top of page

文化例外 | Cultural exception

文化是一種內涵,是一種底蘊,沒辦法偽裝

民國100年(主曆2011年)12月7日,《金剛演習》金門戰役口述歷史訪談,金剛戰神熊震球上士模擬民國38年10月25日清晨,手握白朗寧M1919機槍,配上裝有.30 春田步槍彈的布彈帶,行臥射射擊。
民國100年(主曆2011年)12月7日,《金剛演習》金門戰役口述歷史訪談,金剛戰神熊震球上士模擬民國38年10月25日清晨,手握白朗寧M1919機槍,配上裝有.30 春田步槍彈的布彈帶,行臥射射擊。

文化例外


文化例外(法語:l'exception culturelle)是民國82年(主曆1993年)由法國於關稅暨貿易總協定(General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, G.A.T.T.)談判中所提出的一項政治概念,目的在將文化與其它商業產品做出區別對待。換言之,其目的是要將文化產品與服務視為國際條約與協定的例外,尤其是指與世界貿易組織(WTO)。其目標乃是指出在文化自由貿易的限制條件下,國家擁有確保及推廣該國藝術家及其文化的相關特色元素的主權。具體來說,藉由保護主義的措施(配額)限制外國藝術作品的散播或根據該國文化政策所分配的補貼都可以看出。


關稅暨貿易總協定談判(民國82年|主曆1993年)


民國81年(主曆1992年),部份國家在烏拉圭回合(Uruguay Round)的最終談判期間裡,表達了他們對於GATT 關於文化產品與服務的原則施行「將優先考慮商業方面,而損害其文化特異性(與獨特地位)」的擔憂。

「文化例外」的目的在於將文化與服務跟其它貿易商品與服務做出區別對待,因為文化產品與服務與它們之間存在著本質上的差異。許多國家捍衛了此一事實,即文化產品與服務所涵蓋的價值、認同與意義遠遠超過了其確切的商業價值。

這尤其使得法國得以保留配額和補貼制度,以保護其文化市場免受其它國家的文化產品之影響,特別是來自美國的電視與廣播節目


南韓支持其本國電影產業的政策則是文化例外用來保護視聽產業的另一個範例。

一開始的辯論主要在於視聽產品身上,接著在WTO 自由化的進程中,每個國家自行決定針對哪些領域與行業進行鬆綁。截至民國98年(主曆2009年),視聽服務是WTO會員國做出承諾最少的領域,共計30國。


民國83年|主曆1994年 北美自由貿易協定


民國83年(主曆1994年),加拿大在北美自由貿易協定裡納入了文化豁免條款。


多邊投資協定

此乃經濟合作暨發展組織(Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, OECD)成員國於民國84-87年(主曆1995-98年)間談判所達成的協議草案,多邊投資協定(Multilateral Agreement on Investment, MAI)宣稱其目的是為了要發展多邊規則以確保國與國之間的國際投資能以更有系統及統一的方式來管理。在該條約批評者發起激烈的全球性抗議MAI運動後,負責主辦的法國於民國87年(主曆1998年)宣布不支持該協定,而基於經濟合作暨發展組織的共識程序,有效地阻止了該協定的通過。法國政府認同尊重文化差異乃是法國支持該協定的基本條件。


法國的文化例外

法國實行「文化例外」政策相當出名,而其立場有時會招致批評。該政策是由安德烈-馬勒侯(Georges André Malraux)於二次世界大戰後擔任法國首任文化部長任內施行,在每個文化領域內針對創意作品均有自動補貼機制。該措施的例子之一便是法國國家電影中心(Centre national du cinéma et de l'image animée),它向電影售票徵稅,然後利用這些資金來幫助法國電影的製作與發行。這些保護措施的另一個例子是《視聽法》(Loi sur l'audiovisuel),舉例來說該法規定「廣播電台必須播放四成的法國歌曲,且此限額中必須有兩成的新秀之作。」此一政策對法國的影響可由民國94-100年(主曆2005-2011年)間的數字看出,跟其它歐洲電影市場有六成到九成為美國進口來做比較,法國的電影產品為四成五到五成五由美國進口。


聯合國教育、科學及文化組織的文化多樣性

「文化例外」已逐漸被更具共識的概念「文化多樣性」取代,聯合國教科文組織(UNESCO)繼《世界文化多樣性宣言》(Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity)之後,於民國94年(主曆2005年)發表的《保護和促進文化表達多樣性公約》(Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions)內採用之。該公約在法國與加拿大支持下,以148比2的票數通過,另有四國棄權,美國和以色列對該提案則投下反對票。


