本文詳盡檢視WTO公共道德例外條款是否干涉各會員國擁有不同的價值觀念與評價標準。在條文釋義方面，本文首先釐清公共道德例外條款與其他例外概念的區別問題。在爭端案件的分析方面，「限制進口麥芽酒案」、「禁止提供網路賭博案」及「禁止採購緬甸商品案」均清晰呈現「公共道德」及「必要」等不確定法律概念所引發之「貿易與道德」的衝突界面。任何違反WTO義務或承諾的內國措施，必須擁有堅強的支持理由，始能背離自由貿易的精神。畢竟，當各會員國政府制訂善良風俗相關規範並以之爲由禁止或限制進出口時，該「道德管制」即成爲某特定管制目標之管制工具。倘不防止各會員濫用，空洞的道德訴求將威脅整體貿易體系之穩定運作。本文嘗試澄清所謂「保護『公共道德』所『必要』」，是「何地」的公共道德，「公共」所指之社群爲何，又對「誰」有必要等問題。在進行文義、論理及歷史解釋方法分析後，個人認爲公共道德例外條款之適用對象的地理界線應限於管制國的境內。WTO公共道德例外條款之認定標準顯應以實施進出口限制之國家（即援引道德管制之國家）對公共道德之觀念 爲標準。最後，觀察歷年來WTO法理對於「必要性」(necessity)概念之闡述，套用比例原則處理「貿易」與「非貿易」價值衝突的論證模式儼然成形。小組及上訴機構長期關於「必要性」所累積的實務見解，確立了該條款以司法爲核心的釋義架構。本文強調「道德水準」與「管制手段」之區辨，並認爲借用「比例原則」論證模式檢驗公共道德例外條款的結果，確實可維繫一定程度之價值的多元，但仍應注意幾項問題：第一，於判斷「同等有效」手段的過程中，能儘量尊重被控訴國對於手段之選擇權；第二，於「權衡原則」之評價過程中，應賦予「道德」較高的重要性；第三，應延續賭博案上訴機構的解釋，正確地切斷「諮商程序」與「合理可得的替代措施」二者之不當連結；第四，不分本國與外國服務（及服務提供者），嚴格執行禁制規定，始能達到保護效果。管制國不應藉由選擇性地執法而濫用道德例外條款。綜上，WTO「公共道德例外條款」應肩負調和「貿易」與「非貿易」價值之責，建立一個能尊重多元道德觀念的經貿規範體系。畢竟，貿易與道德之緊張關係愈低，愈能鞏固會員之互利基礎；一個能適度調和貿易與非貿易價值的精緻機制、能兼顧經濟效率與多元價值的法律解釋體系，顯有助於WTO獲得更大之貿易談判動能。

This article is a comprehensive overview of the Public Morals Exception in the WTO. From textual or plain meaning approach, the vagueness of those provisions gives rise to several questions. What type of behavior implicates public morals? Can public morals differ from country to country or is there a uniform international ”moral” standard for all WTO Members? These questions have been arisen in several litigations, e.g., ”Measures Affecting Alcoholic and Malt Beverages”,” Measures Affecting the Cross-Border Supply of Gambling and Betting Services”, and ”Measure Affecting Government Procurement. This article analyzes those disputes in order to discuss the conflict between trade and morality. Contextual interpretation approach and the negotiating history seem to reveal that ”public morals” should be interpreted according to national standards. However, allowing each Member to restrict imports based on its own definition of morality could disrupt trade. Therefore, although Members should be able to define public morals based solely on their internal circumstances, it is also significant to avoid the potential protectionist abuses and trade-regulatory inefficiencies. The clash between trade and morality is the center of this study so as to demonstrate whether and how trade restrictions may be used to promote moral goals. This article argues that the ”proportionality test” adopted by the Panels and Appellate Body to determine whether given trade measure is necessary to protect public morals may improperly impinges on the autonomy of the Members. The author therefore proposes an alternative doctrinal framework for ”the concept of proportionality” in the WTO law which would better protect Members' autonomy. First, from the methodological point of view, when comparing the measure to alternatives, we should be very careful in assuming that a measure is ”equally effective” in achieving the chosen level of protection because such a finding would significantly interfere with a Member's domestic regulatory choices. In addition, when we ”weight and balance” the non-economic values against the costs of the trade restriction, we should be careful in assuming that a measure is disproportionate because such a finding would imply that the Member reduces the level of protection of its legitimate interest. To conclude, we should preserve the essential core of national sovereignty implicated by issues of moral regulation in order to harmonize trade and non-trade values, to promote coherence in the international architecture, and to move liberalization forward.