淡江大學覺生紀念圖書館 (TKU Library)
進階搜尋


下載電子全文限經由淡江IP使用) 
系統識別號 U0002-0508201016015300
中文論文名稱 歐盟與美國訴諸WTO有關生技(GMO)產品貿易爭端案的衝突與解決
英文論文名稱 Conflict and Resolution in the Biotech (GMO) Product Trade Dispute Taken to the WTO by the US and EU
校院名稱 淡江大學
系所名稱(中) 歐洲研究所博士班
系所名稱(英) Graduate Institute of European Studies
學年度 98
學期 2
出版年 99
研究生中文姓名 吳又茗
研究生英文姓名 Yo-ming Wu
學號 893030022
學位類別 博士
語文別 中文
口試日期 2010-06-23
論文頁數 194頁
口試委員 指導教授-蔡政文
委員-郭秋慶
委員-郭華仁
委員-蕭全政
委員-王泰銓
中文關鍵字 WTO爭端解決  歐美貿易爭端  基因改造  新自由制度主義  新現實主義  國際典則 
英文關鍵字 WTO dispute settlement  trade dispute  GMO  Neoliberal  Neorealism 
學科別分類
中文摘要 在生物科技蓬勃發展下,歐盟對基因改造產品(GMO)採取嚴謹的審核政策,其部分會員國甚且對歐盟已核准的產品實施防衛措施禁止其進口。導致積極發展農業生技的美國,在拓展歐洲市場受阻後,將其與歐盟的貿易爭端訴諸WTO場域。歐盟與美國的基改GMO產品爭端案經世界貿易組織WTO爭端小組判決(2006年9月)歐盟敗訴,不應遲延美國GMO產品進入歐盟的申請案,歐洲人著重之環保與人權等「歐洲價值觀」是否因GMO爭端案歐盟的敗訴而備受挑戰?對基因改造生物科技安全疑慮,是否在美國與歐盟的GMO爭端案中,有進一步的科學証據得以釐清?2000年「卡塔赫納議定書(Cartagena Protocol) 」在生物科技潛在風險的風險管理概念中,正式將「預防原則」理念納入,歐盟據以引用遭WTO爭端小組裁決不適用,是否象徵WTO作為國際典則(international regime)的侷限性?又新自由制度論者將WTO評估為國際法制化程度最高的國際典則,而本爭端案的判決執行發展,是否應證其有效性?從歐盟部分會員國的主觀因素,不願解除GMO禁令是否會改變歐盟法規對各會員國的拘束力? 筆者提出三個假設: (1)歐盟會執行WTO的裁決;但會員國不一定遵行,易言之,新自由制度主義的運用有其缺陷;(2)在歐盟與WTO的互動中,新現實主義仍有其運用的有效性;(3)從歐盟在WTO爭端解決的判決案中,國際法制化的效力仍有斟酌之處。本文將驗證此三項假設。
英文摘要 Ever since the development of modern biotechnology, the EU has taken a more careful regulatory approach. The US, on the contrary, has largely adopted GMOs in agriculture. Thus differences of regulation and acceptance of GMOs between the US and the EU has led to a crucial trade dispute in the WTO framework. The European population is not fond of GMO products. Following the adoption of the WTO panel report on 21 November 2006, the three complainants (US, Canada and Argentina) and the EU agreed to engage in constructive discussions on the implementation of the WTO panel report. Following the expiry of the extended WTO panel report, the US decided to request the authorization to retaliate against the EU. However, the US and the EU reached a procedural agreement according to which arbitration on the level of the retaliation would be suspended until such time as a compliance panel would rule on the issue.
