【作者】 谢新明；

【导师】 朱榄叶；

【作者基本信息】 华东政法大学 ， 国际法， 2012， 博士

【摘要】 本论文探讨了在国际法不成体系背景下的多边环境条约与WTO之间的冲突及其解决问题。通过梳理和比较十五个有代表性的多边环境条约规则与WTO规则，从中识别出冲突之处，继而引入国际法中的联结理论并发展出联结安排的概念以分析和寻求化解冲突的方案和途径。在此基础上，本文还反思了我国在相关问题上的国内法规与国际立场，分析了其中存在的问题，并提出了应对之策。全文由导言、正文和结束语三大部分构成。导言主要阐述了本文的研究背景、国内外研究现状、研究目的和意义、基本思路和研究方法、内容架构及创新之处。正文包括五章。第一章概述了多边环境条约与WTO之间关系的国际法背景和发生的原因。在既往对国际法不成体系问题的讨论中，国际法委员会研究组的观点及学者鲍威林等人的观点分别代表了体系进路和多元进路的对立。由于多边环境条约与WTO分属国际法的不同体制，多边环境条约与WTO之间关系所具有的跨体制特征使得两者之间冲突的解决偏向多元进路，进而也导致传统的体系内冲突解决手段如后法优先规则和特别法优先规则在多边环境条约与WTO之间冲突的问题上作用有限。多边环境条约与WTO之间冲突的根本原因是多边环境条约与WTO各自所属的贸易体制和环境体制所依赖的更广泛目标或价值观念之间的冲突。基于贸易问题与环境问题之间所存在的关联性，现阶段的环境运动要求全面介入包括国际贸易在内的经济活动的主张冲击着WTO开放贸易和公平贸易的目标。在调和这一矛盾方面，可持续发展概念尚欠缺具体的架构支持。多边环境条约与WTO之间冲突的直接原因则是环境措施对贸易的影响。多边环境条约下的履约措施常常成为WTO视野中的贸易措施。对那些由于环境措施对贸易的影响而导致的争端，依据多边环境条约规则或者WTO规则所得的结论大不相同，甚至对立。此外，多边环境条约和WTO的条约适用范围部分重合（包括条约缔约国的部分重合和条约规则内容的部分重合），多边环境条约与WTO之间的冲突就具备了相应的条件。第二章比较了WTO规则与十五个多边环境条约的规则，确定了其中一些冲突之处。目前为止，国际法学界对有关条约规则冲突定义的观点可以区分为狭义说和广义说。狭义“冲突”说的核心是将冲突限定为“两个义务规则”之间所发生的，其标准是“无法同时履行”。广义“冲突”说则将分属不同条约的命令性规则与禁止性规则之间，命令性规则和免责性规则之间及禁止性规则和授权性规则之间的矛盾情形均包括在内，认为“一项规则违反，已经或可能导致违反，另一规则的情形”，即是条约之间存在冲突。为了不忽略命令性规则和免责性规则之间及禁止性规则和授权性规则之间的矛盾，条约规则冲突的广义界定是必要的。这种广义的条约规则冲突又可以进一步区分为基于条约义务规则（禁止性规则和命令性规则）之间相互排斥而发生的显性冲突和基于命令性规则与免责性规则之间及禁止性规则与授权性规则之间不一致而发生的隐性冲突。在WTO相关议题的谈判中，WTO秘书处整理出了15个含有与贸易有关的措施的多边环境条约。从条约规则、案例等角度分析，这些多边环境条约中有一些与贸易有关的措施规则与WTO规则存在冲突之处。其中，与WTO存在显性冲突的多边环境条约有6个，与WTO存在隐性冲突的多边环境条约有4个。第三章探讨了如何解决WTO与部分多边环境条约之间冲突的问题。在这个问题上，鲍威林等学者曾提出过类似传统冲突法的冲突规则概念。由于这种冲突规则类似于以法域之间明确划分为特征的冲突法，因而不适合基于功能区分的不同条约规则之间的冲突。相比之下，国际法学界曾热烈讨论过的联系/联结（linkages）概念比单纯的冲突规则能更加有效的处理多边环境条约与WTO之间这种跨体制的条约规则冲突。实践中的做法也证明了联结比冲突规则更符合条约规则的实际。在既往有关联结的讨论基础上，本文提出联结安排的概念作为条约之间联结的载体，以进一步推进对可化解条约之间冲突的联结结构的研究。经过对多边环境条约与WTO的现有规则的分析，可以发现WTO与一些多边环境条约中确实有联结安排的存在。这些多边环境条约中所存在的与WTO有关的联结安排类型包括：不影响现有国际协定的冲突规则型联结安排，对环境措施施加与GATT第20条类似限制的实体规则型联结安排和相互支持型联结安排。这些多边环境条约中的上述三类联结安排暗含着特定多边环境条约与WTO之间的三种关系（遵从、协同和自治）。然而，由于WTO中缺少对应的联结安排以形成多边环境条约与WTO之间完整有效的联结，仅仅依靠多边环境条约中现有的这三类联结安排无法有效化解多边环境条约与WTO之间可能出现的冲突。第四章探讨了利用条约法规则补充多边环境条约与WTO之间联结的缺陷问题。国际法委员会研究组2006年的报告和鲍威林2003年的专著曾具体分析了《维也纳条约法公约》中的条约解释规则（第31条至第33条）和“特别法优于一般法”、“后法（优先）”等条约适用规则在解决条约规则冲突方面的作用和局限。在讨论多边环境条约与WTO之间的联结问题时，这些条约解释规则和适用规则作为多边环境条约和WTO外部的规则，也可以在一定程度上影响多边环境条约规则和WTO规则，也就有可能起到补充多边环境条约与WTO之间联结的缺陷的作用。在利用条约解释规则补充多边环境条约与WTO之间联结的问题上，由于条约当事国意图空白过大，加之WTO争端解决机构的权限限制，以及条约解释规则本身不足等原因，条约法中的条约解释规则对于补充多边环境条约与WTO之间现有联结缺陷的作用有限。在WTO与多边环境条约中何者的规则应优先的问题上，由于条约当事国缺乏明确的倾向性意图，加之特别法优先规则与后法优先规则二者的关系本身就还存有争议等原因，那种试图通过特别法优先规则和后法优先规则构建独立的联结的观点也缺乏足够的支持。在深层原因上，条约解释规则和适用规则在补充多边环境条约与WTO之间联结的缺陷问题时存在两个障碍。首先，由于多边环境条约与WTO在条约目标和价值观念方面存在根本性的张力，通过技术手段确定跨体制条约间冲突时哪一个条约及其背后的价值具有优先地位并不合适。其次，由于“DSB的建议和裁决不能增加或减少适用协定所规定的权利和义务”等规则导致了WTO的自足性或封闭性，可能引入非WTO规则的条约适用规则迄今没有而且也不应当被WTO争端解决机构引入WTO体制。据此可以认为，国际法委员会研究组依赖条约解释规则和适用规则就可解决条约间冲突的观点过于乐观。第五章探讨了通过修改规则改善多边环境条约与WTO之间联结的问题。从既往来看，ITO的草案文件中原本出现过与多边环境条约有关的冲突规则型联结安排，同时，GATT/WTO规则体系所含有的与IMF之间的联结安排也成功的避免了GATT/WTO与IMF之间冲突的发生。根据对多哈回合中相关议题的谈判文件的分析，可以发现各国有关多边环境条约与WTO关系问题的主张都极大的受到了各自国家利益的影响。这突出体现在各国代表在WTO贸易与环境委员会中的观点和这些国家在其他场合所采取的立场并不一致。对于这种违背国际社会发展需要的做法，有必要通过某种方式的规则安排来构建多边环境条约与WTO之间的联结，以促进贸易与环境的相互支持。依据NAFTA的联结经验，NAFTA中将特定多边环境条约列为优先的冲突规则型联结安排构建了NAFTA对相关多边环境条约的遵从关系。这对WTO而言也是一个可资借鉴的方案。从中国的经验来看，美国诉中国的“有关风能设备措施”案也显示中国制定相关措施时没有足够重视特定多边环境条约与WTO相互之间的这种实体规则型联结。在现行立法方面，中国的贸易立法和环境立法也没有重视多边环境条约与WTO之间的联结问题。因此，有必要在今后的立法工作中进行相应的改进。同时，就对外立场而言，中国也有必要重新审视自身在有关多边环境条约与WTO之间关系问题上的谈判立场，其中包括承认特定多边环境条约与WTO之间因联结的缺失或缺陷而存在的冲突，并针对多边环境条约与WTO之间现有联结不足提出相应的改进方案。借鉴NAFTA的经验，修改WTO规则以接纳特定的多边环境条约是一种具有合理性的方案。中国也有必要考虑对此采取开放式的立场。更多还原

