国际法是一种动态的法律制度。解释者在适用维也纳公约第31 (3) (c）条时，究竟应援用缔约时有效的国际法规则，还是也可兼顾法律的后来演变，一般取决于条约规定的含义。此外，条约某一项规定的含义也可受后来发展情况的影响，尤其是条约所用的概念本身是未定的或演变的，则可考虑被解释的条约自其产生以后出现的国际法规则。在下述情况下尤其如此：(1)该概念暗示须考虑后来的技术、经济或法律发展情况；(2)该概念为缔约方规定了进一步逐渐发展的义务；或者(3)该概念具有非常一般的性质、或者是以必须考虑情况变化的那类一般性用语表述的。[72]具体到WTO方面，至少是符合上述第三种情况的。GATT/WTO体制已经发展了半个多世纪，许多规定必须回应国际贸易和国际法律制度随后的发展，“与时俱进”，适当容纳一些概念最新发展的含义，才能使WTO法充满活力，否则将导致其“机体老化”。
最后，为了防止演变解释可能导致“司法造法”，可以采用正确的方法。首先适用条约谈判时的国际法的含义，确定其“最初的现实”，[73]然后遵循正常的条约解释规则，确定使用的用语是否具有美国-虾案上诉机构的报告所提到的“演变的”特征，以及在发生争端时法律上其含义又是什么。无论如何，在WTO争端解决中，在解决争端的必要范围内采用演变解释的方法，也是因应“情势变迁”、避免WTO规则的用语与其后发展和演变的非WTO规则之间的潜在冲突或不一致的一个可行的路径。
【作者简介】
许楚敬，单位为华南师范大学。
【注释】本文将WTO规则与非WTO规则之间的冲突称为“跨WTO体制的规则冲突”，以别于WTO体制内不同规则之间的冲突。
See Joost Pauwelyn, “How to Win a World Trade Organization Dispute Based on Non-World Trade Organization Law? Questions of Jurisdic-tions and Merits”, 37 Journal of World Trade (2003)，pp.1020-1028.
Joost Pauwelyn, “WTO Compassion or Superiority Complex?: What to Make of the WTO Waiver for‘Conflict Diamonds”''，24 MichiganJournal of International law (2003)，p.906.
See Gabrielle Marceau＆Anastasios Tomazos, “Comment on Jost Pauwelyn'' s Paper:‘How to Win a WTO Dispute Based on Non-WTOLaw? ”''，in Griller Stefan, At the Crossroads：The World Trading System and the Doha Round, Vienna: Springer, 2008, p.73.
See note，p.74.
See Gabrielle Marceau, “Conflicts of Norms and Conflicts of Jurisdictions, The Relationship between the WTO Agreement and MEAs and oth-er Treaties”, 35 Journal of World Trade (2001)，pp. 1099-1100.
《世界人权宣言》第25条。
《经济、社会和文化权利国际公约》第11条。
See note，p.1106.
See Joel P. Trachtman, “The Domain of WTO Dispute Resolution”, 40 Harvard International Law Journal (1999)，p.368.
See Report of the Study Group of the ILC, Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties Arising from the Diversification and Expansion ofInternational Law, U.N. Doc. A/CN. 4/L. 682, 13 April 2006, paras.24-25.
Gabrielle Marceau, “A Call for Coherence in International Law-Praises for the Prohibition Against `Clinical Isolation'' in WTO DisputeSettlement”, 33 Journal of World Trade (1999)，p.105.
See Gabrielle Marceau. “WTO Dispute Settlement and Human Rights”. 13 European Journal of International Law (2002) ．pp.774-775.
See Wolfgang Weiss, “Security and Predictability under WTO Law”, 2 World Trade Review (2003)，pp.201-202.
See Anja Lindroos, “Addressing Nonn Conflicts in a Fragmented Legal System: The Doctrine of Lex Specialis”，74 Nordic Journal of Inter-national Law (2005)，p.34.
Joost Pauwelyn, Conflict of Norms in Public International Law: How WTO Law Relates to other Rules of International Law, Cambridge: Cam-bridge University Press, 2003, p.11．
See Joel P. Trachtman, “Book Review of Conflict of Norms in Public International Law: How WTO Law Relates to Other Rules of Interna-tional Law by Joost Pauwelyn”, 98 American Journal of International Law (2004)，p.856.
See William W. Burke-White, “International Legal Pluralism”, 25 Michigan Journal of International Law (2004)，p.965.
See Georges Abi-Saab, “Fragmentation or Unification: Some Concluding Remarks”，31 Journal of International Law and Politics（1999)，P.925.
See note，p.33.
See note，p.33.
See Khi V. Thai, Dianne Rahm, Jerrell D. Coggbum, Handbook of Globalization and the Environment，Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press,2007, p.194.
See note，p.194.
See note，pp.1095-1096.
See note，p.195.
See note，p.198.
See note，pp.200-201．
Asif H. Qureshi, “International Trade and Human Rights from the Perspectives of the WTO”, in Friedl Weiss, Erik Denters＆Paul deWaart, International Economic Law with a Human Face，The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 1998, p.159.