However, member States of EU have invoked the safeguard clause, banning various authorized GMOs from their territory. This paper analyzes the decision-making dynamics that led to such an outcome. It argues that the external pressures on the Member States and the Commission prevented deliberation and consensual solutions. Furthermore, the conflict between states and Commission is a testimony of the debates in International relations (IR) theory that the controversial issues between the neo-realists and the neo-liberals have defended their arguments. Neo-liberal institutionalism (NLI), with inter-disciplinary research, provides a different approach for us to understand international realities. As Robert O. Keohane suggests, NLI places more emphasis on ideas, rules, beliefs, and practice of international region such as WTO than Neorealist do. This article also would like to research the empirical evidence by building up relative ideas concerning global governance, legalization, practices and norms in WTO framework.
論文目次 論文提要內容: i
Abstract ii
誌謝 iii
目錄 iv
表目錄 vii
圖目錄 viii
第一章 導論 9
第一節、研究動機與目的 10
第二節、研究方法 15
第三節、文獻回顧及資料來源 18
第四節、研究範圍與架構 22
第二章、WTO的建立、功能、運作及解決衝突的機制 25
第一節、WTO的建立、功能及運作 26
第二節、WTO爭端解決機制及程序 31
第三節、WTO機制的本質與法律屬性 36
第四節、WTO協定在歐盟之法效探討 38
第五節、WTO協定在美國之法效探討 40
第三章、歐盟與美國有關GMO貿易爭端之產生及發展 45
第一節、產生爭端的過程 46
第二節、爭端處理的發展 51
第四章、歐盟與美國產生生技爭端的根源—內在因素 73
第一節、歐盟與美國生技產業政策 73
第二節、歐盟與美國GMO管理觀念差異: “預防原則”與“可靠科學原則” 76
第三節、歐美GMO管制產品方式的差異:“管制產品的製造方法”與“管制產品本身” 77
第四節、歐美對消費者態度的差異:“強制性需標示”與“不強制產品標示” 79
一、歐盟以“強制性的特別標示”告知消費者 79
二、美國以“不強制標示”與一般產品相同 80
第五節、歐美各自內部要素的態度 81
一、歐盟境內GMO相關爭端案例 94
(一)、德國巴斯夫公司基改馬鈴薯案(4/19,2008) 94
(二)、上奧地利邦向歐盟初審法院(The Court of First Instance, CFI)提出GMO禁令案 94
(三)、法國公民Pierre Azelvandre向歐洲法院ECJ控告法國當地政府不提供基改作物資料案 95
二、美國境內GMO相關爭端案例 96
(一)美國農民控告美國拜耳公司基改水稻LLRICE601污染案(2006年8月) 96
(二)、美國農民對拜耳稻米污染案再提出合併審理案(2008年5月) 96
(三)、美國法院裁決禁種基改苜蓿(2007年5月) 96
(四)、美國境內進行公投禁種案 97
第五章、歐盟與美國產生生技爭端的根源—外在因素 99
第一節、科技因素 99
第二節、非政府組織NGO在歐美GMO爭端案的角色 103
第三節、全球化的衝擊 107
第四節、道德因素 109
第六章、WTO爭端解決小組對歐美基改產品爭端案的裁決 111
第一節 本案主要爭議 111
第二節 本案歐盟對GMO產品之進口法規及程序 116
第三節、WTO 爭端小組對歐美基改產品爭端案的裁決及歐盟之執行 121
一、爭端小組的裁決(包含主要裁決、個別產品部份及歐盟會員國的防衛措施(Safeguard Measures)部分) 122
二、WTO爭端解決小組裁決歐盟所違反的條款 125
三、本案件涉及的主要法律層面問題 125
四、彙整列表爭端解決小組裁決內容及歐盟之執行 127
第四節、GMO案後續美國的策略評估 134
第七章、WTO機制解決歐盟與美國爭端案的成效 137
第一節、影響WTO裁決的因素 138
第二節、歐盟對WTO裁決的態度及執行成效 145
一、影響歐盟執行成效的因素 146
二、歐盟實際執行的成效 146
