human Rights, Labor Rights, and International Trade, University of Pennsylvania Press,1996.
[13]Richard A. Wilson ed., Human Rights, Culture & Content:Anthropological Perspectives, Pluto Press,1997.
[14]David p. Forsythe, Human Rights in International Relations, Cambridge University Press, 2000.
[15]Weatherley, The Discourse of Human Rights in China:Historical and Ideological Perspectives, Robert Macmillan Press LTD,1999.
[16]Ernst-Ulrich Petersmann, Constitutional Functions and Constitutional Problems of International Economic Law, University Press Fribourg Switzerland,1991.
[17]Ernst-Ulrich Petersmann, International Trade Law and the GATT/WTO Dispute Settlement System, Kluwer Law International,1997.
[18]Macrobroncker and Reinhard Quick eds., New Directions in International Economic Law: Essay in Honour of John H. Jackson, Kluwer Law International,2000.
[19]Jagdish Bhagwatti and Mathias Hirsch ed., The Uruguay Round and Beyond:Essays in Honor of Arthur Dunkel, The University of Michigan Press,1999.
[20]Annie Taylor and Caroline Thomas ed., Global Trade and Global Social Issues, Routledge, 1999.
[21]Errol Mendes and Ozay Mehmet, Global Goverance Economy and Law:waiting for justice, Routledge, London,2003.
[22]From GATT to the WTO:The Multilateral Trading System in the New Millennium, World Trade Organization, Kluwer Law International,2000.
[23]Theodore H. Cohn, Governing Global Trade:International Institutions in Conflict and Convergence, Ashgate Publishing Limited,2002.
[24]Anne O. Krueger(ed), The WTO as an International Organization. The University of Chicago Press,1998.
[25]John H.Jackson,World Trade and the Law of GATT,The Bobbs Merrill Company,Inc.,1969,
[1]Steve Charnovitz, Symposium:The boundaries of the WTO:Triangulating the World Trade Organization, The American Journal of International Law, Vol.96(2002).
[2]Robert Howse, From Politics to Technocracy and Back Again:The Fate of the Multilateral Trading Regime, The American Journal of International Law, Vol.96(2002).
[3]Miguel A. Gonzalez, Trade and Morality; Preserving "Public Morals" Without Sacrificing the Global Economy, Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, May,2006, vol.39 (May 2006).
[4]Steve Charnovitz, The Moral Exception in Trade Policy,38 Va. J. Int'l L.689 (1998).
[5]Jeremy C. Marwell, Trade and Morality:The WTO Public Morals Exception after Gambling, New York University Law Review, vol. 81 (May 2006).
[6]Christoph T. Feddersen, Focusing on Substantive Law in International Economic Relations: The Public Morals of GATT's Article XX (a) and Conventional Rules of Interpretation, Minnesota Journal of Global Trade, vol.7 (Winter 1998).
[7]Jeffrey Kluger, "Whad Makes Us Moral", Time, November 21. 2007.
[8]Mark Wu, Free Trade and the Protection of Public Morals: An Analysis of the Newly Emerging Public Morals Clause Doctrine, The Yale Journal of International Law, vol.33, (2008).
[9]Claire Wright, Censoring the censors in the WTO: reconciling the communitarian and human rights theories of international law. 3 J. Int'l Media & Ent. L. 17-119 (2010).
[10]Elanor A.Mangin, Maket Access in China—Pulication and Audiovisual Materials: a Moral Victory with a Silver Ling, Berkeley Technology Law Journal Vol.25:279
[11]Qin, Julia Ya, Pushing the Limits of Global Governance: Trading Rights, Censorship, and WTO Jurisprudence - A Commentary on the China-Publications Case (April 10, 2011). Chinese Journal of International Law, Vol. 10, 2011.
[12]Michael J. Trebilcock & Robert Howse, Trade Policy & Labor Standards, 14 Minn. J. Global Trade 290(2005).
[13]Sarah H. Cleveland, Human Rights Sanctions and International Trade: A Theory of Compatibility, 5 J. Int'l Econ. L. 157(2002).
[14]Stephen J. Powell, The Place of Human Rights Law in World Trade Organization Rules, 16 Fla. J. Int'l L. 219, 223 (2004).
[15]Salman Bal, International Free Trade Agreements and Human Rights: Reinterpreting Article XX of the GATT, 10 Minn. J. Global Trade 62, 78 (2001); see also Gabrielle Marceau, WTO Dispute Settlement and Human Rights, 13 Eur. J. Int'l Law 753, 789 (2002).
[16]Office of the U.N. High Comm'r for Refugees, Human Rights and World Trade Agreements: Using General Exception Clauses to Protect Human Rights, at 5, U.N. Doc. HR/PUB/05/5 (Nov. 2005).
[17]Miguel A. Gonzalez, NOTE:Trade and Morality:Preserving "Public Morals" Without Sacrificing the Global Economy,39 Vand. J. Transnat'l L.939 (2006)
[18]Liane M. Jarvis, Note, Women's Rights and the Public Morals Exception of GATT Article 20, 22 Mich. J. Int'l L.219,236-37 (2000).
[19]Edward M.Thomas, Playing Chicken at the WTO:Defending an Animal Welfare-Based Trade Restriction Under GATT's Moral Exception,34 B.C.Envtl.Aff.L.Rev.605(2007).
[20]Fitzgerald, Peter L.,'Morality' May Not Be Enough to Justify the EU Seal Products Ban: Animal Welfare Meets International Trade Law (May 1,2011). Journal of International Wildlife Law & Policy, Vol.14, p.85,2011.
[21]Edward M. Thomas, Note, Playing Chicken at the WTO:Defending an Animal Welfare-Based Trade Restriction Under GATT's Moral Exception,34 B.C. Envtl. Aff. L. Rev.605 (2007).
[22]Gareth Davies, Morality Clauses and Decision-Making in Situations of Scientific Uncertainty:The Case of GMOs, Presented at a Roundtable on"GMOs and International Trade", held at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem(2006).
[23]WTO rules and animal welfare, RSPCA Australia information paper, p7,12(2011).
[24]John H. Jackson, The World Trading System:Law and Policy of International Economic Relations 206 (1989). See also William Adams Brown, Jr., The United States and the Restoration of World Trade 415 (1950).
[25]Patents:Ordre Public and Morality, CY564-Unctad-vl 377 (2004).
[26]Peter L. Fitzgerald, "Morality" May Not Be Enough to Justify the EU Seal Products Ban:Animal Welfare Meets International Trade Law, Journal of International Wildlife Law&Policy,14:85-136,2011.
[26]Ernst-Ulrich Petersmann, The WTO Constitution and Human Rights, Journal of International Economy Law, Vol.3(2000), No.1.
[27]Ernst-Ulrich Petersmann,Dispute Settlement in International Economy Law-Lessons for Strengthening International Dispute Settlement in Non-Economic Areas, Journal of International Economy Law, Vol.2(1999), No.2.
[28]Ernst-Ulrich Petersmann,The Dispute Settlement System of the World Trade Organization and the Evolution of The GATT Dispute Settlement System Since 1948, Common Market Law Review, Vol.31(1994).
[29]Kyle Bagwell, Petros C.Mavroidis, Robert W. Staiger, It's A Question of Market Access, The American Journal of International Law, Vol.96(2002), No.1.
[30]David W. Leebron, Linkage, The American Journal of International Law, Vol.96(2002), No.1.
[31]John H. Jackson, Afterword:The Linkage Problem -Comments on Five Texts, The American Journal of International Law, Vol.96(2002), No.l.
[32]Jagdish Bhagwati, Afterword:The Question of Linkage, The American Journal of International Law, Vol.96(2002), No.1.
[33]Debra P. Steger, Afterword:The "Trade and..." Conundrum-A Commentary, The American Journal of International Law, Vol.96(2002), No.1.
[34]Frank J. Garcia, The Trade Linkage Phenomenon:Pointing the Way to the Trade Law and Global Social Policy of the 21st Century, University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Economy Law, Vol.19(Summer,1998).
[35]Frank J. Garcia, Trade and Justice:Linking the Trade Linking Debates, University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Economy Law, Vol.19(Summer,1998).
[36]Isabella D. Bunn, Linkages between Ethics and International Economy Law, University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Economy Law, Vol.19(Summer,1998).
[37]Arthur E.Appleton, Telecommunications Trade:Reach out and Touch Someone?, University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Economy Law, Vol.19(Summer,1998).
[38]Philip M. Nichols, Forgotten Linkages-Historical Institutionalism and Sociological Institutionalism and Analysis of the World Trade Organization, University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Economy Law, Vol.19 (Summer,1998).
[39]Robert M. Stern, Conflict and Cooperation in International Economy Policy and Law, University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Economy Law, Vol.17 (Summer,1996).
[40]Robert M. Cover, The SuPreme Court 1982 Term, FOreword:Nomos and Narrative, Harvard Law Review, vol.97(2006).
[41]Abolition of Import and Export Prohibitions and Restriction, Commentary and Preliminary Draft International Agreement drawn up by the Economic Committee of the League of Nations to serve as a Basis for an International Diplomatic Conference, League of Nations Doc. C. E. 122.1927 II.13.(1927).
[42]International Conference for the Abolition of Import and Export Prohibitions and Restrictions, Proceedings of the Conference, p.110, League of Nations Doc. C.21. M.12.192811.7, (1928).
[43]Nicolas F. Diebold, The Morals and Order Exceptions in WTO Law:Balancing the Toothless Tiger and the Undermining Mole, Journal of International Economic Law, vol.11, no.1 (2008).
[44]USTR,2006 Report to Congress on China s WTO Compliance (December 11,2006).
