WTO爭端解決機制一向被譽為皇冠上之珍珠，如今上訴機構陷入停擺危機，反而成為皇冠上之荊棘。過去數年來，美國運用WTO所要求之共識，屢次反對上訴機構成員之選任案，尤其是川普政府上台後更加強杯葛之力道。根據爭端解決規則暨程序瞭解書之規定，上訴案件最少由三名成員審理並作成裁決。然而2019年12月10日之後，上訴機構已無法正常運作。長期以來美國對上訴機構提出許多批評，包括系統性、實質性與程序性問題;反之，許多WTO會員則急於補實懸缺，而疏於處理美國關切之事項。根據爭端解決規則暨程序瞭解書第3...

The dispute settlement system, often considered as the “crown jewel” of the WTO, is in a present crisis and becomes the crown of thorns. Over the past years, the United States through the use of the WTO’s consensus requirements has successfully blocked the launch of a process to select the Appellate Body members. This is carried forward by the Trump administration. With a Settlement of Disputes Understanding (DSU) requirement that appeals be heard by three AB members, with the AB membership down to zero at the present time..

2013 年 1 月 22 日，菲律賓依據聯合國海洋法公約第 15 部分第 287 條與 附件 7 之規定，片面對中國啟動關於南海海洋管轄權爭端的強制仲裁程序。 在中國聲明拒絕接受及參與此一程序的情況下，仲裁庭在 2015 年 10 月 29 日宣判對本案之管轄權成立，並於同年 11 月完成實質問題階段的開庭審理，預定 2016 年 6 月以前作出判決。菲律賓有計畫地設計對中國九段線及歷史性權利主張的法律戰，試圖瓦解中國的南海主張，對該主張的合法性帶來極大的..

On January 22 2013, Philippines unilaterally initiated compulsory arbitral procedure against China, in accordance with Part XV, Article 287 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea ( UNCLOS ), concerning matters relating to their disputes over maritime jurisdiction in the South China Sea. China formally declared its objection against the procedure and refused to participate. Notwithstanding this circumstance, the Arbitral Tribunal established its jurisdiction on October 29 2015, and conducted hearings on merits ..

1965 年「解決國家與他國國民間投資爭端公約」創設國際投資爭端解決中心，建立以仲裁程序為主的投資人對地主國爭端解決機制，投資人無須仰賴母國行使外交保護權，得遂行投資人對地主國仲裁以落實國際投資條約之實體保障。惟對跨國投資之中小企業而言，鉅額仲裁費用形成仲裁利用途徑之障礙，不但妨礙中小企業投資保障實體權益之落實，更可能衝擊國際投資爭端解決機制去政治化之發展。國際投資仲裁程序費用，如仲裁機構規費，仲裁庭費用與法律服務費用，動輒達百萬美元以上。中小企業可能無力承..

The 1965 Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States (ICSID Convention) established the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) and affirmed the use of international arbitration as primary means for resolving disputes between foreign investors and host states. An aggrieved foreign investor no longer needs to rely upon its home state to invoke diplomatic protection once local remedies are exhausted in the host state, but could proceed with investor..