本文旨在應用經濟整合概念，察看兩岸經貿關係的現狀、本質與特色，以及馬英九總統在二○○八年五月就任以來的相應政策與思維，並論證何以「兩岸經貿關係正常化」此一概念，不僅已逐漸成為兩岸三方（北京、臺灣的藍綠）的共同政治修辭（rhetoric），也可透過賦予適當的操作性定義，作為評判兩岸經貿關係進展的依據。中國與臺灣已先後成為WTO 會員，兩岸經貿關係從此又多了國際規範面向，WTO 的最惠國待遇（MFN）普遍原則，自然也成了測度兩岸經貿關係是否符合正常化的極佳標準。ECFA 簽署之前，兩岸經貿關係乃處於MFN minus 與MFN 兩種狀態。儘管ECFA 只是架構協議，但由於兩岸部分產品「互惠與優惠」率先實施（「早收清單」），ECFA 之後的兩岸經貿關係變成MFNminus、MFN，以及MFN plus 三種狀態。循此分析可知，純就經貿意義而言，ECFA 其實是兩岸經貿關係正常化與進一步自由化同時兼具。兩岸制度性的經濟整合，除了功能性議題（如直航、觀光等）之外，對臺灣內部當構成不小壓力。ECFA 的諸多爭議、後續協商，以及向WTO做正式通報（notififi cation）何以面臨困難等前瞻問題，都可以在此脈絡下看出端倪。本文也據此推論，ECFA 勢必徘徊在「WTO 規範」與「兩岸特色」之間，內容與自由化進程將因而充滿不確定性。

Because cross-straits economic issues have been highly publicized,
Taiwan, which has not yet fully fulfilled its WTO commitments, is now
under pressure to shorten its timetable for liberalizing its markets following the signing of the ECFA. The number of Chinese products prohibited from import into Taiwan accounts for 20% of Taiwan’s total import items.This indicates that cross-straits economic and trade relations are yet to be normalized. However, the ECFA is by definition more preferential than WTO MFN treatment.Taking the trade in goods as an example of further elaboration, when a prohibited item, under “WTO-minus” provisions, become a legal import,its tariff level is reduced from the set tariff ceiling to MFN tariff rates. If it is included in the ECFA, a “WTO-plus” pact, the tariff rate is further cut to zero. That is to say, inclusion in the ECFA of items on the list of prohibited imports to Taiwan will deal a powerful blow to the Taiwanese economy,industry, and labor market.ECFA is designed as a “Framework Agreement” setting out the
objectives and principles of the prospective negotiations plus “Early Harvest Program” with a list of limited products to apply for preferential treatment.So goes the argument that Taiwan might find it difficult to comply fully with the WTO rules imposed on developed members engaging in regional trade agreements, particularly the criteria of “substantially all the trade” (SAT)in products originating in the partner’s territory since there is no “plan and schedule” in the legal text of ECFA. Besides, it is therefore difficult to make a reliable assessment of economic impacts from ECFA because its contents remain open.