①例如,王贵国教授的《服务贸易游戏规则是与非》,《法学家》2005年第4期,该文评析了美国博彩案中DSB对公共道德例外条款的适用情况；龚柏华的《“中美出版物市场准入WTO案”——援引GATT第20条“公共道德例外”的法律分析》,《世界贸易组织动态与研究》2009年第10期,以及彭岳的《贸易与道德：中美文化产品争端的法律分析》,《中国社会科学》2009年第2期,这两篇文章对最新的2007年WTO中美出版物市场准入案做了一些分析。
② Steve Charnovitz,The Moral Exception in Trade Policy,38 Va.J.Int'l L.689,704(1998).
③ Jeremy C.Marwell,Note,Trade and Morality:The WTO Public Morals Exception After Gambling,81 N.Y.U.L.Rev.802(2006).
④ Mark Wu,Free Trade and the Protection of Public Morals:An Analysis of the Newly Emerging Public Morals Clause Doctrine,33 Yale J.Int'l L.215(Winter 2008).
⑤ Claire Wright, Censoring the censors in the WTO:reconciling the communitarian and human rights theories of international law.3 J. Int'l Media & Ent. L.17-119 (2010).
⑥ Elanor A.Mangin, Maket Access in China-Pulication and Audiovisual Materials:a Moral Victory with a Silver Ling, Berkeley Technology Law Journal Vol.25:279.
⑦ Michael J. Trebilcock & Robert Howse, Trade Policy & Labor Standards,14 Minn. J. Global Trade 290(2005)..
⑧ Sarah H. Cleveland, Human Rights Sanctions and International Trade:A Theory of Compatibility,5 J. Int'l Econ. L.157(2002).
① Stephen J. Powell, The Place of Human Rights Law in World Trade Organization Rules,16 Fla. J.Int'l L.219,223(2004).
② Salman Bal, International Free Trade Agreements and Human Rights:Reinterpreting Article XX of the GATT,10 Minn. J. Global Trade 62,78 (2001); see also Gabrielle Marceau, WTO Dispute Settlement and Human Rights,13 Eur. J. Int'l Law 753,789 (2002).
③ Office of the U.N. High Comm'r for Refugees, Human Rights and World Trade Agreements: Using General Exception Clauses to Protect Human Rights, at 5, U.N. Doc. HR/PUB/05/5 (Nov.2005).
④在新加坡部长会议中,确认“劳工标准问题”宜由国际劳工组织处理,从而阻止了部分发达国家试图通过增设“社会条款”将“劳工标准”纳入WTO的企图。World Trade Organization, Ministerial Declaration of 13 December 1996, WT/MIN(96)/DEC,36 I.L.M. 218,221 (1997).
⑤ Robert Howse, The World Trade Organization and the Protection of Workers' Rights,3 J. Small & Emerging Bus. L.131,169-71 (1999).
⑥ See, e.g., Anjli Garg, Note, A Child Labor Social Clause:Analysis and Proposal for Action,31 N.Y.U. J. Int'l L.& Pol.473,526 (1999).
① Liane M. Jarvis, Note, Women's Rights and the Public Morals Exception of GATT Article 20, 22 Mich. J. Int'l L.219,236-37 (2000).
② Edward M.Thomas, Playing Chicken at the WTO:Defending an Animal Welfare-Based Trade Restriction Under GATTs Moral Exception,34 B.C.Envtl.Aff.L.Rev.605(2007),http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/ealr/vol34/iss3/8.
③ Fitzgerald, Peter L.,'Morality' May Not Be Enough to Justify the EU Seal Products Ban: Animal Welfare Meets International Trade Law (May 1,2011). Journal of International Wildlife Law & Policy, Vol.14, p.85,2011. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1864659.
④ See Gareth Davies, Morality Clauses and Decision-Making in Situations of Scientific Uncertainty:The Case of GMOs, Presented at a Roundtable on"GMOs and International Trade", held at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem(2006), www.ssrn.com/abstractid=920754.
①陈卫东：《WTO例外条款解读》,北京：对外经贸大学出版社2002年版,第198页。
②参见曹建明：《国际经济法学》,北京：中国政法大学出版社1999年版,第198页。
③其中包括美国。有学者分析认为,GATT争端解决机制的不完善是促使美国绕开GATT的多边争端解决机制转而实施单边报复的重要原因之一,亦即是是美国使用”301条款”的一个主要理由。参见杨国华：《美国贸易法”301条款”研究》,北京：法律出版社1998年版,第62页。
①参见杨国华：《美国贸易法"301条款”研究》,北京：法律出版社1998年版,第16页。
②陈立虎：《现代国际贸易法》,北京：中国商业出版2002年版,第774-775页。
③DSU对报复措施规定了严格的限制,主要表现在：(1)禁止单方面报复；(2)报复措施应限定在相同部门(特殊情况下的交叉报复除外),中止减让的幅度应与受侵害的程度相等；(3)成员方实施报复措施须得到争端解决机构的授权。
④DSU第24条是有关最不发达国家的特殊程序。发展中国家的特殊地位在DSU中也得到了充分的考虑,分散规定在各有关条款中,例如,第21条、第12条等的有关规定。姜作利：《WTO争端解决机制对发展中国家的特殊规定》,《对外经贸实务》2002年第4期。
⑤譬如,有关裁决能否有效执行问题、报复条款的缺陷问题、程序时效过长问题等,参见T. Jennings, Trade Dispute:Canadian Conference Examines the Role of the WTO Dispute Settlement Mechanism, International Economic Review, May/June 1999:12.
⑥何茂春：《对外贸易法比较研究》,北京：中国社会科学出版社2000年版,第69页。
⑦曾令良、陈卫东：《论WTO一般例外条款(GATT第20条)与我国应有的对策》,《法学论坛》2001年第4期,第33页。
①Treaty of Peace, Friendship, and Commerce, May 13,1881, U.S.-Madag., art. IV(1),22 Stat. 952,955,956.
② See generally JSaxon Mills, The Genoa Conference 419 (1922).
③ International Convention Relating to the Simplification of Customs Formalities, Nov.3,1923, 30 L.N.T.S.373.
④ Abolition of Import and Export Prohibitions and Restriction, Commentary and Preliminary Draft International Agreement drawn up by the Economic Committee of the League of Nations to serve as a Basis for an International Diplomatic Conference, League of Nations Doc. C.E.I.22.1927 II.13-21 (1927).
① Dep't of State, The Secretary of State to the Minister in Switerland (Wilson), in Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States,1927,254-57 (1942).
② International Conference for the Abolition of Import and Export Prohibitions and Restrictions, Proceedings of the Conference, at 95, League of Nations Doc. C.21.M.12.1928Ⅱ.107-08 (1928).
③ See Steve Charnovitz,The Moral Exception in Trade Policy,38 Va.J.Int'l L.689,711(1998).
① See Steve Charnovitz,The Moral Exception in Trade Policy,38 Va.J.Int'1 L.689,711(1998).
② See Slavery-Report of the Advisory Committee of Experts, League of Nations Doc. C.112.M.98.1938.VI, Annex 21, at 125 (1938). An Act for the Abolition of the Slave Trade, Mar.25,1807,47 Geo.3, ch.36 (1807) (Eng.). See also Le Louis,2 Dods.210 (1817),165 Eng. Rep.1464.
③ An Act to consolidate the Customs Laws, July 24,1876,39 & 40 Vict., ch.36,42 (Eng.).
① See An Act to provide revenue from imports, and to change and modify existing laws imposing duties on imports, and for other purposes, Aug.30,1842,28,5 Stat.548,566.and An Act To amend the penal laws of the United States, June 5,1920,41 Stat.1060 (repealed).
② T.E.G. Gregory, Tariffs:A Study in Method 115 (1921).
③ George Mygatt Fisk & Paul Skeels Peirce, International Commercial Policies with special reference to the United States, A Text-Book 80 (1923).
④ See Lowell v.Lewis,15(a.1018 No.8568)(C.D.Mass.1817),quoted in Chisum and Jacobs, p.2.5.I
⑤ U.S. Dep't of State, Publ'n No.2411, Proposals for the Expansion of World Trade and Employment (1945).
① See United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment, Apr.10,1947, Report of the Second Session of the Preparatory Committee, U.N. Doc. E/PC/T/186 (Sept.10,1947); United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment, Jan.20-Feb.25,1947, Report of the Drafting Committee of the Preparatory Committee, art.37(a), U.N. Doc. E/PC/T/34/Rev.1 (Mar.5, 1947); United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment, Oct.15-Nov.26,1946, Report of the First Session of the Preparatory Committee, art.32(a), U.N. Doc. E/PC/T/33.
② United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment, Nov.21,1947-Mar.24,1948, Final Act and Related Documents, U.N. Doc. E/Conf./2/78 (Apr.1948).
③ Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties art.32,1155 U.N.T.S.331,8 I.L.M.679.
④ See Steve Chamovitz, The Moral Exception in Trade Policy,38 Va. J. Int'l L.689 (1998) at 704-06.
⑤ United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment, Draft Report of the Technical Sub-Committee,32, U.N. Doc. E/PC/T/CII/54 (Nov.16,1946).
① See Report of the Drafting Committee of the Preparatory Committee, art.37(a), U.N. Doc. E/PC/T/31/Rev.1 (Mar.5,1947).
② See John H. Jackson, The World Trading System:Law and Policy of International Economic Relations 36-41 (1997).
