| Summary: | 碩士 === 國立政治大學 === 國際經營與貿易研究所 === 96 === The EU-US agreement on trade in wine was signed on March 10, 2006, marking the end of a first phase in wine trading discussions began in 1983. The Agreement addresses several key issues, such as oenological practices, import certification, the use of European geographical indication on the wine label which produced in US and other labeling issues. This thesis is to analyze the most controversial parts of this agreement.
This agreement compromises 17 provisions, there are two parts most controversial: one is the mutual acceptance of the EU-US oenological practice regulations, which would facilitate the trading of wine between the two parties. And the other is that finally U.S. agreed to prohibit new brands from using these names on non-European wine and grandfather those existing uses.
The oenological regulation of EU is more strictly and conservative compare to the related international standard. Moreover, EU ban the import of wine which is not conform with its oenological regulation unless the exporting country meet the Derogation requirement to allow the wine to be imported and circulated in the territory of EU. This article is to analyses the consistency of the EU oenological regulation with the TBT agreement, and the MFN treatment with this derogation.
And the U.S. had allowed the use of specific EU geographical indications, which is called semi-generic names in U.S. regulation, on the wine label for the wine producing in the U.S in its labeling regulation. According to the TRIPS Agreement, the use of EU’s GI is in a continuous matter before 1994 can be excepted from the regulation of additional for GI. This thesis would like to clarify which part of the use of those semi-generic names may or may not except from the context of TRIPS agreement about GI.
Since the wine agreement settle down several issues which violate the WTO agreement, this thesis would like to discuss the impact of the wine agreement to the WTO multilateral system.
|
|---|
