本文探讨了作为世贸组织成员的德国、欧盟与美国在规范经济自我调节与国家干预这两者关系时各自采取的模式。在欧盟,《里斯本条约》所带来的改革并未改变其对于跨成员国市场自由的保障以及对欧洲内部市场扭曲竞争行为的规范。本文阐明了前述三类法律规范彼此存在一定共性,因为它们原则上都在宪法层面上既认可了经济自由,又对服务于正当公共利益的国家干预给予了肯定。但相比之下,欧盟法则显得更为先进:其发展始终以市场自由为基础,使企业与竞争者可以通过司法救济来考察,那些普遍限制企业经济行为或者限制其跨成员国经济活动的国家干预、私主体间的协同是否具有正当性与必要性,并符合比例原则;其遵循着一个清晰的、原则与例外相结合的模式,进而为认定国家干预、竞争者间彼此协同的合法性逐步发展出一整套细致而缜密的构成要件。欧盟法的这种思路,就其自身实践经验来看,不失为厘清世贸法中某些法律规范的发展提供了颇具说服力的参照。因为这些规范同样需要令人信服地调和这样一对冲突:其一方为保护自由贸易的要求(包括禁止非关税贸易壁垒),而另一方则是世贸组织成员国要实现其强制性社会公共利益的主权(例如在公共健康保障、消费者保护、保护公平竞争,知识产权保护、社会保障、环保领域)。 This article explores the respective models taken by Germany, the EU and the United States, members of the WTO, in regulating the relationship between economic self-regulation and state intervention. In the EU, the reforms brought about by the Lisbon Treaty have not changed its norms of guaranteeing market freedom across member countries and distorting competition in the European internal market. This article clarifies that the above three types of legal norms have certain commonalities with each other because they both affirm economic freedom at the constitutional level and affirm the state intervention in serving the legitimate public interest. In contrast, EU law appears to be more advanced: its development has always been based on market freedom, allowing businesses and competitors to examine through judicial remedies those countries that generally restrict their economic activities or restrict their economic activities across member states Intervention, the synergy between private entities is justified and necessary, and in line with the principle of proportionality; It followed a clear, principle and exception combination mode, and thus identify the state intervention, the legitimacy of competitors to each other and gradually Developed a set of meticulous and meticulous composition of the elements. This kind of train of thought of European Union law, to its own practical experience, has provided a convincing reference for clarifying the development of certain laws and regulations in WTO law. Because these norms also need convincingly reconcile such a conflict: one is to protect the requirements of free trade (including the prohibition of non-tariff barriers to trade), while the other is the WTO member states to achieve its mandatory social and public interests Sovereignty (eg in the areas of public health protection, consumer protection, fair competition protection, intellectual property protection, social security, environmental protection).