③在这几轮谈判中,谈判方关注的都是有关1947GATT的其他主题,如反倾销措施和非关税壁垒等。
①Patents:Ordre Public and Morality, CY564-Unctad-vl 377 (2004)
①这两项内容在GATT中是分别由GATT第20条(b)款和(g)款来保护的。
② See Patents:Ordre Public and Morality, CY564-Unctad-vl 379 (2004)
①参见黄志雄：《WTO自由贸易与公共道德第一案——安提瓜诉美国网络赌博服务争端评析》,《法学评论》2006年第2期。
② Appellate Body Report on U.S.-Gambling P 291.
① Panel Report on U.S.-Gambling, P 6.461.
① See China-Measures Affecting Trading Rights and Distribution Services for Certain Publications and Audiovisual Entertainment Products, WT/DS363.
① See Claire Wright, Censoring the Censors in the WTO:Reconciling the Communitarian and Human Rights Theories of International Law, J. Int'l Media & Entertainment Law, Vol.3, No.1.pp.60-76.
①参见伯纳德·霍克曼、迈克尔·考斯泰基：《世界贸易体制的政治经济学——从关贸总协定到世界贸易组织》,北京：法律出版社1999年版,第159页。
① See Anne O. Krueger (ed), The WTO as an International Organization. The University of Chicago Press,1998, pp.214-215.
①参见赵维田：《世贸组织(WTO)的法律制度》,长春：吉林人民出版社2000年版,第325页。
②参阅陈卫东：《WTO例外条款解读》,北京：对外经济贸易大学出版社2002年版,第7页。
③还有学者从条约的条文、条约条文的上下文语境及其实施的法律后果的角度出发,认为“WTO例外条款”的法理基础是“协调说”,即例外条款体现了对各成员在特定情形下实施例外措施的权利的“事先的协调同意”,也同时体现了承认各成员实施例外措施的权利与要求及尊重其他成员在WTO实体性规则下的权利之间的协调与平衡。参阅陈卫东：《WTO例外条款解读》,北京：对外经济贸易大学出版社2002年版,第7页。
④ See Claire Wright, Censoring the Censors in the WTO:Reconciling the Communitarian and Human Rights Theories of International Law, J. Int'l Media & Entertainment Law, Vol.3, No.1.pp.76-92.
①参见王贵国：《世界贸易组织法》,北京：法律出版社2003年版,第136页。
②对此,周永坤先生也曾指出：民众的广泛认同是法安定的社会基础,如果法律远离民众,甚或与民众处于对立状态仅凭强制力推行,则不管强制力多么强大,法律也是不安定的。参见周永坤：《法理学———全球视野》, 北京：法律出版社2000年版,第438页。
③周永坤先生也认为,法的安定不仅要求法体系本身是健康的而且要求它成为社会现实,即法适用过程高度的合法性与确定性。参阅周永坤：《法理学——全球视野》, 北京：法律出版社2000年版,第438页。
① Appellate Body Report on United States-Standards for Reformulated and Conventional Gasoline (WT/DS2/AB/R),p17.
② India-Patent Protection for Phamacentical and Agricultural Chemical Products (WT/DS5 0/AB/R),at para.46.
③ Appellate Body Report on Japan-Alcoholic Beverage Ⅱ, p.10,
④上诉机构的行为“不仅已超出个案审查范围,具有一般意义,而且超越先前争端解决实践,解释并界定了《维也纳条约法公约》第31条的意义及其国际法地位。”参见张乃根：《论WTO争端解决的条约解释》,《复旦学报(社会科学版)》2006年第1期,第124页。
①考虑到WTO争端解决中条约解释的重要性,DSB已将所有专家组和上诉机构报告所涉条约解释,分门别类地建立了一个数据库,按“协定或条文”与“主题词”(如“反倾销”、“鞋类”“相同产品”)两种检索法查找相关条约解释内容。该数据库的说明使用了“法理学”(jurisprudence)一词。See WTO Analytical Index available at http://www.wto.org
② Appellate Body Report on Japan-taxes on Alcoholic Beverages (WT/DS8/AB/R) p14.
③张乃根：《论WTO争端解决的条约解释》,《复旦学报(社会科学版)》2006年第1期,第123页。
①彭岳：《条约的解释——以DSB上诉机构的裁决为例》,《南京大学法律评论》2004年秋季号,第43-45页。
②赵维田：《举证责任——WTO司法机制的证据规则》,《国际贸易》2003年第7期。
③参见胡建国：《论WTO法中的狭义解释原则》,《探索与争鸣理论月刊》2007年第9期,第100页。
① Meinhard Hilf.Power, Rules and Principles-Which Orientation for WTO/GATT Law? Journal of International Economic Law2001,(1).
② Appellate Body Report on EC-Measures concerning meat and meat products (hormones)
③ Pascal Lamy. The WTO in the Archipelago of Global Governance, speeches at Institue of International Studies,2007.
① Appellate Body Report on US-Gasoline, p23.
②参见黄东黎：((WTO协定法律解释的基本原则》,2006年9月20日。网址：http://rmfyb. chinacourt.org/public/detail.php?id=101037最后访问日期：2012年3月22日。
③曾令良教授将其称之为“演变解释或当代意义解释法”,并认为该方法并非WTO专家组或上诉机构所独有,而似乎是当今国际司法(或准司法)机构解释条约术语的一种新的趋势。参见曾令良：《从“中美出版物市场准入案”上诉机构裁决看条约解释的新趋势》,《法学》2010年第8期,第12页。
①Appellate Body Resort on U.S.Shrimp,pp.129-130.
②曾令良：《从“中美出版物市场准入案”上诉机构裁决看条约解释的新趋势》,《法学》2010年第8期,第14页。
① The Universal Dictionary of the English Language 745 (Henry Cecil Wyld ed,1932).
② Webster's New International Dictionary of the English Language 1592 (William Allan Neilson et al. eds.,2nd ed.1946).
③ Nicolas F. Diebold, The Morals and Order Exceptions in WTO Law:Balancing the Toothless Tiger and the Undermining Mole, Journal of International Economic Law, March 2008, p.55.
① Christoph T. Feddersen. Focusing on Substantive Law in International Economic Relations: The Public Morals of GATT's Article XX(a) and "Conventional" Rules of Interpretation,7 Minn. J. Global Trade 75.
② See generally Kenneth W. Dam, The GATT:Law and the International Economic Organization 10-16 (1970).
③ See generally The Law of the WTO (Philip Raworth & Linda C. Reif eds.,1995).
① Ernst-Ulrich Petersmann, International and European Trade and Environmental Law after the Uruguay Round 51 (1995).
② John H. Jackson, The World Trading System:Law and Policy of International Economic Relations 206 (1989). See also William Adams Brown, Jr., The United States and the Restoration of World Trade 415 (1950).
③ Meinhard Hilf, Die Auslegung mehrsprachiger Vertr
④ See Steve Charnovitz, The Moral Exception in Trade Policy,38 Va. J. Int'l L.689 (1998) at 704-06.
①也有些学者估计高达五百起,因为GATT并不要求所有争端的专家小组报告都公开发表,所以造成学者们对案件数量统计差异,Hudec认为GATT解决了大概207件争端,而Jackson则统计为超过500件。See Robert E. Hudec, Enforcing International Trade Law:The Evolution of the Modern GATT Legal System (1993) and Jackson, The World Trading System: Law and Policy of International Economic Relations 120 (1997).
② See Chronological List of Disputes, http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/dispu status_e.htm (last visited Nov.15,2007).
③ Panel Report on US-Gambling, p 6.465.
④ Panel Report on US-Gambling, P 6.461.
⑤ Panel Report on US-Gambling, P 6.461.
①评议组发现以色列和菲律宾已经基于对道德的保护禁止或限制与赌博相关的服务与产品。另有16个成员国(地区)都已经或者正意欲限制或禁止国际赌博。如,爱沙尼亚、香港、冰岛、挪威和乌拉圭已经禁止或者严格限制在线赌博。澳大利亚、瑞士和英国已经或者正在对在线赌博进行法律限制。基于这一证据,专家小组认为这项美国禁令可以归于“公共道德例外”条款。
② Panel Report on US-Gambling, pp.296-299.
③彭岳：《贸易与道德：中美文化产品争端的法律分析》,《中国社会科学》2009年第2期,第143页。
④刘勇：《论WTO体制内公共道德例外规则——兼评中美文化产品市场准入案相关争议》,《国际贸易问题》2010年第5期,第123页。
①就笔者看到的资料而言,国内绝大多数学者都认为公共道德的内涵由各国自由确定,但国外许多学者表达了不同的观点,如Mark Wu、Marwell等都认为美国博彩案中专家组和上诉机构并没有确定公共道德应该由谁界定。See Jeremy C. Marwell, Trade and Morality:The WTO Public Morals Exception after Gambling, New York University Law Review, May 2006;Mark Wu. Free Trade and the Protection of Public Morals:An Analysis of the Newly Emerging Public Morals Clause Doctrine, The Yale Journal of International Law, Winter,2008.
② Miguel A. Gonzale, NOTE:Trade and Morality:Preserving "Public Morals" Without Sacrificing the Global Economy,39 Vand. J. Transnat'l L.960 (2006).
③包括阿拉巴马、亚利桑那、密西西比、佛罗里达、堪萨斯、康涅狄格、路易斯安那、内布拉斯加、印第安纳、田纳西等各州的相关法律规定。See Miguel A. Gonzale, NOTE:Trade and Morality:Preserving "Public Morals" Without Sacrificing the Global Economy,39 Vand. J. Transnat'l L.961 (2006).
① Mo., Kan.& Tex. Ry. v. Haber,169 U.S.613,625-26(1898).
②美国联邦宪法的商业条款赋予了国会“规范对外贸易、各州间贸易以及与印第安部落之间进行贸易”的权利。See U.S. Const, art. I,8, c1.3.