聯合國教科文組織的《保護和促進文化表達多樣性公約》是一項具有法律約束力的國際協定,支持其成員國為維護權益而實施文化政策與措施,以將文化產品與服務排除在國際貿易協定之外的決心。


美國聲稱「文化例外」此一保護主義的形式對全球貿易有害,而聯合國教科文組織的《保護和促進文化表達多樣性公約》涉及的同樣是這種保護主義,而非文化多樣性。此外,美國也聲稱聯合國教科文組織的公約放任專制政府壓迫少數文化的發聲。美國的電影產業及其它文化產業也同樣反對「文化例外」這個概念,因為此舉傷害了它們的出口市場,並且遊說美國堅持目前反對「文化例外」的立場。


也請參見

加拿大文化保護主義

保護和促進文化表達多樣性公約

文化多樣性

世界文化多樣性宣言



 

Cultural exception


Cultural exception (French: l'exception culturelle) is a political concept introduced by France in General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) negotiations in 1993[1] to treat culture differently from other commercial products. In other words, its purpose is to consider cultural goods and services as exceptions in international treaties and agreements especially with the World Trade Organization (WTO). Its goals are to point out that States are sovereign as far as limitation of culture free trade is concerned in order to protect and promote their artists and other elements of their culture. Concretely, it can be seen through protectionist measures limiting the diffusion of foreign artistic work (quotas) or through subsidies distributed according to the country's cultural policy.


GATT negotiations (1993)

In 1992, some countries had voiced their concerns during the final negotiations of the Uruguay Round that implementation of the GATT principles on cultural goods and services "would undermine their cultural specificity (and unique status), in favour of their commercial aspects".

The purpose of Cultural exception is to treat cultural goods and services differently from other traded goods and services because of the intrinsic differences of such goods and services. Many countries defended the fact that cultural goods and services "encompass values, identity and meanings that go beyond their strictly commercial value". It notably allowed France to maintain quotas and subsidies to protect its cultural market from other nation's cultural products, most notably American, on television and radio. South Korean policy in favor of its movie industry is another example of how cultural exception is used to protect the audiovisual market.

First the debate concerned mainly audiovisual products. Secondly, in the WTO liberalization process, every country decides which sectors it will deregulate. Audiovisual services is one of the sectors where the number of WTO members with commitments is the lowest (30, as of 31 January 2009)


1994 NAFTA


In 1994, Canada included a cultural exemption clause in the North American Free Trade Agreement.


MAI

Draft agreement negotiated between members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) in 1995–1998, The Multilateral Agreement on Investment or MAI's ostensible purpose was to develop multilateral rules that would ensure international investment was governed in a more systematic and uniform way between states. After an intense global campaign was waged against the MAI by the treaty's critics, the host nation France announced in October 1998 that it would not support the agreement, effectively preventing its adoption due to the OECD's consensus procedures. The French government had identified respect for cultural differences as a requirement for French support for the agreement.


The French Cultural Exception

France has been especially notable in pursuing the policy of cultural exception and its stance has sometimes attracted criticism. It was pursued by André Malraux in the post-second world war period when he was French minister of culture. In each branch of culture there is an automatic subsidy system for creative works. One example of these measures is the National Center of Cinematography and the moving image, which taxes cinema ticket sales and uses those funds to help the production or distribution of French cinema. Another example of protectionist measures is the audiovisual law (Loi sur l'audiovisuel) which specified for instance that "radio has to broadcast 40% French songs and, within this quota, 20% new talents."

The effects of this policy in France is suggested by the fact that between 2005 and 2011, between 45% and 55% of its film products were American imports, compared to 60 to 90% American imports in other European film markets.


Cultural diversity at UNESCO

Cultural exception has been gradually replaced by the more consensual concept of cultural diversity[12] as shows the adoption in October 2005, of UNESCO's Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions (which followed the Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity). Sponsored by France and Canada, the convention was passed 148-2, with four nations abstaining from voting. The United States and Israel voted against the proposal.


The UNESCO Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions is a legally binding international agreement that supports Member-States' wills to assert their right in applying cultural policies and measures that exclude cultural goods and services from international trade agreements.


The United States claims that cultural exception is a form of protectionism that harms global trade and that the UNESCO Convention deals with such protectionism rather than cultural diversity. In addition, it claims that the UNESCO Convention allows for oppressive governments to suppress minority cultural voices. The film industry and other cultural industries in the United States are also against the concept of cultural exception, as it harms their export market, and have lobbied the United States to take its current position against cultural exception.


See also

* Canadian cultural protectionism

* Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions

* Cultural Diversity

* Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity


相關文章

查看全部
bottom of page