市場擾亂定義雖歷經STA、LTA暨MFA近半世紀的生成與演化，但中國入世市場擾亂的內涵，似乎未能完全反映上述協議的內容。尤其是中國入世工作小組報告書第二四二段（中國TTSS）根本未定義市擾亂一詞。中國TTSS對於市場擾亂空泛定義的後果，已致使中國成為全球紡品配額制度自由化之後，唯一受制於紡品配額的世貿會員。世貿會員的後續實踐突顯了解釋市場擾亂一詞的必要性。條約解釋必須充分反映而非臆測締約者之意圖。國際條約的適用與否需締約當事國在條約中賦予明文之意願表達，否則即必須藉爭端解決程序加以認定。本文發現，無論是STA、LTA、MFA甚至中國 TTSS 或者中國入世議定書第十六條（中國TPSSM）本身，均未訂有相互適用或互為補充之規範。此外，中國入世市場擾亂承諾係中國在充分意願外，對世貿會員的單道自我歧視性國際條約，中國早在八○年代即已切身經歷市場擾亂協議的實踐經驗，中國非但不是在無知下簽署市場擾亂承諾，並且早已預知所將遭致的可能衝擊。倘若中國政府意圖規避本身所承諾的不對等條約義務，則有違國際 條約必須遵守的神聖原則之虞；倘若中國學者意圖透過條約解釋工具，擅自強加市場擾亂限縮解釋義務於世貿會員，藉之限制世貿會員依法所享有的自由裁量權，不但有違DSU第3.2暨3.5條有關條約解釋不得剝奪或減損世貿會員權益之規範，更有違反條約的善意解釋原則之虞。

The text of treaty is merely an expression of the will of the parties. Its interpretation has to base on the investigation of the parties' intentions at the time of the adoption. A manifest acceptance or recognition by a State of international conventions, whether general or particular, is necessary before the convention can be applied to that State. Furthermore, a special meaning shall be given to a term if it is established that the parties so intended in accordance with the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. The meaning of "market Disruption" are well defined in the STA, LTA and MFA and TPSSM; nevertheless, paragraph 242 of the China's accession Working Party Report (Transitional Textile Specific Safeguard, TTSS) does not define this term. No contracting Parties manifest expressly their intentions to apply "Market disruption" defined in STA, LTA, MFA and TPSSM to TTSS. WTO Members have thus the sole discretion to determine the meaning of "market Disruption" described in TTSS. In determining the "Market disruption" of TTSS by means of the STA, LTA, MFA, and/or TPSSM is possible not only to frustrate the "Good Faith" of customary rules of interpretation of public international law, but also to threaten to diminish, nullify or impair, the WTO Members' rights and obligations derived from the paragraph 242, which could result in the violation of the article 3.2 and article 3.5 of DSU.