近十年來，當環保問題逐漸成為國際間重要的議題時，貿易措施的工具性也就日益明顯，不僅國際協定中納入貿易條款以鼓勵各國參與，個別國家亦採取貿易措施以解決本國的環境問題。以美國而言，在環保問題上運用貿易手段來推動，以提昇貿易對手國之環保標準，已經成為其一種固定之模式；至於美國法制下最值得重視的環保貿易措施（ETMS ）應為「培利修正案」, 此法案制訂於一九五四年，歷經修正，主要內容在賦予美國總統貿易制裁權，即在經商務部或內政部認定某國國民有違反國際漁業保育行為，或從事買賣或獵取瀕臨絕種野生物致危及國際合作時，得禁止該國之任何產品輸入美國。 一九九四年，美國即以「培利修正案」抵制我國五大項動植物產品輸往美國，造成我國經濟及國際形象極大的損失。本文首先即對美國「培利修正案」做一完整的探討，包括其立法簡史、條文規範以及適用情形，其中並針對美國援引「培利修正案」對我國實施貿易制裁一案進行個案研究，且參照關稅暨貿易總協定（GATT）現行規範（例如第一條最惠國待遇原則、第三條國民待遇原則以及第廿條之第一及第三條之例外規定）與爭端解決小組實務（例如美國禁止鮪魚進口以及泰國禁止香煙進口及課徵內地稅案），對美國實施片面貿易制裁之適法性，做一評述。質言之，美國培利修正案擴大其制裁對象範圍為「任何」產品，（亦即採取製造方法標準），而非「類似」產品，似已違反GATT第三條之國民待遇原則。按該條規範的國民待遇的重點為以針對「類似」產品提供相同規範為基礎，亦即以產品本身為準，而非以製程為準，否則第三條將被扭曲為一項產品之原產國政策規定。基於其域外管轄之性質，培利條正案亦不符合GATT第廿條之例外規定。此外，美國率爾實施進口設限，而不考慮其他替代措施以制裁我國，並未能視為欲達成其執行國際保育協定目標之「必要」措施。 最後，本文試行提出政府有效因應培利修正案之建議，例如對相關業者提供紓困方案，盡力爭取透過美國覆查程序取消貿易制裁，以及儘早加入世界貿易組織（WTO），俾善用其較GATT強化之爭端解決程序，尋求多邊救濟。

　　　　　In the last ten years, while environment protection became an important international issue gradually, the nature of trade measure as the tool for environment protection has become more obvious in the meantime. Not only there are trade clauses being enacted into the international agreements so as to encourage every country's participation, but also individual state adopted trade measures to resolve its domestic environment problems. As to the United States, it is a fixing pattern for the States to use trade measure to promote and enhance its tradeing partners' environmental standard regarding the enviroment problems. Among them, Pelly Amendment is the most notable environmental trade measure, which restricts on importation of any product from countries which violate international fishery or endangered or threatened species programs. This article discusses the U.S. Pelly Amendment in detail at first, including its legislature brief, legal provision and its practice. Then, it focuses on the U.S. trade sanction against Taiwan, R.O.C. according to the Pelly Amendment in 1994. As a case study, this article challenges the soundness and legitimacy of U.S. unilateral trade sanction under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) , i.e. Art.I (most-favored nation treatment), Art.Ⅲ (national treatment) and Art.XX (exceptions to Art. I & Art.Ⅲ) and the GATT Dispute Settlement Panel's decisions, such as those of U.S. restrictions on Imports of Tuna and Thailand's restrictions on importation and internal taxes on cigarette, etc.. Generally speaking, the U.S. Pelly Amendment seems to contradict Art.Ⅲ of GATT, since it broadens its import restriction application scope to “any” product (i.e. to adopt the production process standard) but not the “like” product. The focus of the Art.Ⅲ obligation for national treatment is based on offering identical regulation for “like” products, implying a focus on the product itself, and not on the production process. It also doesn't fall into the exceptions provided by Art.XX of GATT because of its extrajurisdictional nature. In addition, there is not much persuation that the U.S. unilateral trade sanctions against Taiwan, R.O.C. is “necessary” to achieve its desired goal. Finally, this article tries to make some suggestions for our government to effectively response to the U.S. trade sanctions, e.g. to offer plans to help our manufacturers concerned, to strike for termination of such trade sanctions by U.S. review procedure and to make efforts to accede the World Trode Organization (WTO), in order to properly utilize the strengthend dispute settlement mechanism compared with the GATT, to ask for multilateral relief.