③ Champion v. Ames,188 U.S.321,322.357 (1903).
④ 44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island,517 U.S.484,514 (1996).
⑤最高法院因为该条例阻碍了特定的宗教活动而宣布该法违宪。See Church of the Lukumi BabaluAye, Inc. v. City ofHialeah,508 U.S.520,535 (1993).
⑥ Barnes v. Glen Theatre,501 U. S.560, at 575 (1991).
①缅甸对美国出口的主要商品是纺织品。目前,缅甸约有400多家制衣厂,从业工人约有35-40万人,其中90%为女工,其生产的成衣75%出口到美国。据缅甸商务部统计,2003年1-5月,缅甸的成衣出口达到了2.2亿美元。该法案的实施将对缅纺织业造成巨大的冲击,严重影响缅甸的外汇收入。信息来源：中华人民共和国驻缅甸大使馆经济商务参赞处子站http://mm.mofcom.gov.cn/aarticle/jmxw/200307/20030700113508.html
② WTO rules and animal welfare, RSPC A Australia information paper,12(2011), p7, available at www.rspca.org.au.
③ Miguel A. Gonzale, NOTE:Trade and Morality:Preserving "Public Morals" Without Sacrificing the Global Economy,39 Vand. J. Transnat'l L.967 (2006)
①Regina v.Sharpe,[2001] S.C.R.45.P231.
②Regina v.Smith,44 CCC(3d)385(Ontario Sup.Ct.1988).
③King v Connare(1939)61 C.L.R.596,597(Austl.).
① King v. Connare (1939) 61 C.L.R.622 (Austl).
② Gollan v. Nugent (1988) 166 C.L.R.21 (Austl.).
③ Regulation 4W,Customs(Prohibited Imports)Regulations 1956.
④资料来源自中国新闻网,2011年3月7日。网址：http://www.chinanews.com/hr/2011/03-07/2887406.shtml,最后访问日期：2012年3月21日。
① Patents:Ordre Public and Morality, CY564-Unctad-v1 382 (2004)
②我国法律对“公共道德”的保护也涉及了人类基因技术等新的领域,但相较于国外法律来说,规定非常有限。2001年中华人民共和国卫生部颁布的《人类辅助生殖技术管理办法》第3条规定：“人类辅助生殖技术的应用应当在医疗机构中进行,以医疗为目的,并符合国家计划生育政策、伦理原则和有关法律规定。禁止以任何形式买卖配子、合子、胚胎。医疗机构和医务人员不得实施任何形式的代孕技术。”第22条规定：“开展人类辅助生殖技术的医疗机构违反本办法,有下列行为之一的,由省、自治区、直辖市人民政府卫生行政部门给予警告、3万元以下罚款,并给予有关责任人行政处分；构成犯罪的,依法追究刑事责任：(一)买卖配子、合子、胚胎的；(二)实施代孕技术的。
③其中,第24条明确规定：“国家通过普及理想教育、道德教育、文化教育、纪律和法制教育,通过在城乡不同范围的群众中制定和执行各种守则、公约,加强社会主义精神文明建设。国家提倡爱祖国、爱人民、爱劳动、爱科学、爱社会主义的公德,在人民中进行爱国主义、集体主义和国际主义、共产主义的教育,进行辩证唯物主义和历史唯物主义的教育,反对资本主的、封建主义的和其他的腐朽思想。”第53条规定为：“中华人民共和国公民必须遵守宪法和法律,保守国家秘密,爱护公共财产,遵守劳动纪律,遵守公共秩序,尊重社会公德。”
① Wong Kam Kuen v. Comm'r for Television and Entm't Licensing, [2003] 3 H.K.L.R.D.596, 617(C.A.).
② HKSAR v. Tsang Ching Chiu, [2002] 3 H.K.L.R.D.172,175,,176 (C.F.I.).
③ HKSAR v. Tsui Ping Wing, [2000] H.K.E.C.437 (C.F.I.).
① See Nicolas F. Diebold, The Morals and Order Exceptions in WTO Law:Balancing the Toothless Tiger and the Undermining Mole, Journal of International Economic Law, March 2008, pp.64-65.
② Panel Report on US-Gambling, p.6.466.
③ Panel Report on US-Gambling, p.6.467.
④ Panel Report on US-Gambling, p.6.463.
① Appellate Body Report on US-Gambling, pp.77,298.
② See Nicolas F. Diebold, The Morals and Order Exceptions in WTO Law. Balancing the Toothless Tiger and the Undermining Mole, Journal of International Economic Law, March 2008, pp73-74.
③ UNCTAD/ICTSD Resource Book on TRIPS and Development, Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2005, at 379.
① See Nicolas F. Diebold, The Morals and Order Exceptions in WTO Law:Balancing the Toothless Tiger and the Undermining Mole, Journal of International Economic Law, March 2008, pp73-74.
② Michael Park, Note and Comment:Market Access and Exceptions under the GATS and Online Gambling Services,12 Southwestern Journal of Law & Trade in the Americas (2006) 495, at 510.
③ Panel Report on US-Gambling, p 6.469.
①Diebold认为公共道德和公共秩序虽然都要求是保护”公众”的利益,但公共秩序的情况稍微有些不同,因为秩序相对而言对”合意”的依赖更少,即使不是损及大多数人的利益仍有可能符合”公众”的要求。例如,如果某一与WTO相矛盾的措施能确保一小部分居住在遥远地区的人达到必要性要求或者能保护一小部分潜在消费者免受无资格服务提供商的侵害,那么它就应该是正当的。因此,由专家组发展出来的”大多数人”的要求在公共秩序例外方面应该作广泛解释,特别是因为GATS第14条第1款的脚注5已经用更适当的方式对后者作出了限制。参见Nicolas F. Diebold, The Morals and Order Exceptions in WTO Law:Balancing the Toothless Tiger and the Undermining Mole, Journal of I nternational Economic Law, March 2008, pp:61-62.
② Panel Report on US-Gambling, p.6.469.
① See Christoph T. Feddersen. Focusing on Substantive Law in International Economic R elations:The Public Morals of GATT's Article XX(a) and "Conventional" Rules of Int erpretation,7 Minn. J. Global Trade 91-93(1998).
①参见[美]约翰·H·杰克逊：《GATT/WTO法理与实践》,张玉卿、李成钢、杨国华等译,北京：新华出版社2002年版,第480页。
①Appellate Body Report on Korea-Various Measures on Beef pp.161-164.
②转引自王贵国：《服务贸易游戏规则是与非》,《法学家》2004年第4期,第157-158页。
③事实上,在第一次书面意见中,美国从未提到要保护公共道德。仅在第一次口头辩论之后美国才提出了这一抗辩。
① Panel Report on U.S.-Gambling, PP 3.288-91.
② See Appellate Body Report on US-Gasoline, p22; Appellate Body Report on US-Shrimp, paras.115-119; Appellate Body Report on Korea-Various Measures on Beef, para.156.
③ Panel Report on U.S.-Gambling, PP 6.472-74.
④即上文所述及的包括(1)争议措施所要保护的“利益或价值”的重要性程度；(2)争议措施对于所保护目标的贡献度。(3)争议措施对国际贸易产生的消极影响,即该措施对进口产品的限制作用。包括是否存在一项合理可用的限制更小的替代措施。
④ Panel Report on US-Gambling,p 6.492.
① Panel Report on US-Gambling, pp 6.529-31.
② Panel Report on US-Gambling, pp.6.488-6.535.
③ Appellate Body Report on US-Gambling, p317.
① See Appellate Body Report,US-Gasoline,pp.22-23,DSR 1996:I,3,at 21;Appellate Body Report,US-Wool Shirts and Blouses,pp.15-16,DSR 1997:I,323,at 337;Appellate Body Report,US-FSC(Article 21.5-EC),p.133.
② Panel Report on US-Gambling, pp.309-311.
① See Report of the panel——China-measures affecting the protection and enforcement of cement of intellectual property rights, pp 7.712-714.
② See Report of the panel——China-measures affecting the protection and enforcement of cement of intellectual property rights, pp7.815-818.
①刘瑛：《GATT第20条(a)项公共道德例外条款之研究——以“中美出版物和视听产品案”为视角》,《法商研究》2010年第4期,第36页。
② See Report of the panel——China-measures affecting the protection and enforcement of cement of intellectual property rights, pp7.822-825.
①专家组认为,即便指定制对于保护公共道德能够产生影响,这种影响也只是间接的。
② See Report of the panel——China-measures affecting the protection and enforcement of cement of intellectual property rights, p7.837.
③譬如《出版管理条例》第42条的要求。
④从中国提交的证据来看,专家组只能估算中国图书进出口总公司2006年因内容审查而增加的成本约合400万元人民币,但2006年中国图书进出口总公司进口总值却达到了1.27亿美元。
⑤譬如,环境保护、消防安全等。
①See Report of the panel——China-measures affecting the protection and enforcement of cement of intellectual property rights, pp7.826-828.
②See Report of the panel——China-measures affecting the protection and enforcement of cement of intellectual property rights, pp7.837-848.
① See Report of the panel——China-measures affecting the protection and enforcement of cement of intellectual property rights, p7.869.
② See Report of the panel——China-measures affecting the protection and enforcement of cement of intellectual property rights, pp7.872-875.
①《出版管理条例》第44条第2款已经授权适格政府部门就内容审查按照价格主管部门批准的标准收取费用。
② See Report of the panel——China-measures affecting the protection and enforcement of cement of intellectual property rights, pp 7.887-893.
①Appellate Body Report on US-Gambling, pp.317-318.
① Appellate Body Report on Korea-Various Measures on Beef, p.182.