第三節、爭端解決小組裁決後美國對歐盟之後續執行成效,美歐雙方的辯論 149
第四節、美國貿易代表署關於GMO的具體行動 152
第五節、WTO對歐美基改產品爭端案裁決的執行總體成效評估 153
第八章、評估及展望 163
第一節、理論評估 163
一、WTO爭端解決機制與新自由制度主義之“制度”與“典則” 163
二、論文三項假設的評估 166
(1) 歐盟會執行WTO的裁決,而會員國不一定遵行;易言之,新自由制度主義的運用有其缺陷。 166
(2) 在歐盟與WTO的互動中,新現實主義仍有其運用的有效性。 166
(3) 從歐盟在WTO爭端解決的判決案中,國際法制化的效力仍有斟酌之處。 166
第二節、歐美基改產品爭端案的可能發展 169
第三節、生技議題與全球化 172
第四節、展望 175
第九章、結論 178
參考文獻 188
中文文獻 188
(一) 書籍 188
(二)期刊論文 188
英文文獻 189
名詞中英對照 194

表一 【裁決結果】WTO爭端裁決小組判決歐盟對美國21項GMO產品申請核准有不當遲延(違反SPS協定附件C(1)(a) 第一段及第8條規定) 57
表二 【美國GMO產品申請進口程序遭不當遲延內容】 59
表三 歐盟成員國奧地利、法國、德國、希臘、義大利及盧森堡等禁止GMO產品進口與銷售係違反WTO的SPS協定5.1條及2.2條及與5.7條不一致 61
表四 依據Council對GMO產品的投票區分各會員國的態度 69
表五 依據Directive 90/220指令核准釋出的GMO產品 104
表六 【裁決結果的執行--玉米類】 128
表七 【裁決結果的執行--油菜類】-基因改造油菜類 129
表八 【裁決結果的執行--棉花類】- 基因改造棉花類 130
表九 對六會員國以防衛條款實施GMO進口禁令的【裁決結果】 131
表十 對六會員國應取消GMO禁令的裁決結果的【執行】 132

圖一 研究架構圖 1
圖二 基改玉米值入蘇力菌蛋白 102

參考文獻 中文文獻
(一) 書籍
1. 牛惠之(2005),《WTO時代下基因改造食品之管理及相關國際法規問題之研究,行政院衛生署出版。
2. 牛惠之(2006),「WTO時代下基因改造食品標示規範之研究」,國立清華大學科技法律研究所出版。
3. 蔡政文(2005),《國際關係理論及其適用—台灣在全球化趨勢下的世界、區域與國家建構》,全球化趨勢下的世界、區域與國家建構研討會出版。
4. 牛惠之(2005),「WTO之SPS協定對於科學證據要求之研究(III) 歐盟生技產品案之研析」,行政院衛生署出版。
5. 王泰銓(2008),歐洲聯盟法總論,“WTO協定在歐盟之效力分析”, 137-153頁,台灣智庫出版
6. 洪德欽(2005),「WTO法律與政策專題研究」,新學林出版股份有限公司
7. 蔡政文(1987),《當前國際關係理論發展及其評估》,台北三民書局出版。
8. 蔡政文(1988),《政治學》,國立空中大學出版。
9. 蔡政文(1996),《突破對歐關係之策略-英、法、德篇》。
10. 蔡政文(1996),《國家發展大戰略》,國家發展研究文教基金會出版。
(二)期刊論文
1. 呂斯文(2005),「歐盟基因改造生物及其產品之技術指導綱領簡介」,《農情與農政期刊》,第155期,農委會國際處出版。167-170頁。
2. 翁秀綾(1997),「令人不安的基因操作食品」《生活者主張》No.34,35.11-12
3. 郭華仁(2009)、吳東傑, 「基改作物仍應謹慎應對」, 台灣經濟研究院生物科技產業研究中心出版。
4. 行政院衛生署公告,「行政院衛生署基因改造食品審議委員會設置要點」,九十二年。
5. 李素華(2004),「各國 GM 管理法規及比較—以美國、加拿大、歐盟、德國及我國為中心」,載於基因改造議題講座:從紛爭展望。
6. 林彩瑜,〈從歐體生技產品爭端之裁決論SPS 協定對GMO 規範之影響〉,《臺大法學論叢》,第36 卷,第4 期,頁257-323。
7. 許耀明(2007),「從WTO 生技產品案爭端解決小組報告看GMO 國際貿易中國際貿易法與國際環境法之衝突與解決可能」,《科技法學評論》,4 卷1 期,2007 年4 月,頁225-266
8. 黃慧嫻(2008),「奧地利全面實施GMO禁令可能使歐盟面臨WTO制裁」,《生技醫材報導》。
9. 廖唯寰(2008) ,曾大川, “歐盟-生技產品案之後續追蹤”,經貿法訊77期,12月。

英文文獻
1. Aaron A.Ostrovsky(2007),“Up Against a Wall: Europe’s Options for Regulating Biotechnology through Regulator Anarchy”, European Law Journal,vol.13.No.1, pp.110-134
2. Agriculture GMO Market Research Reports” By First Research, Inc. Feb. 9, 2009 http://www.marketresearch.com/browse.asp?categoryid=58&g=1 2009/2/14
3. Alison Abbott (2009), “European nations win right to ban GM crops”
