澳大利亚平装烟草法案WTO争端解决案例评析

A Case analysis of Australian Plain Pack Tobacco Act WTO Dispute Settlement

成果信息
DC信息
传播影响力
本库下载频次:
本库浏览频次:
CNKI下载频次:0

归属院系：

国际法学院

作者：

董心怡

导师：

全小莲;隋宜径

导师单位：

国际法学院,国际法学院

学位：

硕士

语种：

中文

关键词：

澳大利亚烟草平装措施, TBT协定, 贸易限制, TRIPS协定, 公共健康

摘要：

2020年6月9日，WTO争端解决机构就澳大利亚烟草平装措施上诉一案做出了最终裁决。随着上诉机构报告的发布，历时8年的烟草控制措施争议有了最终定论。笔者以澳大利亚烟草平装措施案为基础，通过多种研究方法就烟草平装措施是否满足TBT协定第2.2条中实现合法目标的必要程度以及是否违反TRIPS协定第16.1条商标所有人专有权利和第20条特殊要求无理妨碍的规定进行研究，并试图探求符合国际现行规则的中国方案。本文主要分为五个部分，具体如下：第一部分是案例概述，该部分简要介绍了澳大利亚的烟草平装措施案的背景与内容、在WTO争端中的诉讼程序以及本案三个争议焦点。第二部分结合TBT协定第2.2条探讨烟草平装措施是否能够实现澳大利亚的合法目标、是否具有贸易限制性以及是否存在限制性更小的替代措施。通过分析认为澳大利亚并没有违反TBT协定第2.2条的规定。第三部分结合TRIPS协定第16.1条分析了商标权人对商标的使用是否受到争议措施的限制。首先，明确商标权的内涵，无论是TRIPS协定还是《巴黎公约》都没有明确赋予商标权人使用权，但确认了商标权人享有的防止未授权的第三人使用是“消极权利”。其次，第16.1条下WTO成员的义务。澳大利亚政府并不是第16.1条中所规制的“第三人”，不需要承担保证商标独特性的义务，只需在其国内法中为商标所有人提供救济途径。再次，澳大利亚政府以保护普通公众身体健康为目的，在考虑到本国烟草商合法权益的前提下，可以对烟草制品的包装和标识做出合理的例外规定。第四部分结合TRIPS协定第20条探讨烟草平装措施对烟草产品的包装和标签实行严格限制的特殊要求是否对商标权人的权利构成“不合理”妨碍。本部分以学者理论为支撑，结合实践中专家组和上组机构的观点认为澳大利亚的烟草平装措施对商标权人行使权利构成“妨碍”，但由于澳方政府是为保护国内公共健康而对TRIPS协定规定的权利义务在协定许可的范围内进行的灵活适用，存在一定“合理性”。尽管在某些情况下可能会出现至少导致同等贡献的替代措施，但并不会对烟草平装措施本身存在的“合理性”造成影响。第五部分是对中国控烟法律制度的启示。作为WHO成员国和FCTC缔约国，中国有义务维护公共健康。但就整体情况而言，中国还存在政府控烟角色冲突、现有烟草包装制度不够完善与严格等问题。因而应当立足我国控烟现状，探究中国未来的控烟立法之路。

提交日期：

2021-06-18

引用参考：

董心怡. 澳大利亚平装烟草法案WTO争端解决案例评析[D]. 西南政法大学,2021.

