正如內國法總是受限於一時一地的立法格局，貿易承諾也受制於談判當時的產業條件。因此，科技發展所引發的WTO爭端案件，近年來未曾暫歇片刻。中國視聽服務案之線上音樂爭議再一次地凸顯了科技變動下的條約解釋困境。線上音樂的發展已完全顛覆傳統的配銷通路，導致音樂產業結構性的改變，倘不賦予「錄音產品配銷服務」新的時代意涵，多數會員的相關承諾將變成真空狀態。本文探討如何在談判之際，預留未來科技發展空間，讓科學本身的偶然性不減損法律的安定性，於經貿的場域架構出較為永久的立法藍圖。當承諾語言具備「充分的通用性」時，上訴機構將會填補內容，以適應新的科技與市場情勢，讓特定承諾與時俱進，由時代形塑其具體內涵。然而，將承諾內涵的張力極大化、賦予其「開放性」的立場，如果沒有更豐富的論述支撐，終究還是必須面對是否超越甚至背離當年談判內容的質疑。此外，如何推知WTO會員的「共同意思」、承諾表的解釋方法是否需要量身訂做等問題，確實值得思考。最後，一再被提出討論的「技術中立」概念，也等待上訴機構定調。 In the context of domestic law, the issue of whether a legal text should be interpreted based on its “original meaning”, i.e., the historical language at the time the law was made, is controversial. A similar debate may arise in the regime of international trade. At the WTO, such issues may be of particular importance when dealing with technological change, as many of the products/services described in a schedule are likely to undergo significant developments over time. The dispute of China-Audiovisual Services is illustrative here. New digital technologies and the steady development of communication networks have significantly changed the shape of the international music market as well as the traditional business models of the music industry. The phenomenon of digital convergence has shown to be problematic in practice as technological changes must also affect the language used in treaties. Shall we rely on the contemporary language at the time a treaty is interpreted, or shall we employ the historical language at the time the treaty was concluded? No answer to this question is given in the Vienna Convention. In China-Audiovisual Services the Appellate Body appears to have taken a clear stance in favor of allowing for the evolution of the meaning of treaty terms. The AB considered that the terms used in China’s GATS Schedule are sufficiently generic that what they apply to may change over time. In this respect, the AB noted that GATS Schedules constitute multilateral treaties with continuing obligations that WTO Members entered into for an indefinite period of time. This paper argues that the interpretation of schedules of commitments poses important challenges to the interpreter. Schedules are not as multilateral as treaties, and to some extent schedules may not represent the common intentions of all WTO Members in a similar way as the rest of the covered agreements. The author also concludes that the unresolved issue of technological neutrality should be addressed via the WTO dispute settlement mechanism.