【Abstract】 This article undertakes a study on the conflicts between multilateral environmenttreaties and WTO and their solutions under the background of fragmentation ofinternational law. Through the analysis and comparison of the norms of fifteenrepresentative multilateral environment treaties and WTO, this article finds out wheretheir conflicts exist. To analyze and finds out the solutions to these conflicts, thisarticle turns on the linkage theory of international law and develops the concept oflinkage arrangements. On this basis, this article reconsiders the related laws andinternational position of our country, analyses their shortcomings and puts forwardsthe suggestions for solution. The article consists of three parts: the introduction, themain body and the conclusion.The introduction introduces the research background, the current research resultsdomestically and abroad, the purpose and significance, the basic train of thought andresearch method, the framework and the innovative ideas of this thesis.The main body includes five chapters.Chapter one describes the international law background and causes of therelationship between multilateral environment treaties and WTO. In the discussions offragmentation of international law, the point of views of the Study Group ofInternational Law Commission and Mr. Joost Pauwelyn et.al. represent the oppositionof systematic approach and plural approach. Because multilateral environment treaties and WTO belongs to the differentsystems of international law, the inter-system characteristic of the relationshipbetween multilateral environment treaties and WTO makes the solution of theirconflicts orientated towards plural approach. This leads to the effects of the traditionalinternal-system conflicts solutions such as lex posterior and lex specialis be limitedwhen used to solve the conflicts between multilateral environment treaties and WTO.The basic reason for conflicts between multilateral environment treaties and WTOis that there is conflict between the more extensive goals or values of trade regime andenvironment regime to which multilateral environment treaties and WTO belongs.Based on the association between trade and environment, the request of the presentenvironment movement to intervene the economic activities including trade invadesthe goals of free trade and fair trade of WTO. In handling this contradiction, theconcept of sustainable development lacks specific framework support.The direct reason for the conflicts between multilateral environment treaties andWTO is the effects of environmental measures on trade. The application ofmultilateral environment treaties often turns out to be the trade measures from theperspective of WTO. To handle those disputes arising from the trade effect ofenvironmental measures, there will be different judgments or even contradictjudgments based on the choice of norms of multilateral environment treaties or WTOnorms. In addition, the application scopes of multilateral environment treaties andWTO are partially overlapping. It provides the conditions for the conflicts betweenmultilateral environment treaties and WTO.Chapter two compares WTO norms with the fifteen multilateral environmenttreaties to identify where their conflicts exist.To the present, the international law scholars’ points of view about the definition ofconflict of treaty norms can be divided into two categories: strict definition and broaddefinition. The key point of strict definition is that the conflict should involve onlythose norms imposing obligations and its test should lie therein that two norms cannotbe applied at the same time. Broad definition includes all the contradictions betweennorms imposing commands and those imposing prohibitions, those imposing commands and those granting exemptions, those imposing prohibitions and thosegranting permissions. It holds that the conflict between treaties exists when one normconstitutes, has led to or may lead to, a breach of another norm.For not neglecting the contradictions between norms imposing commands andthose granting permissions and the contradictions between norms imposingprohibitions and norms granting permissions, the broad definition of conflicts oftreaty norms is necessary. The conflicts of treaty norms in broad sense can be furtherdivided into explicit conflicts which happen because of incompatibility betweennorms imposing obligations (norms imposing prohibitions and norms imposingcommands) and recessive conflicts which happen because of incompatibility betweennorms imposing commands and norms granting permissions, and