② Appellate Body Report on US-Gambling, pp.319-320.
③ Appellate Body Report on US-Gambling, p.309.
① John H. Jackson, World Trade and the Law of GATT, The Bobbs Merrill Company,In c.,1969,p.743
② See Report of the Appellate Body, United States---Standards for Reformulated and Con ventional Gasoline, WT/DS2/AB/R,29 April 1996, para.21.
① See Report of the Appellate Body, United States-Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products, WT/DS58/AB/R,12 October 1998, para.159.
② See Report of the Appellate Body, United States-Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products, WT/DS58/AB/R,12 October 1998, para.157.
③ John H.Jackson,World Trade and the Law of GATT,The Bobbs Merrill Company,Inc.,1969, p.743
①参见曾令良、陈卫东：《论WTO一般例外条款(GATT第20条)与我国应有的对策》,《法学论坛》2001年第4期,第36-37页。
②参见曾令良、陈卫东：《论WTO一般例外条款(GATT第20条)与我国应有的对策》,《法学论坛》2001年第4期,第38页。
③ Appellate Body Report on U. S.Shrimp and Shrimp Products, PP 173-76,185.
① Appellate Body Report on U. S.Shrimp and Shrimp Products, P185.
② Appellate Body Report on U. S.Shrimp and Shrimp Products, p65.
③ Appellate Body Report on U.S. gasoline, pp 631-32; Appellate Body Report on U. S. Shrimp and Shrimp Products, pp 166-71.
① Appellate Body Report on U. S. Shrimp and Shrimp Products, pp166、171、174.
② Appellate Body Report on U. S. Shrimp and Shrimp Products, pp121、166.
③在韩国牛肉案中,专家组在认定了双重零售体系不符合(d)款的要求后,决定不再继续进行双层测试分析该措施是否符合第20条序言。Appellate Body Report, Korea-Various Measures on Beef,Para.156.
① Council Decision 97/602,1997 O.J. (L242) (EC); Commission Regulation 3254/91, art.3,1991 O.J.(L 308)(EC).更多关于进口禁令的背景可参见Gillian Dale, Comment, The European Union's Steel Leghold Trap Ban:Animal Cruelty Legislation in Conflict with International Trade,7 Colo. J. Int'l Envtl. L.& Pol'y,441 (1996).
② Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act,1998, Pub. L. No.105-61, §634,111 Stat.1272,1316(1997).
①朱榄叶：《世界贸易组织国际贸易纠纷案例评析》(2007-2009),北京：法律出版社2010年版,第327页。
①《入世议定书》和《工作组报告》中关于中国贸易权的承诺是根据所有WTO协定及其附件所作出的,所以此处的“WTO协议”应该包括WTO协定及其附件。这点从中国入世的《工作组报告》中也可以得到佐证譬如《工作组报告书》第84(b)段就特别列举了符合WTO规则的WTO成员政府贸易管理措施包括与WTO相一致的有关进出口的要求,如与进口许可、贸易技术壁垒和《实施卫生与植物卫生措施协定》相关的要求等。充分证明了《工作组报告书》与WTO所有协定的相关性。
②朱榄叶：《世界贸易组织国际贸易纠纷案例评析》(2007-2009),北京：法律出版社2010年版,第369页。
① Panel Report on Tuna-Dolphin Ⅰ, PP.3.31,3.36,3.49.
② Panel Report on Tuna-Dolphin Ⅱ, P.3.16.
① Panel Report on Tuna-Dolphin Ⅰ, P 4.4 and Panel Report on Tuna-Dolphin Ⅱ, P 3.35.
②此种分类方法借鉴了Charnovitz、Hudec等国外学者的观点,具体参见Steve Charnovitz, The Moral Exception in Trade Policy, Virginia Journal of International Law,Summer,19 98; and Robert E. Hudec, GATT Legal Restraints on the Use of Trade Measures again st Foreign Environmental Practices, in 2 Fair Trade and Harmonization, at 116.
③ 42 U.S.C.A.274e(a) (1991); 21 U.S.C.A.321(b) (1972)
① Tariff Act of 1930, June 17,1930,305(a),46 Stat.590,688, codified at 19 U.S.C.1305(a) (1994).
② Jennifer Merin, Customs Prevail:Know rules when bringing foreign treasures home, Chi. Trib., Apr.14,1996, at Travel-4.
①参见李先波、徐莉：《贸易制裁与国际人权保护——兼析GATT的有关规定》,《国际法与比较法论丛》(第19辑),北京：中国方正出版社2010年3月,第4页。
② See Steve Charnovitz, The Moral Exception in Trade Policy, Virginia Journal of International Law, Summer,1998.
① Panel Report on Tuna-Dolphin Ⅱ, PP 5.15-5.16.
① See WTO Appellate Body Report on United States-Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products (Shrimp/Turtle I), WT7DS58/AB/R,133,12 October 1998 (adopted 6 November 1998),
①参见《维也纳条约法公约》第31、32条。
② See GATT Dispute Panel Report on United States:Restrictions on Imports of Tuna, Aug.16, 1991, GATTB.I.S.D. (39th Supp.) atl98,199 (1993).
③参见《实施动植物卫生检疫措施的协议》(Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures)的序言及第2条第4款,来自于http://www.wto.org/english/docs-e/ legal-e/final-e.htm).
①参见邵津：《国际法》(第二版),北京：北京大学出版社、高等教育出版社2005年8月,第44页。
②李先波、徐莉：《贸易制裁与国际人权保护——兼析GATT的有关规定》,《国际法与比较法论丛》(第19辑),北京：中国方正出版社2010年3月,第3-33页。
③ Thomas J. Schoenbaum, Free International Trade and Protection of the Environment: Irreconcilable Conflict?,86 Am. J. Int'l L.700,703 (1992).
①参见余敏友：((WTO争端解决机制12年的成就与问题及其对我国的启示》,((WTO法与中国法论丛》2008年卷,北京：知识产权出版社,第95页。
②WTO争端解决机制的四大职能是：(1)向世界贸易组织多边贸易体制提供安全及预见性；(2)维护世贸组织各成员依据世贸组织协定所享有的各项权利和所承担的各项义务；(3)按照国际公法解释的习惯规则,澄清世贸组织协定的各项现行规定；(4)积极解决争端。参见余敏友：((WTO争端解决机制12年的成就与问题及其对我国的启示》,((WTO法与中国法论丛》2008年卷,北京：知识产权出版社,第117-118页。
①陈卫东：《WTO例外条款解读》,北京：对外经贸大学出版社2002年版,第201页。
②笔者统计该数据的时间范围为：1995年1月1日至2009年12月31日；主要参考资料：世界贸易组织法律事务部编,朱榄叶译：《WTO争端解决案件概要》,北京：法律出版社2008年版；朱榄叶：《世界贸易组织国际贸易纠纷案例评析》(2003-2006)北京：法律出版社2009年版；朱榄叶：《世界贸易组织国际贸易纠纷案例评析》(2007-2009)北京：法律出版社2010年版。
①王贵国：《服务贸易游戏规则是与非》,《法学家》2004年第4期,第160页。
②参见2009年6月我国常驻WTO代表团常驻代表孙振宇大使在商务部举办的”参赞访谈”活动中的发言。《与常驻世界贸易组织代表团常驻代表孙振宇大使网上交流》,http://shang wutousu.mofcom.gov.cn/aarticle/lbqz/ggswxx/200909/20090906503693.html(最后访问日期：2012年3月8日)。
① Jeremy C. Marwell, Trade and Morality:The WTO Public Morals Exception after Gambling, New York University Law Review,May 2006,p.803.
② Michael J. Trebilcock & Robert Howse, The Regulation of International Trade (2ded.1999) at 56.
③ Developing Countries in WTO Dispute Settlement, in WTO, Dispute Settlement System Training Module ch.11(2005), available at http://www.wto.org/english/tratope/dispue/disp settlement cbte/c11siple.htm#txt1.
① Mark A. Pollack & Gregory C. Shaffer, Biotechnology:The Next Transatlantic Trade War?, Wash. Q., Autumn 2000, at 41,43.
①参见GATT第20条(g)、第20条(f)及第20条(e)。
②包括强迫劳工、契约劳工、监狱劳工以及童工制造的产品(goods made with forced, indentured, or convict labour, including child labour).具体参见Tariff Act 1930, ch.497,46 Stat.689(1930).
③ An Act to Amend the Bretton Woods Agreement Act, Pub L No 95-435, §5(c),92 Stat 1051, 1052 (1978) and see Richard B. Lillich and Hurst Hannum, International Human Rights, Problems of Law, Policy, and Practice (3d edn, Boston:Little, Brown 1995) 74-75.
④ Pub L No 100-202, §562,101 Stat 1329-175 (1987); see also Pub L No 101-167, §562(a), 103 Stat 1241 (1989) (both codified at 7 USC §3602 note (1994)).
⑤ Clean Diamond Trade Act, H.R.2722,107th Cong (2001).
⑥ Council Common Position (EC) No.2007/750/CFSP of 19 November 2007 amending Common Position 2006/318/CFSP renewing restrictive measures against Burma/Myanmar art. 2(b),2007 O.J. (L308).
① See Michael J. Trebilcock & Robert Howse, Trade Policy & Labor Standards,14 Minn. J. Global Trade 290 (2005).
② See Sarah H. Cleveland, Human Rights Sanctions and International Trade:A Theory of Compatibility,5 J. Int'l Econ. L.157 (2002).
③ See Stephen J. Powell, The Place of Human Rights Law in World Trade Organization Rules, 16 Fla. J. Int'l L.219,223 (2004).
