由安地瓜控告美國禁止線上博奕案—探討服務貿易之部門分類標準

• Main Author: 洪佳琳
• Language: 中文
• Published: 國立政治大學
• Subjects: 服務貿易; 服務部門分類; Trade in Service; Service Sectoral classfication; W/120; CPC
• Online Access: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/cgi-bin/cdrfb3/gsweb.cgi?o=dstdcdr&i=sid=%22G0091351039%22.

WTO爭端解決小組於二００四年三月底針對「美國控告安地瓜禁止線上賭博案」（WT/285）乙案提出保密的期中報告。蕞爾小國安地瓜巴布達擊敗美國獲得勝訴的判決。期中報告指出，美國對於安地瓜線上博奕服務業者所提供之跨境線上博奕服務，在「市場進入」及「國民待遇」未予開放，違反了其於「服務貿易貿易總協定」所為之承諾。 此期中報告對於服務貿易有特殊之意義。不只因為本案為WTO爭端解決程序中第一個涉及網際網路的案子，本案更是第一個關於服務貿易分類之案例。本案爭點在於安地瓜之線上博奕業者是否得對美國境內之消費者提供線上博奕服務。 安地瓜認為，根據「聯合國中央產品暫行分類標準」（CPC pro.）及「服務部門分類表」（W/120），美國在其承諾表10.D確承諾跨境線上博奕服務之開放，然美國之國內規章對境外所提供之線上博奕服務卻造成全面禁止之效果，故已違反其所為之承諾。然而美國則認為秘書處所提出之W/120文件並不具有法律拘束力，因此美國承諾表並不受CPC分類之限制。 W/120文件在解釋承諾表時的法律地位究竟為何，為本案最重要的爭點，本論文將深入探討之。 === Late March in 2004, WTO panel released a confidential report of the WTO dispute” United States– Measures Affecting the Cross-Border Supply of Gambling and Betting”（WT/285）.The finding is that the tiny nation of Antigua and Barbuda beat the United States that the United States violates its commitments under the General Agreement on Trade in Service(GATS) by not providing market access and/or national treatment under GATS to on-line cross-border gambling service providers licensed by Antigua and Barbuda. The panel report has significant ramification for trade in service. The reason is that this panel decision is not only the first one on Internet-related dispute, but also the first one concerning the general service issues- service classification. Antigua asserted that United States has made a GATS commitment for gambling and betting service within Sector 10.D of U.S schedule corresponding Provisional United Nations Central Production Classification (CPC) and the Service Sectoral Classification List(MTN.GNS/W/120). At issue in this case is the provision of internet gambling service to customers in the United States from operators located in Antigua and Barbuda. Antigua and Barbuda argued that the domestic regulation of United States has made total prohibition on the supply of gambling and betting service from outside the United States. However, United States responded that the document W/120 provided by the GATT Secretariat is not legally binding so it’s schedule is not bound by the category of CPC. It means that the United States has no responsibility to allow on-line cress-border gambling service. This thesis has a deeply discussion on the legal status and value of W/120 in interpreting GATS schedules which is the most important issue in this case.