incompatibilitybetween norms imposing prohibitions and norms granting permissions.During the related discussions in WTO, the WTO secretary has sorted out fifteenmultilateral environment treaties which involve trade related measures. Analyzedfrom the perspective of treaty norms and cases, there are some conflicts between somenorms of these multilateral environment treaties which provide trade related measuresand WTO norms. There are six multilateral environment treaties which show explicitconflicts with WTO and four multilateral environment treaties which show recessiveconflicts with WTO.Chapter three discusses the problem of how to resolve the conflicts between WTOand some multilateral environment treaties. Regarding this problem, Mr. JoostPauwelyn and other scholarship have put forward the concept of conflict norms liketraditional conflict laws. Because conflict norms are similar to traditional conflictlaws which are based on division of jurisdiction, it does not suit the conflicts betweendifferent treaty norms based on differentiation of function.In contrast, the concept of linkages hotly discussed by international law scholars ismore effective than pure conflict norms in handling inter-system conflicts betweennorms of multilateral environment treaties and WTO norms.Based on the discussions about linkages, this article suggests the concept oflinkages arrangement as the carrier of the linkage between treaties to further the research on the linkage structures which could be of help to solve the conflictsbetween treaties.After the analysis of the present norms of multilateral environment treaties andWTO norms, some linkage arrangements are identified to exist in WTO andmultilateral environment treaties. The categories of the WTO-related linkagearrangements in multilateral environment treaties include: the linkage arrangementscomposed of conflicts norms without affecting the pre-existing internationalagreements, the linkage arrangements composed of substantive norms imposinglimitation on environmental measures like GATT Article XX and the linkagearrangements which set out mutual support.These three categories of the linkage arrangements in multilateral environmenttreaties indicate three relational categories (deferential, collaborative, and autonomous)between certain multilateral environment treaties and WTO. Nonetheless, becausethere is no corresponding linkage arrangement in WTO to form the complete andeffective linkage, it’s not adequate to merely depend on the present three linkagecategories in multilateral environment treaties for solving the possible conflictsbetween multilateral environment treaties and WTO effectively.Chapter four makes a study on using norms of the law of treaties to supplement thedeficiency of the linkages between multilateral environment treaties and WTO.The report of International Law Commission in2006and the monograph of Mr.Joost Pauwelyn in2003have analyzed the effectiveness and deficiency of the normsof treaty interpretation of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (Article31toArticle33) and the norms of treaty application such as lex specialis and lex posteriorin solving conflicts of treaty norms. During the discussion of linkage betweenmultilateral environment treaties and WTO, these norms of treaty interpretation andnorms of treaty application which are outside the multilateral environment treaties andWTO can affect the norms of multilateral environment treaties and WTO norms tosome extent. It’s possible that they can help to supplement the deficiency of thelinkages between multilateral environment treaties and WTO.On the problem of using norms of treaty interpretation to supple the deficiency of the linkages between multilateral environment treaties and WTO, bdue to, inter alia,the blank of intents of treaty parties is too big, the power of DSB has been limited andnorms of treaty interpretation themselves have deficiencies, the effectiveness of normsof treaty interpretation in