4. Amicus Curiae Brief (2004), Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), pp. 19. European Communities – Measures Affecting the Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products (WT/DS/291, 292, and 293)”.
5. Andrea Dur(2007), “The EU in International Trade Negotiations”, JCMS, Volume 45. Number 4. pp.771-787, Cornel University
6. Antonis Antoniadis(2007), “Unilateral Measures and WTO Dispute Settlement: An EC Perspective”, Journal of World Trade,vol.no.41.3 pp.605-627
7. Aron, Raymond(1973), “Peace and War”, N.Y. Praeger Publishers
8. Arwel Davies(2007), “Connecting or compartmentalizing the WTO and United States legal systems? The role of the Charming Betsy Canon”, Publication Journal of International Economic Law 10 no1 117-49.
9. Bae Ji-sook(2008), “Seoul to Adopt EU-Style Food Testing Rule” , The Korea Times,
10. Belgium's Council of State suspends refusal of VIB's GM poplar field trial” Global Information Services for Seed Professionals (seed quest)(2008)
11. Bertrand Badie (2001), “Realism Under Praise, or a Requiem? The Paradigmatic Debate in International Relation”, International Plitical Science Review, vol. 22, No.3,pp.253-260
12. Bill Thomson (2009),“US Plan To Tolerate Unapproved GMOs In Crops Draws Concern”, Publication: Dow Jones.
13. Brian Parkin and Thomas Bauer (2008), “Germany Eases GM Crops, Angering Greens, Monsanto”
14. Brussels, Belgium(2009), “EU Environment Ministers Keep Bans on Transgenic Maize” , (ENS)
15. “CALIFORNIA: CA county bans GMO” Publication: Truth about Trade & Technology,(2008)
16. Cardoso, Fernando and Enzo Faletto (1979), “Dependency and Development in Latin America”, University of California.
17. Carr, Eh.(1951), “The Twenty Years Crisis 1919-1939”, (London: Maxmillan)
18. Christiane R. Conrad (2007), “The EC-Biotech dispute and applicability of the SPS Agreement: are the panel’s findings built on shaky ground? ” World Trade Review, pp.233-248, UK.
19. Clive Cookson(2009), “BASF develops alternative to GM crops”
20. Dave Toke(2007), “Risk, genetically modified food and the US/EU divide”, Int.J.Green Economics, Vol.1,.p407-418
21. David Byrn (2001), “ Proposal for a regulation on GM food and feed”, European Parliment, Brussels, 11
22. David Byrne(1999) , “ The European Commissioner for Health and Consumer Protection , Food: another ingredient in WTO Confernece: "GMOs, Food for Thought", organised by the Consumer Choice Council, Seattle.