See note，p.1105.
See Donald M. McRae, “The WTO in International Law: Tradition Continued or New Frontier?”, 3 Journal of International Economic Lau(2000)，p.27.
See Eric Stein, “International Integration and Legitimacy: No Love at First Sight”, 95 American Journal of International Law (2001），p.504
See John H. Jackson, “Reflections on International Economic Law”, 17 U. Pa. J. International Economic Law (1996)，p.25.
See EC-Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones)，WT/DS26/AB/R, WT/DS48/AB/R, para. 177.
See Steve Charnovitz, “The Supervision of Health and Biosafety Regulation by World Trade Rules”, 13 Tulane Environmental Law Journal(2000)，pp.282-283.
参见王虎华等：《WTO的法律框架与其他制度性安排的冲突与融合》，载《法学》2003年第7期。
See Haochen Sun, “The Road to Doha and Beyond: Some Reflections on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Healtl，’，15 European Journal ofInternational law (2004)，p.124.
See note，p.130.
See Audrey R. Chapman, “The Human Rights Implications of Intellectual Property Protection”，5 Journal of International Economic Lau(2002)，p. 866.
Elissa Alben, “GATT and the Fair Wage: A Historical Perspective on the Labor-Trade link”, 101 Columbia Law Review (2001），pp.1430-1431.
See note，pp.1432-1433
WT/MIN（96）/DEC/W of 13 Dec. 1996.
《北美自由贸易协定》（NAFTA）是第一个明确涉及劳工权益的区域贸易协定。参见陈丽丽：《国际贸易—劳工问题的历史、冲突和应对》，载《国际贸易问题》2004年第5期。
See note，fn.60．
2001年美国与约旦签订的《美国-约旦自由贸易协定》，是美国第一个涵盖劳工标准的双边自由贸易协定。参见余云霞：《国际劳工标准：演变与争议》，社会科学文献出版社2006版，第188页。
See Elisabeth Cappuyns, “Linking Labor Standards and Trade Sanctions: An Analysis of Their Current Relationship”, 36 Columbia Journalof Transnational Law (1998)，p.677.
See Pascal Lamy, “The Place of the WTO and its Law in the International Legal Order”，17 European Journal of International Law (2006)，p.983.
参见唐旗：《从剑鱼争端看“贸易与环境之争”新动向》，载《武汉大学学报（哲学社会科学版）》2007年第1期。
See Federico Ortino, “Treaty Interpretation and the WTO Appellate Body Report in US-Gambling: A Critique”，9 Journal of International E-conomic Law (2006)，p.148.
有关论述，详见廖诗评：《条约冲突的基本问题及其解决方法》，载《法学家》2010年第1期。
See note，p.982.
See note，p.339.
See Permanent Court of International Justice, PCIJ (1922)，Series B, Nos. 2 and 3, p.23: Competence of the I. L. O. to Regulate Agricul-tural Labour.
See ICJ Rep. 1951, p.15: Reservations to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide; ICJ Rep. 1952,pp.196-199: Case Concerning Rights of United States Nationals in Morocco; ICJ Rep. 1953, p.10: Ambatielos Case
See Report of the Study Group of the ILC, Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties Arising from the Diversification and Expansion ofInternational Law, Finalized by Martti Koskenniemi, A/CN. 4/L. 682, 13 April 2006, paras.423.
See note，p. 1089.
例如，在加拿大-期刊案、欧共体-香蕉案（三）和印度尼西亚-汽车案中，国际法推定为不冲突的方法被专家组和上诉机构用来处理WTO各项规定之间出现的冲突。
See US-Section 110 (5) of the US Copyright Act, WT/DS160/R, para.6.66, 6.70
See note，p.206.
See Conclusions of the Work of the Study Group on the Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties Arising from the Diversification andExpansion of International Law, Adopted by the International Law Commission at its Fifty-eighth session, A/CN.4/L.702, 18 July 2006, paras.17－18.
See note，pp.211-212.
See note，pp.130-131.
See note，p.1099.
See note，para.21.
See note，p.134.
See note，p.57.
See Ian Sinclair, The Vienna Conventiononthe Law of Treaties, Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1984, p.139.
国际法院在某些案件中利用了“演变的”的方法，比如，在加布奇科沃-大毛罗斯工程项目（匈牙利／斯洛伐克）案中，国际法院指出：“……条约不是静止的，而是开放的，以适应新出现的国际法规范。”See Case Concerning the Gabctkovo-Nagy-maros Project (Hungary/Slovakia)，(1997) ICJ Reports, p.7, para.112.
United States－Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products, WT/DS58/AB/R, para. 130.
Namibia (Legal Consequences) Advisory Opinion, ICJ Reports 1971，p.31
See Michael Lennar, “Navigating By The Stars: Interpreting The WTO Agreements”, 5 Journal of International Economic Law (2002)，p.17.
See note．
See note，para.22-23.
See Ian Sinclair, The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1984, p. 139.