④ See Salman Bal, International Free Trade Agreements and Human Rights:Reinterpreting Article XX of the GATT,10 Minn. J. Global Trade 62,78 (2001); see also Gabrielle Marceau, WTO Dispute Settlement and Human Rights,13 Eur. J. Int'l Law 753,789 (2002).
⑤ See Liane M. Jarvis, Note, Women's Rights and the Public Morals Exception of GATT Article 20,22 Mich. J. Int'l L.219,236-37 (2000).
⑥ See Karen E. Woody, Note, Diamonds on the Souls of Her Shoes:The Kimberly Process and the Morality Exception to the WTO Restrictions,22 Conn. J. Int'l L.335,352-55 (2007) and Edward M. Thomas, Note, Playing Chicken at the WTO:Defending an Animal Welfare-Based Trade Restriction Under GATT's Moral Exception,34 B.C. Envtl. Aff. L. Rev.605 (2007).
⑦ Office of the U.N. High Comm'r for Refugees, Human Rights and World Trade Agreements: Using General Exception Clauses to Protect Human Rights, at 5, U.N. Doc. HR/PUB/05/5 (Nov.2005).
① See Robert Howse, The World Trade Organization and the Protection of Workers'Rights,3 J. Small & Emerging Bus. L.131,169-71 (1999).
② See Anjli Garg, Note, A Child Labor Social Clause:Analysis and Proposal for Action,31 N.Y.U. J. Int'l L.& Pol.473,526 (1999).
③ Shrimp/Turtle AB Report, supra note 98, P 129.
① See Sarah H. Cleveland,'human Rights Sanctions and International Trade:a Theory of Compatibility',26 JIEL.133(2002).
① See Mark Wu. Free Trade and the Protection of Public Morals:An Analysis of the Newly Emerging Public Morals Clause Doctrine, The Yale Journal of International Law, Winter,2008, 245-246.
① See Convention Concerning the Prohibition and Immediate Action for the Elimination of the Worst Forms of Child Labour, June 17,1999,2133 U.N.T.S.161.
② See ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work, art.2, June 18,1998,37 I.L.M.1233,1237-38.
③ See Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Dec.9,1948, 102 Stat.3045,78 U.N.T.S.277.
④ See Kyle Bagwell, Petros C. Mavroidis & Robert W. Staiger, It's a Question of Market Access, 96 Am. J. Int'1 L.56,73-74 (2002).
① See Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosn.& Herz. v. Yugo. (Serb.& Mont.)),2007 I.C.J. (Feb.26).
② Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, adopted Dec. 18,1979,1249 U.N.T.S.13.
③ International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, G.A. Res.2200A, art.2(1), U.N. GAOR, 21st Sess.,U.N. Doc. A/RES/2200 (Dec.16,1966),999 U.N.T.S.171.
① See Mark Wu. Free Trade and the Protection of Public Morals:An Analysis of the Newly Emerging Public Morals Clause Doctrine, The Yale Journal of International Law, Winter,2008, 247-248.
① Appellate Body Report on Korea-Beee PP179-181.
②Appellate Body Report on U.S.-Gambling AB,PP 369,371.
① Appellate Body Report on Shrimp/Turtle, pp 164-65,168,172,175.
② Panel Report on Japan Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages, P 6.23.
①参见余敏友：《中国参与WTO争端解决活动评述》,《世界贸易组织动态与研究》2009年第5期,第18页。
①参见余敏友：《中国参与WTO争端解决活动评述》,《世界贸易组织动态与研究》2009年第5期,第18页。
①刘勇：《论WTO体制内公共道德例外规则——兼评中美文化产品市场准入案相关争议》,《国际贸易问题》2010年第5期,第126页。
①参见贺小勇：《WTO框架卞中美文化作品市场准入争端的法律问题》,《国际商务研究》2008年第6期,第4页。
①参见贺小勇：《WTO框架卞中美文化作品市场准入争端的法律问题》,《国际商务研究》2008年第6期,第6页。
①参见贺小勇：《WTO框架卞中美文化作品市场准入争端的法律问题》,《国际商务研究》2008年第6期,第7页。
①参见刘瑛：《GATT第20条(a)项公共道德例外条款之研究——以“中美出版物和视听产品案”为视角》,《法商研究》2010年第4期,第40页。
①WTO:AnnualReport2006, http://www.wto.org/english/res_e/booksp_e/anrep_e/anrep06_e. pd.f
②转引自余敏友：《中国参与WTO争端解决活动评述》,《世界贸易组织动态与研究》2009年第5期,第25页。
③《与常驻世界贸易组织代表团常驻代表孙振宇大使网上交流》,来源于http://shangwutousu. mofcom.gov.cn/aarticle/lbqz/ggswxx/200909/20090906503693.html (最后访问日期：2012年3月12日)。
①参见余敏友：《中国参与WTO争端解决活动评述》,《世界贸易组织动态与研究》2009年第5期,第26页。
①刘瑛：《GATT第20条(a)项公共道德例外条款之研究——以“中美出版物和视听产品案”为视角》,《法商研究》2010年第4期,第40-41页。
②曾令良、陈卫东：《论WTO一般例外条款(GATT第20条)与我国应有的对策》,《法学论坛》2001年第4期,第49页。
③ Gregory C. Shaffer, Defending Interests:Public-Private Partnerships in WTO Litigation, Washington, D.C.:Brookings Institution Press,2003. pp.227.
④ Shaffer, Gregory C, Sanchez, Michelle Ratton and Rosenberg, Barbara, The Trials of Winning at the WTO:What Lies Behind Brazil s Success(May,27 2008).Cornell International Law Journal, Vo.141, No.2,2008; Minnesota Legal Studies Research Paper No.49. Available at SSRN:http://ssm.com/abstract=1137905
①参见余敏友：《中国参与WTO争端解决活动评述》,《世界贸易组织动态与研究》,2009年第5期第27页。
②譬如,1999年,提供网络赌博服务带来的产值占安提瓜国民生产总值(7.5亿美元)的10%,而该国政府每年2亿美元的财政收入中,约1/6来自网络赌博行业。See Warren Giles, U.S. Loses WTO Ruling Covering Online Gambling, http://www.lasvegassun. com/sunbin/ stories/gaming/2004/mar/24/516580670.htm 1.
③因为美国是世界上最大的赌博服务消费市场。世界上约二分之一的在线赌博者来自美国,这些美国人估计创造了全世界互联网赌博收入的65%。
④转引自黄志雄：《WTO自由贸易与公共道德第一案——安提瓜诉美国网络赌博服务争端评析》,《法学评论》2006年第2期,第123页。
[1]曹建明：国际经济法学,中国政法大学出版社,1999。
[2]陈立虎：现代国际贸易法,中国商业出版,2002。
[3]何茂春：对外贸易法比较研究,中国社会科学出版社,2000。
[4]赵维田：世贸组织(WTO)的法律制度,.吉林人民出版社,2000。
[5]王贵国：世界贸易组织法,法律出版社,2003。
[6]周永坤：法理学——全球视野,法律出版社,2000。
[7]周林彬等：WTO规则例外和例外规则,广东人民出版社,2001。
[8]朱榄叶：世界贸易组织国际贸易纠纷案例评析(2007-2009),法律出版社,2010。
[9]邵津：国际法,北京大学出版社、高等教育出版社,2005。
[10]朱榄叶：世界贸易组织国际贸易纠纷案例评析(2003-2006),法律出版社,2008。
[11]朱榄叶：世界贸易组织国际贸易纠纷案例评析(2007-2009),法律出版社,2010。
[12]陈卫东：WTO例外条款解读,对外经济贸易大学出版社,2002。
[13]李浩培：条约法概论,法律出版社,2003。
[14]王铁崖：国际法引论,北京大学出版社,1998。
[15]李双元、蒋新苗：世贸组织的法律制度,中国方正出版社,2001。
[16]周林彬、郑远远：WTO规则例外与例外规则,广东人民出版社,2001。
[17]高岚君：国际法的价值论,武汉大学出版社,2006。
[18]庞中英：全球化、反全球化与中国,上海人民出版社,2002。
[19]夏勇：人权概念的起源——权利的历史哲学,中国政法大学出版社,2001。
[20]宋惠昌：诚信—商道之本,民主与建设出版社,2002。
[21]王海明：公正、平等、人道：社会治理的道德原则体系,北京大学出版社,2000。