23. David Byrne(2001), “A European approach to food safety and GMOs”, National Press Club, Washington D.C., Washington,
24. David Cullen(2003), “Europe group for consensus on GMO crops, Reuters news service”.
25. Directive(2001) EC of the European Parliament and the council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC﹐Official Journal of the European Communities﹐L106/1-38
26. Elze Matulionyte (2004), “Transatlantic GMO Dispute in the WTO: Will Europe further abstain from Frankenstein Foods?” (University Basel).
27. Eur Activ network (2007) “Eurobarometer: EU citizens gaining trust in biotech, except GM food”.
28. European Communities-Measures Affecting the approval and Marketing of Biotech Products. WT/DS291/R, WT/DS292/R& WT/DS293/R, World Trade Organization Panel (2006).
29. “EU's Vassiliou: no need to change GM zero tolerance”,Reuters news(2008).
30. “Experimental cotton seed in accidental mix”, Denver Post (2008).
31. FAlK,Richard (1975), “A Study of Future Worlds”, (N.Y. Free Press)
32. Gary Horlick & Judith Coleman(2007), “THE COMPLIANCE PROBLEMS OF THE WTO”, Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law Vol. 24, No. 1.
33. Gary Horlick & Judith Coleman (2007),“The Compliance problems of the WTO”, Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law Vol. 24, No. 1.
34. Gilpin Robert(1987), “The Political Economy of International Relations”(Princeton: Princeton University Press)
35. “GM acceptance 'simply a matter of time: EU”, US Farm Futures Magazine, 2009
36. “GM Crop Data Must Be Released To Public-EU Court”, Publication: Reuters, 2009
37. Grace Savides(2010), “Organic corn worries”, The Daily Lowan News, the University of Lowa Community. Atalanda.
38. Guidance document for the risk assessment of genetically modified plants and derived food and feed﹐6-7 March 2003﹐Prepared for the Scientific Steering Committee by the Joint Working Group on Novel Food and GMOs﹐Composed of members of the Scientific Committees on Plants, Food and Animal nutrition
39. Hobbes (1909), Thomas, Leviathan (Oxford University Press)
40. Hoffman Stanley(1977), “An American Social Science: International Relations”, Daedalus , p.41-60
41. Italian Minister Adolfo Urso urged the European Union on Thursday to step up research on genetically modified organisms”, 來源於ANS NEWS, 2008
42. James Kanter (2010), “E.U. Signals Big Shift on Genetically Modified Crops”, the New York Times, Green Inc. Column. May 9, 2010.
43. Jarvis, D. S.L (2000). “International Relations and the challenge of Postmodernism- Defending the Discipline”(South Carolinas)
44. Jeremy Smith(2008), “EU delays decision on approving more GM crops”, Publication: Reuters,. http://www.agbios.com/main.php?action=ShowNewsItem&id=9558
45. John Amponsah(2009), “Monsanto-Cargill promoting GM foods in Ghana”, Ghana Web.
46. John H. Jackson, The World Trade Organization: Constitution and Jurisprudence (London: The Royal Institute of International Affairs,1998) pp.89-100
47. John•H.Jackson(1994), “The Great 1994 Sovereignty Debate: United States Acceptance and Implementation of the Uruuay Round Results 1997(36)”.
48. Joseph M.Grieco(1993), “Understanding the Problem of International Cooperation: The Limits of Neoliberal Institutionalism and the Future of Realist Thory” The Contemporary Debate, edited by David Baldwin, New York: Columbia University Press
49. Judith Goldtein (2002), Mile Kahler, Roert O.Keohane,and Anne-Marie Slaughter: “Introduction:Legalization and World Politics”
50. Judy Carman (2009) , “ GM food safety testing is “woefully inadequate”, The Organic & Non-GMO Report.
51. Julio Godoy (2008), “GM Foods the Problem, Not the Solution”, Publication: IPS- Interpress Service.
52. Julio Godoy(2008), “GM foods the problem, Not the Solution”, IPS- Interpress Service.
53. Kant, Immanuel(1970), “Perpetual Peace” , in Kant’s Political Writings (1795), trans.11.13.Nisbet and ed. Hans Reiss(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)
54. Laura Crowley(2008) ,“French GM bill lays policy foundations” , Food Navigator.com.
55. Locke, John(1988), “Second Treaties” in Two Treaties on Government, ed. Peter Laslett(New York: Ca)In Two Treaties on Gambridge University Press.
