尽管一般国际法某些规则或原则可以用来作为法律推理的依据，但这些规则和原则不能被视为直接适用的和具有约束力的”规范“本身。也即是说，这些非WTO国际法规则可以附加或补充，但不能取代WTO规则，WTO专家组和上诉机构只能在解决争端的必要范围内使用它们。实际上，WTO裁决机构对一般国际法规则和原则的利用并不是无条件的。显然这些一般国际法规则和原则最终只是对WTO规定的适用提供指导，因为它们不是实体规则，其对争端解决结果发挥的影响不大。事实上可以说它们是属于每一法律制度正常运作而必须纳入的一种规则。鉴于它们主要侧重于证据或程序方面，这些规则和原则很容易适应不同的法律秩序，协助WTO实体规范的适用和执行。（注：与此相反，在实体国际法的不同领域，如环境法和人权法规则，不容易使自己适应，而且很可能造成规则冲突。可以预见，在WTO争端解决中这些都远没有那么重要。非WTO国际法的实体规则充其量只是被作为解释和适用WTO规则的一部分使用，只是被援引来证明WTO贸易规则的某些例外。截至目前，在WTO争端解决中，尚未有任何环境法的规定与WTO的规定一并适用，甚至推翻WTO的实体法。（参见：Anja Lindroos & Michael Mehling. Dispelling the Chimera of ”Self-Contained Regimes“ International Law and the WTO[J]. European Journal of International Law, Vol.16, No.5, 2005:877.）
【作者简介】
许楚敬，华南师范大学法学院副教授。
【注释】Gabrielle Marceau. A Call for Coherence in International Law-Praises for the Prohibition Against “Clinical Isolation” in WTO Dispute Settlement. Journal of World Trade, 1999, 33 （5）:107.
Joost Pauwelyn. The Role of Public International Law in the WTO: How Far Can We Go？. American Journal of International Law, 2001, 95 （3）:538.
Joost Pauwelyn. Conflict Norms in Public International Law: How WTO Law Relates to Other Rules of International Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003:25-26.
Legality of the Use by a State of Nuclear Weapons in Armed Conflict. ICJ, Advisory Opinion, Preliminary Objections, 1996.
Anja Lindroos. Addressing Norm Conflicts in a Fragmented Legal System: The Doctrine of Lex Specialis. Nordic Journal of International Law, 2005（74）: 30-31.
Bruno Simma & Dirk Pulkowski. Of Planets and the Universe: Selfcontained Regimes in International Law. European Journal of International Law, 2006：17 （3）: 492.
Joost Pauwelyn. Enforcement and Countermeasures in the WTO: Rules Are Rules - Toward a More Collective Approach. American Journal of International Law, 2000, 94 （2）: 335, 336.
John H. Jackson. Fragmentation or Unification among International Institutions: International Law and Politics. Journal of International Law and Politics, 1999, 31 （4）: 828-829.
US-Standards for Reformulated and Conventional Gasoline. WT/DS2/AB/R.
Yuval Shany. The Competing Jurisdictions of International Courts and Tribunals. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003:185-186.
Report of the Study Group on Fragmentation of International Law. UN Doc. A/CN.4/L.628, 2002.
The Study Group of the ILC. Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties Arising from the Diversification and Expansion of International Law. Finalized by Martti Koskenniemi, A/CN.4/L.682, 2006.
Sungjoon Cho. WTO’s Identity Crisis. （2009-07-26）.http://ssrn.com/abstract=988775.
Joost Pauwelyn. How to Win a World Trade Organization Dispute Based on Non-World Trade Organization Law？ Questions of Jurisdictions and Merits. Journal of World Trade, 2003, 37 （6）:1028-1029.
Pascal Lamy. The Place of the WTO and Its Law in the International Legal Order. European Journal of International Law, 2006, 17 （5）:981.
Anja Lindroos and Michael Mehling. Dispelling the Chimera of “Self-Contained Regimes” International Law and the WTO. European Journal of International Law, 2005, 16 （5）:875.
Gabrielle Marceau. Conflicts of Norms and Conflicts of Jurisdictions: The Relationship between the WTO Agreement and MEAs and other Treaties. Journal of World Trade, 2001, 35 （6）:1103.
Joel P. Trachtman. The Domain of WTO Dispute Resolution. Harvard International Law Journal, 1999, 40 （2）: 361.
Daya Shanker. The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, the Dispute Settlement System of the WTO and the Doha Declaration on the TRIPs Agreement. Journal of World Trade, 2002, 36 （4）: 735.
Lorand Bartels. Applicable Law in WTO Dispute Settlement Proceedings. Journal of World Trade, 2001, 35 （3）:511.