[22]徐国栋：诚实信用原则研究,中国人民大学出版社,2002。
[23]孔汉思、库舍尔：全球伦理——世界宗教会议宣言,四川人民出版社,1997。
[24]李仁武：《道德制度伦理研究——探寻公共道德理性的生成路径》,人民出版社,2009。
[25]阮成发：WTO与政府改革,经济时报出版社,2001。
[26]赵新明：非关税壁垒的应对及运用——“入世”后中国企业的策略选择,人民出版社,2001。
[27]石广生：中国加入世界贸易组织知识读本(三)——中国加入世界贸易组织法律文件导读,人民出版社,2002。
[28]王贵国：世界贸易组织法,法律出版社,2003。
[29]赵维田：世贸组织(WTO)的法律制度,吉林人民出版社,2000。
[30]朱榄叶：世界贸易组织国际贸易纠纷案例评析,法律出版社,2000。
[31]李先波、徐莉：贸易制裁与国际人权保护——兼析GATT的有关规定,国际法与比较法论丛(第十九辑),中国检察出版社,2010。
[32]余敏友：WTO争端解决机制12年的成就与问题及其对我国的启示,WTO法与中国法论丛年卷,知识产权出版社,2008。
[33]韩立余：WTO案例及评析,中国人民大学出版社,2001。
[34]石静霞、陈卫东：WTO国际服务贸易成案研究,北京大学出版社,2005。
[35]石静霞：WTO服务贸易法专论,法律出版社,2006。
[36]赵维田、刘敬东：WTO：解释条约的习惯规则,湖南科技出版社,2006。
[37]东平：WTO司法解释论,厦门大学出版社,2003。
[38]赵一凡：美国的历史文献,读书·生活·新知三联书店,1989。
[39]刘光溪：坎昆会议与WTO首轮谈判,上海人民出版社,2004。
[40]董云虎、刘武平编著：世界人权约法总览,四川人民出版社,1991。
[41]朱晓勤：发展中国家与WTO法律制度研究,北京大学出版社,2006。
[42]张云平：“WTO法的伦理学研究”,西南政法大学经济贸易法学院博士论文,2006。
[1]龚柏华：“中美出版物市场准入WTO案”——援引GATT第20条“公共道德例外”的法律分析,《世界贸易组织动态与研究》2009年第10期
[2]姜建明,陈立虎：WTO例外条款及其法理基础,《苏州大学学报(哲社版)》2007年第2期。
[3]张乃根：论WTO争端解决的条约解释,《复旦学报(社会科学版》2006年第1期。
[4]彭岳：条约的解释——以DSB上诉机构的裁决为例,《南京大学法律评论》2004年秋季号。
[5]赵维田：举证责任——WTO司法机制的证据规则,《国际贸易》2003年第7期。
[6]胡建国：论WTO法中的狭义解释原则,《探索与争鸣理论月刊》2007年第9期。
[7]曾令良：从”中美出版物市场准入案”上诉机构裁决看条约解释的新趋势,《法学》2010年第8期。
[8]刘勇：论WTO体制内公共道德例外规则——兼评中美文化产品市场准入案相关争议,《国际贸易问题》2010年第5期。
[9]余敏友：中国参与WTO争端解决活动评述,《世界贸易组织动态与研究》2009年第5期。
[10]贺小勇：WTO框架卞中美文化作品市场准入争端的法律问题,《国际商务研究》2008年第6期。
[11]黄志雄：WTO自由贸易与公共道德第一案一—安提瓜诉美国网络赌博服务争端评析,《法学评论》2006年第2期。
[12]李先波、徐莉：GATT“公共道德例外”条款探析,《湖南师范大学社会科学学报》2010年第1期,
[13]徐挥彦：世界贸易组织法律架构与人权保障理念之接轨：一般例外条款运用法理之探讨,《政大法学评论》2002年第71期。
[14]曾令良：论冷战后的国家主权,《中国法学》1998年第1期。
[15]李祥银：迈向更为人道和富有成效的制裁? “聪明制裁”初探,《国际论坛》2002年第4卷第2期。
[16]贾古玛：“联合国必须确立国际社会干预个别国家的准则”,《联合早报》1999年9月26日。
[17]王雅红、王文：“从理想主义到建构主义——试论国际体系转换的理论擅变”,《经纪人 学报》2005年第1期。
[18]李双元等：法律理念的内涵与功能初探,《湖南师范大学社会科学学报》1997年第4期。
[19]王丰：WTO还值得信赖吗?——访2001年诺贝尔经济学奖得主斯蒂格利茨,《南方周末》2004年8月5日。
[20]华东政法学院WTO研究中心：WTO的法律框架与其他制度性安排的冲突与融合,《法学》2003年第7期。
[21]陆象珍：经济全球化与当代资本主义的民主危机——西方学的若干论述,《国外社会科学》2001年第1期。
[22]曾令良：论WOT一般例外条款(GATT第20条)与我国应有的对策,《法学论坛》2001年第4期。
[23]石静霞、胡荣国：试从GATS第6条与第16条的关系角度评“美国博彩案”,《法学》2005年第5期。
[24]韩龙：WTO服务贸易中的规制纪律与规制自由——对AGTS国内规制的问题与发展趋势的透视,《法商研究》2003年第3期。
[25]沈木珠、乔生论：WTO基本原则例外条款与我国的市场对策,《山东社会科学》2002年第3期。
[26]余敏友、陈喜峰：论解决WTO法内部冲突的司法解释原则,《法学评论》2002年第6期。
[27]潘嘉玮：WTO例外条款探究,《学术研究》2003年第6期。
[28]张若思：新市视自由贸易——世界贸易组织内贸易与环境的关系,《国际贸易》2002年第8期。
[29]王贵国：服务贸易游戏规则是与非,《法学家》2005年第4期。
[30]张晓君：服务贸易多边法律制度的现状、问题与发展——以GATS为主线,《湖湘论坛》2007年第5期。
[31]郑炯：世贸组织解决贸易与环境争议的新实践,《国际贸易问题》1999年第8期。
[32]潘惜唇：论GATT环保例外条款的适用条件和发展趋势,《中国法学》2001年第5期。
[33]张若思：世贸组织关于环境措施的争端解决实践,《国际贸易问题》2000年第9期。
[34]程大为：新一轮多边贸易谈判中的“贸易与环境”问题,《国际贸易问题》2000年第2期。
[35]张康之：对道德教育有效性的怀疑,《学术界》2003年第5期。
[1]罗纳德·德沃金：认真对待权利,信春鹰、吴玉章译,上海三联书店,2008。
[2]伯纳德·霍克曼、迈克尔·考斯泰基：世界贸易体制的政治经济学——从关贸总协定到世界贸易组织,刘平等译,法律出版社,1999。
[3]约翰、H、杰克逊：世界贸易体制——国际经济关系的法律与政策,张乃根译,复旦大学出版社,2001。
[4]罗伯特·基欧汉、约瑟夫·奈：权力与相互依赖,门洪华译,北京大学出版,2002。
[5]彼德一托比亚斯·施托尔、费尔克·朔尔科普夫：世界贸易制度和世界贸易法,南京大学德法研究所译,法律出版社,2003。
[6]约翰、H、杰克逊：GATT/WTO法理与实践,张达卿、李成钢、杨国华等译,新华出版社出版,2002。
[7]丹尼·罗德瑞克：全球化走得太远了吗?熊贤良、何蓉译, 北京大学出版社,2000。
[8]安东尼·D·史密斯：全球化时代的民族与民族主义,龚维兵、良警宇译,中央编译出版社,2002。
[9]博登海默：法理学——法哲学及其方法,华夏出版社,1987。
[10]麦金太尔：谁之正义?何种合理性?当代中国出版社,1996。
[11]里查德·T·狄乔治：国际商务中的诚信竞争,翁绍军、马迅译,上海社会科学出版社,2001。
[12]彼得·斯坦、约翰·香德：西方社会的法律价值,王献平译,郑成思校,中国法制出版社,2004。
[13]科依勒·贝格威尔、罗伯特·W·恩泰戈尔：世界贸易体系政治经济学,雷达、詹宏毅译,中国人民大学出版社,2005。
[14]弗朗西斯科·洛佩斯·塞格雷拉：全球化与世界体系(上),社会科学文献出版社,2003。
[15]阿尔弗雷德·萨德一费洛、黛博拉·约翰斯顿编：新自由主义：批判读本,陈钢等译,江苏人民出版社,2006。
[16]彼得·萨瑟兰等：WTO的未来—阐释新千年中的体制性挑战,刘敬东等译,中国财经经济出版社,2005。
[17]贾格迪什·巴格沃蒂：今日自由贸易,海闻译,中国人民大学出版社,2004。
[18]A·J·M·米尔恩：人的权利与多样性——人权哲学,夏勇、张志铭译,中国大百科全书出版社,1995。
[19]路易斯·亨金：“当代中国的人权观念：一种比较考察”,夏勇主编,公法(第1卷),法律出版社,1999。
[20]杰克·唐纳利：普遍人权的理论与实践,王浦幼、张文成等译,中国社会科学出版社,2001。
[21]乔治·恩德勒：国际经济伦理学挑战与应对方法,北京大学出版社,2003。
[22]对外经贸部国际经贸关系司译：世界贸易组织乌拉圭回合多边贸易谈判结果法律文本(中英文对照),法律出版社,2000。
[23]联合国人权高级专员办事处：人权国际文件汇编(第1卷第1部分),纽约日内瓦,2002。
[1]John H. Jackson, The World Trading System:Law and Policy of International Economic Relations 206 (1989). See also William Adams Brown, Jr., The United States and the Restoration of World Trade,1950.
[2]J.G.Merrills,The Development of International Law by the European Court of Human Rights, Manchester University Press,1993.
[3]Wolfgang Friedmann, Louis Henkin and Oliver Lissitzyn ed, Transnational Law in a Changing Society Essays in Honor of Philip C. Jessup, Columbia University Press,1972.
[4]Peter Malanczuk,Akehurst's Modern Introduction to International Law(seventh revised edition), Routledge,1997.
[5]Henry G. Schermers & Niels M. Blokker, International Institutional Law:Unity within diversity, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,1995.
[6]Antonio Cassese,International Law in a Divided World, Oxford University Press,1986. Simon Chestennan, Just War or Just Peace? Humanitarian Intervention and International Law, Oxford University Press,2001.
[7]Paul Sieghart, The International Law of Human Rights, Oxford University Press,1983.
[8]Myres S. McDougal, Harold D. Lasswell and Lung-chu Chen, Human Rights and World Pub lic Order:the Basic Policies of an International Law of Human Dignity, Yale University Press, 1980.
[9]Theodor Meron, Human Rights and Humanitarian Norms as Customary Law, Oxford University Press,1989.
[10]armen Tiburcio, The Human Rights of Aliens under International and comparative Law, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,2001.
[11]Jean Pictet, Development and Principles of International and Humanitarian Law, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,1985.