supplementing the deficiency of the linkages betweenmultilateral environment treaties and WTO is not satisfied.On the problem of which norms should take priority, because treaty parties show noclear inclination and the relationship of lex specialis and lex posterior itself still bearscontroversies., the point of view that lex specialis and lex posterior could be used toconstruct independent linkage lacks enough support.For the profound reasons, there are two difficulties in using norms of treatyinterpretation and treaty application to supplement the deficiency of the linkagesbetween multilateral environment treaties and WTO. Firstly, because the fundamentaltension in treaty goals and values between multilateral environment treaties and WTO,it is inappropriate to depend on techniques to decide which treaty and its valuesshould take priority when there is conflict between inter-systematic treaties. Secondly,the principle that “recommendations and rulings of the DSB cannot add to or diminishthe rights and obligations provided in the covered agreements” leads to theself-contain character of WTO, the norms of treaty application which can introducenon-WTO norms have not been introduced into WTO regime by the DSB and itshould not be.According to this analysis, it is too optimistic for the International LawCommission to conclude that the norms of treaty interpretation and the norms oftreaty application would be adequate to solve the conflicts between treaties.Chapter five discusses the modification of norms to improve the linkages betweenmultilateral environment treaties and WTO.In history, the draft of ITO included the linkage arrangements which set out themutual support with multilateral environment treaties. The linkage arrangements withIMF in GATT/WTO regime also successfully prevented the conflicts betweenGATT/WTO and IMF.Based on the analysis of the negotiation documents of related issues in Doha Round, it can be perceived that the statements of the countries about the relationship betweenmultilateral environment treaties and WTO are affected by their national benefitsdeeply. The typical example is that the statements of the countries’ delegations inCommittee on Trade and Environment are not identical with the countries’ positions atother occasions. In order to correct this practice which distorts the needs ofinternational society development, it’s necessary to develop some kind of normsarrangements to construct the linkage between multilateral environment treaties andWTO for facilitating the mutual support of trade and environment.According to the experience of NAFTA, the linkage arrangement composed ofconflicts norms in NAFTA providing for preference of certain multilateralenvironment treaties over NAFTA construct the relationship of NAFTA’s deference tothe multilateral environment treaties. This is a practice for WTO reference.In China’s experience, the case “China-Measures concerning wind powerequipment” shows that China did not pay enough attention on the linkage composedof substantive norms in multilateral environment treaties and WTO when Chinadecided the related measures. In the present laws, China’s trade laws and environmentlaws pay little attention to the linkages between multilateral environment treaties andWTO. On this point, improvement should be made in future legislation.Meanwhile, as far as external positions are concerned, it’s necessary for China tocheck its diplomatic positions on the relationship between multilateral environmenttreaties and WTO, including admittance of conflicts because of absence or deficiencyof linkages between multilateral environment treaties and WTO, and putting forwardthe improvement suggestions on deficiency of present linkages between multilateralenvironment treaties and WTO. By reference to the experience of NAFTA, revision ofWTO norms to acknowledge certain multilateral environment treaties is a reasonablesolution. It will be helpful for China to consider an open position on this problem.更多还原