56. M.P.C.M. Van Schendelen, “EU Committeesas Influential Policy makers” Ashgate Publıshıng Limited. England
57. Machiavelli, Niccolo (1950), The Prince and The Discourses trans Max Lerner(New York: Modern Library)
58. Margaret Cronin Fisk and Joe Whittington (2008) “Bayer Rice Contamination Suits Should Be Combined, Lawyers Say” Publication: Bloomberg.com.
59. Marx, Karl(1978), “On Imperialism in India”, R.C. Tucker ed. The Marx-Engels Reader (N.Y. W.W. Norton)
60. Michael Hogan(2008), “EU states should be able to stop GMO crops-Germany”, Forbes.
61. Morgenthau, Hans J(1973), “Politics Among Nations”, (New York: Alfred & Knopf, Inc.)
62. Murphy, Joseph (2006), Les, Levidow, and Susan , Carr, “Regulatory Standards for Environmental Risks: Understanding the US-European Union Conflict over Genetically Modified Crops”, Social studies of Science, 36(1): pp.133-160.
63. Obama uses recess appointment to install pro-GMO pro-pesticide lobbyist into key agricultural post ” Politics of the plate, 2010.
64. Panel Report European Communities-Measures Affecting the Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products, WTO Doc. WT/DS 291/R, WT/DS 292/R, WT/DS 293/R(2006)
65. Pauwelyn, Joost (2003), “Does the WTO stand for “Deference to” or “Interference with” National Health Authorities When applying the SPS agreement?”, Journal of European Law
66. Raj patel (2007), “Stuffed and Starved: Markets, power and the Hidden Battle for the World food system”, Portobello books LTD.
67. Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and the council of 22 March 2003 on genetic modified food and feed﹐Official Journal of the European Communities﹐(18/10/2003)﹐L 268/1-23
68. Regulation (EC) No 1830/2003 of the European Parliament and the council of 22 September 2003 on the traceability and labelling of genetically modified organisms and the traceability of food and feed products produced from genetically modified organisms and amending Directive 2001/18/EC﹐Official Journal of the European Communities﹐18/10/2003﹐L 268/24-28
69. Regulation (EC) No 258/97 of the European Parliament and the council of 27 January 1997 on novel food and novel food ingredients﹐Official Journal of the European Communities﹐L 043/1-6
70. Robert O.Keohane and Joseph S.Nye(2002), Power and Interdependence: World Politics in Transition(Boston:Litte,Brown and Co.)
71. Robert O.Keohane(1989), “International Institutions and State Power: Essays in International Relations Theory (London: Westview Press)
72. Robert O.Keohane(1995), “International Institutions: Two Approaches,”International Security, Vol20, No.1.
73. Roert O.Keohane & Lisa Martin(1995), “The Promise of International Institutions” no. 1.
74. Rousseau, Jean-Jacques (1917), “State of War” in A Lasting Peace through the Federation of Europe (London: Constable)
75. Sachio Nikaido(2008), Toshio Kawamura and Hiroshi Ikematsu , “U.S. shift to GM crops hits home / Trading houses struggle to buy soybeans that don't alarm consumers”, Yomiuri Shimbun Publication.
