美國位居全世界經濟體的龍頭地位，早已於1994年與加拿大、墨西哥簽署北美自由貿易協定（North American Free Trade Agreement，NAFTA）；其已成為FTA之典範。NAFTA第二十章名為「機構安排與爭端解決程序」（Institutional Arrangements and Dispute Settlement Procedures），為國與國爭端解決重要條款。而日本與墨西哥亦於2004年9月簽署FTA，並已於2006年4月生效。在NAFTA及日墨FTA中，均制定有爭端解決專章，以處理國家對國家爭端解決機制。國家對國家爭端解決機制之設立，主要意在促使協定履行的實效性，並非僅作為爭端解決的手段；是以，有必要對於NAFTA及日墨FTA等作一分析。 本文共分為五章，其內容包括：一、前言；二、爭端解決機制之適用範圍與程序選擇；三、爭端解決程序之比較；四、結語等。第二章部份，擬就NAFTA與日墨FTA兩協定爭端之適用範圍與程序選擇作一分析；第三章部分，本文擬就磋商、要求成立仲裁解決小組、仲裁小組選定、仲裁的爭端解決小組組成與運作、專家聽證程序等作一說明。本文根據各章節作一初步分析，初步結論為：（一）從條文觀之，NAFTA與日墨FTA兩協定爭端之適用範圍與程序選擇大致相同；（二）日墨FTA的爭端解決專章在許多方面，包含仲裁庭的組成與運作、仲裁程序及專家聽證等，均未似NAFTA有詳細之規定，為其不足之處。

NAFTA’s Chapter 20, entitled “Institutional Arrangements and Dispute Settlement Procedures”, is an important dispute settlement mechanism governing State-State Disputes Settlement. Article 2005(1) of NAFTA provides that disputes that arise in connection to both treaties. This paper is to elucidate the legal mechanism, and to compare the regulatory framework of State-State Disputes Settlement between NAFTA and Japan-Mexico FTA. It focuses on status of scope of application, dispute settlement procedures. Part Ⅰ explains the scope of application. Part Ⅱ discusses the regulations of dispute settlement procedures, for example Consultation, Request for an Arbitral Panel, Panel Selection, Role of Experts and Scientific Review Boards. Part describes the deference oⅢf procedures between NAFTA and Japan-Mexico FTA. The conclusions are the procedures between the Chapter 20 of NAFTA and the Chapter 15 of Japan-Mexico FTA are almost the same and are applicable to all disputes regarding the interpretation of application of the NAFTA. The Regulations of dispute settlement procedures in NAFTA are clear than Japan-Mexico FTA, for example, Qualifications of Panelists, Panel Selection, Role of Experts and Scientific Review Boards.