全文附件授权许可：

知识共享许可协议-署名

  • dc.title
  • 澳大利亚平装烟草法案WTO争端解决案例评析
  • dc.title
  • A Case analysis of Australian Plain Pack Tobacco Act WTO Dispute Settlement
  • dc.contributor.schoolno
  • 20190351021819
  • dc.contributor.author
  • 董心怡
  • dc.contributor.affiliation
  • 国际法学院
  • dc.contributor.degree
  • 硕士
  • dc.contributor.childdegree
  • 法律硕士专业学位
  • dc.contributor.degreeConferringInstitution
  • 西南政法大学
  • dc.identifier.year
  • 2021
  • dc.contributor.direction
  • 国际公法
  • dc.contributor.advisor
  • 全小莲,隋宜径
  • dc.contributor.advisorAffiliation
  • 国际法学院,国际法学院
  • dc.language.iso
  • 中文
  • dc.subject
  • 澳大利亚烟草平装措施,TBT协定,贸易限制,TRIPS协定,公共健康
  • dc.subject
  • the measures of tobacco plain packaging in Australia; public health; Trade restriction; TBT Agreement; TRIPS Agreement;
  • dc.description.abstract
  • 2020年6月9日，WTO争端解决机构就澳大利亚烟草平装措施上诉一案做出了最终裁决。随着上诉机构报告的发布，历时8年的烟草控制措施争议有了最终定论。笔者以澳大利亚烟草平装措施案为基础，通过多种研究方法就烟草平装措施是否满足TBT协定第2.2条中实现合法目标的必要程度以及是否违反TRIPS协定第16.1条商标所有人专有权利和第20条特殊要求无理妨碍的规定进行研究，并试图探求符合国际现行规则的中国方案。本文主要分为五个部分，具体如下：第一部分是案例概述，该部分简要介绍了澳大利亚的烟草平装措施案的背景与内容、在WTO争端中的诉讼程序以及本案三个争议焦点。第二部分结合TBT协定第2.2条探讨烟草平装措施是否能够实现澳大利亚的合法目标、是否具有贸易限制性以及是否存在限制性更小的替代措施。通过分析认为澳大利亚并没有违反TBT协定第2.2条的规定。第三部分结合TRIPS协定第16.1条分析了商标权人对商标的使用是否受到争议措施的限制。首先，明确商标权的内涵，无论是TRIPS协定还是《巴黎公约》都没有明确赋予商标权人使用权，但确认了商标权人享有的防止未授权的第三人使用是“消极权利”。其次，第16.1条下WTO成员的义务。澳大利亚政府并不是第16.1条中所规制的“第三人”，不需要承担保证商标独特性的义务，只需在其国内法中为商标所有人提供救济途径。再次，澳大利亚政府以保护普通公众身体健康为目的，在考虑到本国烟草商合法权益的前提下，可以对烟草制品的包装和标识做出合理的例外规定。第四部分结合TRIPS协定第20条探讨烟草平装措施对烟草产品的包装和标签实行严格限制的特殊要求是否对商标权人的权利构成“不合理”妨碍。本部分以学者理论为支撑，结合实践中专家组和上组机构的观点认为澳大利亚的烟草平装措施对商标权人行使权利构成“妨碍”，但由于澳方政府是为保护国内公共健康而对TRIPS协定规定的权利义务在协定许可的范围内进行的灵活适用，存在一定“合理性”。尽管在某些情况下可能会出现至少导致同等贡献的替代措施，但并不会对烟草平装措施本身存在的“合理性”造成影响。第五部分是对中国控烟法律制度的启示。作为WHO成员国和FCTC缔约国，中国有义务维护公共健康。但就整体情况而言，中国还存在政府控烟角色冲突、现有烟草包装制度不够完善与严格等问题。因而应当立足我国控烟现状，探究中国未来的控烟立法之路。
  • dc.description.abstract
  • On June 9,2020, the Appellate Body of the World Trade Organization delivered its final decision in the Australian tobacco paperback measure case. With the release of the Appellate Body’s report, the eight-year-old controversy over tobacco control measures has reached its final conclusion. Based on the case of the Australian tobacco paperback measure, through empirical analysis, normative analysis, comparative analysis and other research methods, to study whether the tobacco packaging measures meet the extent necessary to achieve the legitimate objectives of Article 2.2 of the TBT agreement, and whether they are in violation of the exclusive rights of trademark owners under Article 16.1 of the TRIPS Agreement and the unjustifiable obstruction of the special requirements of Article 20, and tries to seek the Chinese plan which conforms to the international present rule. This article is divided into five parts, as follows:The first part is an overview of the case, which briefly introduces the background and content of Australia's tobacco paperback measure case, the proceedings in WTO disputes and the three main points of dispute in this case.The second part explores whether tobacco packaging measures can achieve Australia’s legitimate objectives, whether they are trade restrictive and whether less restrictive alternative measures exist in the context of Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement. The analysis shows that Australia has not violated Article 2.2 of TBT Agreement.The third part analyses whether the use of trade marks is restricted by the Australian tobacco paperback measure in the light of Article 16.1 of the TRIPS agreement. First of all, the connotation of trademark right is clear. Neither the TRIPS Agreement nor the Paris Convention explicitly endows the trademark owner with the right to use the trademark, but it confirms that the trademark owner has a kind of “Negative right”to prevent the third party from using the trademark right. Second, the obligations of WTO members under Article 16.1. The Australian government is not a “Third party”as regulated in Section 16.1 and is not obliged to guarantee the uniqueness of the trademark, but only to provide remedies to the trademark owner in its domestic law. Thirdly, with the aim of protecting the health of the general public, the Australian government may make reasonable exceptions to the packaging and labelling of tobacco products, taking into account the legitimate rights and interests of the country’s tobacco traders.The fourth part discusses whether the special requirement that the packaging and labelling of tobacco products be strictly restricted by the measures of tabacco papering constitutes an “Unreasonable”impediment to the rights of trademark owners in the light of Article 20 of TRIPS. In this part, based on the theory of scholars and the views of the expert group and the last group, the author holds that the tobacco paperback measure in Australia constitutes an “Impediment”to the exercise of the rights of trademark owners, but because the Australian government is for the protection of domestic public health, the rights and obligations under TRIPS agreement are applied flexibly within the scope permitted by the agreement, there is some “Rationality”. While in some cases there may be alternative measures that lead to at least an equivalent contribution, this does not affect the “Reasonableness”of the existence of the tobacco paperback measure itself.The fifth part is the inspiration to China’s tobacco control legal system. As a member of WHO and a party to FCTC, China has an obligation to safeguard public health. However, as a whole, there are still some problems in China, such as the conflict of government’s role in tobacco control, the imperfect and strict tobacco packaging system, etc. . Therefore, we should base on the current situation of tobacco control in China and explore the way of tobacco control legislation in the future.
  • dc.date.issued
  • 2021-06-10
  • dc.date.oralDefense
  • 2021-06-05
回到顶部