76. Sara J. MacLaughlin, “Food for The Twenty-First Century: An Analysis of Regulations for Genetically Engineered Food in The United States, Canada, and The European”, Indiana International and Comparative Law Review, 2003, P. 390-391
77. Smith, Adam, Wealth of Nations, ed. R.H. Cambell and A.S Skinner (Oxford: Oxford University press,1776/1976)
78. State of play on GMO authorisations under EU law﹐MEMO/03/221﹐Brussels, 7 (2003).
79. Stephan Haggard and Sylvia Maxfield (1996), “ The Political Economy of Financial internationalization in the Developing World”
80. Stephen Lendman (2009), “Unsafe Genetically Modified Food GMO Prikiferation Bills in the US Congress ”, Bal Research.ca for Research on Globalization.
81. Tomer Broude(2007), “Genetically modified rules: the awkward rule-exception-right distinction in EC-Biotech”, World Trade Review, 6:pp.215-231 Cambridge University Press.
82. “U.S. vs. EU : an examination of the trade issues surrounding genetically modified food.” Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology, 2003, pp. 35.
83. UN biosafety conference agrees in principle on liability deal”, by DPA (2008)
84. “US Plan To Tolerate Unapproved GMOs In Crops Draws Concern”, Publication: Dow Jones, (2009).
85. Waltz, Kennth(1959), “Man, the State, and War” (N. Y. Columbia university press)
86. William Surman(2008), “Trials to begin on GM potatoes”,FARMERS GUARDIAN.
87. Yves Tiberghien (2007), “Divesting Power-EC comitology and GMO Approvals”,, Markp Papic University.

WTO英文網站
1. EU ministers fail to approve 5 GM crops, commission likely to do so”Publication: EUObserver.com, February 19, 2008 http://euobserver.com/
2. Farmers Worry About Genetically Modified Rice Approval”Authorship: WASHINGTON, DC, May 21, 2007 (ENS) http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/dyna/gm_register/index_en.cfm
3. Germany Bans Cultivation of GM Corn, SPIEGEL”, 2009/4/16.
4. http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,618913,00.html
5. ISAAA(International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Application) 發表的商業性基改食品全球現狀Clive James , “Executive Summary of Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops”, ISAAA Briefs41-2009 , ISAAA(2009) Ithaca, NY.。
6. Syngenta does not market BT-11GE maize in the EU: Consumer resistance puts GM com on hold”, Press release of EurActiv 25 May 2004. Can be found at : http://www.euractiv.com/cgi-bin/cgint.exe/1185812-30?1&1011=index
7. World Trade Panel Sides with Biotech Food Producing Countries Authorship”,GENEVA, witzerland, February 9, 2006 (ENS) http://ens-newswire.com/ens/feb2006/2006-02-09-02.asp
8. WTO官方網站 http://www.wto.org/English/tratop_e/dispu_e/dispu_by_country_e.htm
9. 美國國際商會 http://www.americamember.org/usa/agriculture.htm

名詞中英對照
世界衛生組織(World Health Organization, WHO)
卡特赫那議定書(Cartagena Protocol)
地球之友(Friends of the Earth Europe)
有機貿易協會(The Organic Trade Association)
爭端解決規則與程序了解書(Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes, DSU)
科學家關懷聯盟(the Union of Concerned Scientists)
美國國家研究委員會(U.S. National Research Council)
美國國家科學院(U.S. National Academy of Science)
食物與飲水監管聯盟(Food and Water Watch)
食品藥物局(Food and Drug Administration, FDA)
消費者聯盟(Consumers Union)
歐洲食品安全管理局(European Food Safety Authority, EFSA)
歐盟初審法院(The Court of First Instance, CFI)
歐盟食品和飲料業聯盟(the Confederation of EU Food and Drink Industries, CIAA)
聯合國世界農糧組織(Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, FAO)及經濟合作暨發展組織(Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development, OECD)
論文使用權限
  • 同意紙本無償授權給館內讀者為學術之目的重製使用,於2010-08-09公開。
  • 同意授權瀏覽/列印電子全文服務,於2010-08-09起公開。


  • 若您有任何疑問,請與我們聯絡!
    圖書館: 請來電 (02)2621-5656 轉 2281 或 來信