[12]Lance A. Compa and Stephen F. Diamond ed., Human Rights, Labor Rights, and International Trade, University of Pennsylvania Press,1996.
[13]Richard A. Wilson ed., Human Rights, Culture & Content:Anthropological Perspectives, Pluto Press,1997.
[14]David p. Forsythe, Human Rights in International Relations, Cambridge University Press, 2000.
[15]Weatherley, The Discourse of Human Rights in China:Historical and Ideological Perspectives, Robert Macmillan Press LTD,1999.
[16]Ernst-Ulrich Petersmann, Constitutional Functions and Constitutional Problems of International Economic Law, University Press Fribourg Switzerland,1991.
[17]Ernst-Ulrich Petersmann, International Trade Law and the GATT/WTO Dispute Settlement System, Kluwer Law International,1997.
[18]Macrobroncker and Reinhard Quick eds., New Directions in International Economic Law: Essay in Honour of John H. Jackson, Kluwer Law International,2000.
[19]Jagdish Bhagwatti and Mathias Hirsch ed., The Uruguay Round and Beyond:Essays in Honor of Arthur Dunkel, The University of Michigan Press,1999.
[20]Annie Taylor and Caroline Thomas ed., Global Trade and Global Social Issues, Routledge, 1999.
[21]Errol Mendes and Ozay Mehmet, Global Goverance Economy and Law:waiting for justice, Routledge, London,2003.
[22]From GATT to the WTO:The Multilateral Trading System in the New Millennium, World Trade Organization, Kluwer Law International,2000.
[23]Theodore H. Cohn, Governing Global Trade:International Institutions in Conflict and Convergence, Ashgate Publishing Limited,2002.
[24]Anne O. Krueger(ed), The WTO as an International Organization. The University of Chicago Press,1998.
[25]John H.Jackson,World Trade and the Law of GATT,The Bobbs Merrill Company,Inc.,1969,
[1]Steve Charnovitz, Symposium:The boundaries of the WTO:Triangulating the World Trade Organization, The American Journal of International Law, Vol.96(2002).
[2]Robert Howse, From Politics to Technocracy and Back Again:The Fate of the Multilateral Trading Regime, The American Journal of International Law, Vol.96(2002).
[3]Miguel A. Gonzalez, Trade and Morality; Preserving "Public Morals" Without Sacrificing the Global Economy, Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, May,2006, vol.39 (May 2006).
[4]Steve Charnovitz, The Moral Exception in Trade Policy,38 Va. J. Int'l L.689 (1998).
[5]Jeremy C. Marwell, Trade and Morality:The WTO Public Morals Exception after Gambling, New York University Law Review, vol. 81 (May 2006).
[6]Christoph T. Feddersen, Focusing on Substantive Law in International Economic Relations: The Public Morals of GATT's Article XX (a) and Conventional Rules of Interpretation, Minnesota Journal of Global Trade, vol.7 (Winter 1998).
[7]Jeffrey Kluger, "Whad Makes Us Moral", Time, November 21. 2007.
[8]Mark Wu, Free Trade and the Protection of Public Morals: An Analysis of the Newly Emerging Public Morals Clause Doctrine, The Yale Journal of International Law, vol.33, (2008).
[9]Claire Wright, Censoring the censors in the WTO: reconciling the communitarian and human rights theories of international law. 3 J. Int'l Media & Ent. L. 17-119 (2010).
[10]Elanor A.Mangin, Maket Access in China—Pulication and Audiovisual Materials: a Moral Victory with a Silver Ling, Berkeley Technology Law Journal Vol.25:279
[11]Qin, Julia Ya, Pushing the Limits of Global Governance: Trading Rights, Censorship, and WTO Jurisprudence - A Commentary on the China-Publications Case (April 10, 2011). Chinese Journal of International Law, Vol. 10, 2011.
[12]Michael J. Trebilcock & Robert Howse, Trade Policy & Labor Standards, 14 Minn. J. Global Trade 290(2005).
[13]Sarah H. Cleveland, Human Rights Sanctions and International Trade: A Theory of Compatibility, 5 J. Int'l Econ. L. 157(2002).
[14]Stephen J. Powell, The Place of Human Rights Law in World Trade Organization Rules, 16 Fla. J. Int'l L. 219, 223 (2004).
[15]Salman Bal, International Free Trade Agreements and Human Rights: Reinterpreting Article XX of the GATT, 10 Minn. J. Global Trade 62, 78 (2001); see also Gabrielle Marceau, WTO Dispute Settlement and Human Rights, 13 Eur. J. Int'l Law 753, 789 (2002).
[16]Office of the U.N. High Comm'r for Refugees, Human Rights and World Trade Agreements: Using General Exception Clauses to Protect Human Rights, at 5, U.N. Doc. HR/PUB/05/5 (Nov. 2005).
[17]Miguel A. Gonzalez, NOTE:Trade and Morality:Preserving "Public Morals" Without Sacrificing the Global Economy,39 Vand. J. Transnat'l L.939 (2006)
[18]Liane M. Jarvis, Note, Women's Rights and the Public Morals Exception of GATT Article 20, 22 Mich. J. Int'l L.219,236-37 (2000).
[19]Edward M.Thomas, Playing Chicken at the WTO:Defending an Animal Welfare-Based Trade Restriction Under GATT's Moral Exception,34 B.C.Envtl.Aff.L.Rev.605(2007).
[20]Fitzgerald, Peter L.,'Morality' May Not Be Enough to Justify the EU Seal Products Ban: Animal Welfare Meets International Trade Law (May 1,2011). Journal of International Wildlife Law & Policy, Vol.14, p.85,2011.
[21]Edward M. Thomas, Note, Playing Chicken at the WTO:Defending an Animal Welfare-Based Trade Restriction Under GATT's Moral Exception,34 B.C. Envtl. Aff. L. Rev.605 (2007).
[22]Gareth Davies, Morality Clauses and Decision-Making in Situations of Scientific Uncertainty:The Case of GMOs, Presented at a Roundtable on"GMOs and International Trade", held at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem(2006).
[23]WTO rules and animal welfare, RSPCA Australia information paper, p7,12(2011).
[24]John H. Jackson, The World Trading System:Law and Policy of International Economic Relations 206 (1989). See also William Adams Brown, Jr., The United States and the Restoration of World Trade 415 (1950).
[25]Patents:Ordre Public and Morality, CY564-Unctad-vl 377 (2004).
[26]Peter L. Fitzgerald, "Morality" May Not Be Enough to Justify the EU Seal Products Ban:Animal Welfare Meets International Trade Law, Journal of International Wildlife Law&Policy,14:85-136,2011.
[26]Ernst-Ulrich Petersmann, The WTO Constitution and Human Rights, Journal of International Economy Law, Vol.3(2000), No.1.
[27]Ernst-Ulrich Petersmann,Dispute Settlement in International Economy Law-Lessons for Strengthening International Dispute Settlement in Non-Economic Areas, Journal of International Economy Law, Vol.2(1999), No.2.
[28]Ernst-Ulrich Petersmann,The Dispute Settlement System of the World Trade Organization and the Evolution of The GATT Dispute Settlement System Since 1948, Common Market Law Review, Vol.31(1994).
[29]Kyle Bagwell, Petros C.Mavroidis, Robert W. Staiger, It's A Question of Market Access, The American Journal of International Law, Vol.96(2002), No.1.
[30]David W. Leebron, Linkage, The American Journal of International Law, Vol.96(2002), No.1.
[31]John H. Jackson, Afterword:The Linkage Problem -Comments on Five Texts, The American Journal of International Law, Vol.96(2002), No.l.
[32]Jagdish Bhagwati, Afterword:The Question of Linkage, The American Journal of International Law, Vol.96(2002), No.1.
[33]Debra P. Steger, Afterword:The "Trade and..." Conundrum-A Commentary, The American Journal of International Law, Vol.96(2002), No.1.
[34]Frank J. Garcia, The Trade Linkage Phenomenon:Pointing the Way to the Trade Law and Global Social Policy of the 21st Century, University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Economy Law, Vol.19(Summer,1998).
[35]Frank J. Garcia, Trade and Justice:Linking the Trade Linking Debates, University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Economy Law, Vol.19(Summer,1998).
[36]Isabella D. Bunn, Linkages between Ethics and International Economy Law, University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Economy Law, Vol.19(Summer,1998).
[37]Arthur E.Appleton, Telecommunications Trade:Reach out and Touch Someone?, University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Economy Law, Vol.19(Summer,1998).
[38]Philip M. Nichols, Forgotten Linkages-Historical Institutionalism and Sociological Institutionalism and Analysis of the World Trade Organization, University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Economy Law, Vol.19 (Summer,1998).
[39]Robert M. Stern, Conflict and Cooperation in International Economy Policy and Law, University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Economy Law, Vol.17 (Summer,1996).
[40]Robert M. Cover, The SuPreme Court 1982 Term, FOreword:Nomos and Narrative, Harvard Law Review, vol.97(2006).
[41]Abolition of Import and Export Prohibitions and Restriction, Commentary and Preliminary Draft International Agreement drawn up by the Economic Committee of the League of Nations to serve as a Basis for an International Diplomatic Conference, League of Nations Doc. C. E. 122.1927 II.13.(1927).
[42]International Conference for the Abolition of Import and Export Prohibitions and Restrictions, Proceedings of the Conference, p.110, League of Nations Doc. C.21. M.12.192811.7, (1928).
[43]Nicolas F. Diebold, The Morals and Order Exceptions in WTO Law:Balancing the Toothless Tiger and the Undermining Mole, Journal of International Economic Law, vol.11, no.1 (2008).
[44]USTR,2006 Report to Congress on China s WTO Compliance (December 11,2006).