国际商法英文版

.,InternationalBusinessLawTextbookRayAugust,DonMayer,MichaelBixby.“InternationalBusinessLawText,CasesandReadings”6thEditionPearson,.,InternationalBusinessLaw(2Credits)Purpose:Thiscourseaimstogivestudentsfrommanyculturesandtraditionsagoodlookattheoverallstructureoftheglobal“legalenvironment”inwhichbusinessoperatestoday.Thefocuswillbeongloballegalissuesconcerningstateresponsibilityandenvironmentalregulation,disputesettlement,tradeinGoods,servicesandlabour,intellectualproperty,sales,andtransportation,whichshowsboththediversityandsimilarityofbusinessandofthelaw.本课程从多种文化、传统入手，培养学生审视当今企业经营所处的全球“法律环境”的整体结构，重点放在全球性法律问题，涉及国家责任和环境规制、争端解决、货物贸易、服务与劳务、知识产权、销售、运输等业务，揭示商务和法律的多样性与相似性。,.,TheoreticalStudyIntroductiontoInternationalandComparativeLaw国际法与比较法入门StateResponsibilityandEnvironmentalRegulation国家责任和环境规制DisputeSettlement争端解决TradeinGoods货物贸易ServicesandLabour服务与劳务IntellectualProperty知识产权Sales销售Transportation运输,.,CaseStudy:1.CommissionoftheEuropeanCommunitiesv.FederalRepublicofGermany欧共体委员会诉联邦德国案2.Chinasrefusaltoacceptthedoctrineofrestrictivesovereignimmunity中国拒绝接受国家主权有限豁免原则案3.SouthernBluefinTunaCases:ProvisionalMeasures南方蓝鳍金枪鱼案：临时措施4.Japan-TaxesonAlcoholicBeverages日本酒精饮料税收案5.UnitedStates-ImportProhibitionofCertainShrimpandShrimpProducts美国虾及虾产品进口限制案,.,CaseStudy:6.EuropeanCommunities-RegimefortheImportation,SaleandDistributionofBananas欧共体香蕉进口、销售、分销制度案7.LOrealv.eBay欧莱雅诉eBay案8.TheNaturalGasCase天然气案9.GreatChinaMetalIndustriesCo.Ltd.V.MalaysianInternationalShippingCorp.中国金属工业有限公司诉马来西亚国际航运公司案,.,1-1,Chapter1,INTRODUCTIONTOINTERNATIONALANDCOMPARATIVELAW,.,1-2,CHAPTER1,DefiningInternationalLawMakingInternationalLawSourcesofInternationallawScopeofInternationalLawinPracticeInternationalPersonsIndividualRightsUnderInternationalLawComparisonofMunicipalLegalSystems,.,1-3,InternationalLaw,Historically,dealtwiththerulesandnormsregulatingtherelationshipsbetweenstates(countries)ThislawbetweennationsiscalledpublicinternationallawWithgrowthofrelationshipsbetweenpersonsandcorporationsindifferentstates,privateinternationallawdevelopedtogoverntheirconduct,.,whatisinternationalbusinesslaw?,Internationalbusinesslawisthebodyofrulesandnormsthatregulatesbusinessactivitiescarriedoutsidethelegalboundariesofstates.Inparticular,itregulatesthebusinesstransactionsofprivatepersonsinternationally,andtherelationshipofinternationalcommercialorganizations.国际商法是调整跨国商事活动的法律规范的总称。它调整的是国际私人商事交易关系和国际商事组织间的关系.,.,Whatisinternationallaw?Internationallawdealswith3kindsofinternationalrelationships:thosebetweenstatesandstates,thosebetweenstatesandpersons,thosebetweenpersonsandpersons.Traditionally,internationallawwasallabouttherelationshipsbetweenstates.Thatis,thelawofnationsresolvedissuesbetweentwoormorestates,andthelegalrelationshipsbetweenandamongstatesiswhatisgenerallycalledpublicinternationallaw.Astransactionsamongprivateentitiesgrew,thephraseprivateinternationallawwasappliedtothelawsgoverningconductbetweenpeople(andcorporations)fromdifferentstates.,.,Formany,internationallawremainsacontradictioninterms.Thereisnosingleworldgovernmenttomakeandenforcelaws,andnogloballyrecognizedforuminwhichtobringdisputesbetweencitizensofdifferentnations-states.Tothosewhoseelawas“thecommandofasovereign”,themoreconsensualnature(诺成性，契约性)ofinternationallawmakesit“soft”lawornolawatall.Moreover,thedeclineinthepowerofstatesrelativetotheprivatesectorposesnewchallengestocontemporaryinternationallaw.Today,theterminternationallawappliestoanyconductoutsidetheboundariesofstates,whetherofapublicoraprivatenature.,.,Thereareatleast3waysoflookingatinternationallaw.Cosmopolitans（世界主义者）claimthatinternationallawisbasedonuniversalhumanrights.Thus,internationallawshouldrestrainstatesfromviolatingnormsbasedonuniversalhumanrights,andtheconsentofastateisirrelevant.Bycontrast,Positivists(实证主义者)focusonthesovereigntyofstatesandtheirconsenttolimitsonthatsovereignty.ThusPositivistsclaimthatinternationallawisbasedon(1)thesovereignequalityofallstatesintheinternationalsystemand(2)stateconsenttoindividualinternationallaws,eitherthroughtreatiesorcustoms.,.,Positivistsinternationallawcanbeseenasaseriesofcontractsbetweenstates;internationallawbecomesbindingonlythroughsuchexplicitorimplicitcontracts.IncontrasttoeitherCosmopolitansorPositivists,Hobbesians(霍布斯主义“Leviathan”利维坦)aremorecynical,believingthatstateswillmakeagreementsandabidebyinternationallawonlywhenitsuitstheirself-interests.,.,Scholars,jurists,andpoliticianswillrarelyadoptoneschoolofanotherwithconsistency,andcombinationsoftheseviewscancoexistamongprincipalactorsinthesamenation-state.Ataminimum,however,internationallawisunderstoodtobemorethanjustgoodmannersormutualrespectbetweenoramongsovereignnation-states.Comity,forexample,isthepracticebetweenstatesoftreatingeachotherwithgoodwillandcivility.Itisnotlaw,however,becausestatesdonotregarditassomethingtheyarerequiredtorespect.Forexample,untilitbecameamatteroflegalobligationunderArt.36ofthe1961ViennaConventiononDiplomaticRelations,itwaslongconsideredtobeacustomarycourtesytoallow,.,foreigndiplomatstheprivilegeofimportinggoodstheyintendedfortheirprivateusefreeofcustomsduties.Thisprivilegewasnotalegalrightguaranteedbyinternationallaw,however,becausestatesdidnotfeelcompelledtogranttheprivilegeexceptasacourtesy.Suchcourtesycanbeseenasakindofanticipatoryreciprocityinwhichstatesdountootherstatesastheywouldhopetobetreatedinturn.Comityisthusunderstoodasaninformalprinciplethatnationswillextendcertaincourtesiestoothernations,particularlybyrecognizingthevalidityandeffectoftheirexecutive,legislative,andjudicialacts.Thisprincipleismostfrequentlyinvokedbycourts,whichwillnotactinawaythatdemeansthejurisdiction,laws,orjudicialdecisionsofanothercountry.,.,1-4,SchoolsofThoughtDefiningTheBasisofInternationalLaw(IL),CosmopolitansarguethatILisbaseduponuniversalhumanrights.PositivistssaythatILisbasedonthesovereignequalityofallstatesandstateconsenttoILthroughtreatiesorcustom.HobbesiansclaimthatstateswillmakeagreementsandabidebyILonlywhenitsuitstheirself-interests.,.,1-5,ExamplesofPublicandPrivateInternationalLaw,.,Case1-1IgnacioSequihuav.TexacoInc.etal.UnitedStatesDistrictCourtfortheSouthernDistrictofTexas,HoustonDivision,847F.Supp.61(1994),.,OpinionofJudgeBlackPlaintiffs,residentsofEcuador,filedthisactioninTexasstatecourtassertingavarietyofcausesofactionarisingoutoftheallegedcontaminationoftheair,ground,andwaterinEcuador.Inadditiontomonetaryrelief,PlaintiffsaskedforaninjunctionrequiringDefendantstoreturnthelandtoitsformerconditionandfora“trustfund”tobeadministeredbytheCourt.Thecasewasremovedtofederalcourt,andtheCourtfindsthattheremovalwasprocedurallyproper.Inconsideringthedefendantsmotionstodismiss,theCourtused“comity”torulefordefendants.,.,Underthedoctrineknownascomityofnations,acourtshoulddeclinetoexercisejurisdictionundercertaincircumstancesindeferencetothelawsandinterestsofanotherforeigncountry.Section403(3)oftheRestatement(Third)oftheForeignRelationsLawoftheUnitedStatessetsforthanumberoffactorstobeconsideredindeterminingwhetherthecomityofnationsdeferenceshouldbeapplied.TheNinthCircuitappliedsimilarfactorsinTimberlaneLumberCo.v.BankofAmericaNationalTrustandSavingsAssn.,749F.2d1378(9thCir.1984),toaffirmaDistrictCourtsdecisionnottoexercisejurisdiction.ConsiderationofthesefactorsleadstotheinescapableconclusionthattheCourtshoulddeclinetoexercisejurisdictionoverthiscase.,.,ThechallengedactivityandtheallegedharmoccurredentirelyinEcuador;PlaintiffsareallresidentsofEcuador;DefendantsarenotresidentsofTexas;enforcementinEcuadorofanyjudgmentissuedbythisCourtisquestionableatbest;thechallengedconductisregulatedbytheRepublicofEcuadorandexerciseofjurisdictionbythisCourtwouldinterferewithEcuadorssovereignrighttocontrolitsownenvironmentandresources;andtheRepublicofEcuadorhasexpresseditsstrenuousobjectiontotheexerciseofjurisdictionbythisCourt.Indeed,noneofthefactorsfavortheexerciseofjurisdiction.Accordingly,thecaseshouldbedismissedunderthedoctrineofcomityofnations.CasepointUnderthedoctrineknownascomity,acourtshoulddeclinetoexercisejurisdictionundercertaincircumstancesindeferencetothelawsandinterestsofanothercountry.,.,1-7,Case1-1IgnacioSequihuav.TexacoInc.,Comityappliedtoprivatedispute.CourtinTexasdeclinedtoexercisejurisdictionoveractivityandharmthatoccurredinEcuador.TakingjurisdictioninU.S.wouldhaveinterferedwithEcuadorssovereignrighttocontrolitsownenvironment.Casedismissedunderthedoctrineofcomityofnations.,.,1-6,GoodwillandCivilityBetweenStates:Comity,RepublicofthePhilippinesv.WestinghouseElec.Corp.43F3d65(3rdCir,1994)U.S.trialcourtorderedthePhilippinegovernmenttonotharasswitnessesinvolvedinthecase.CourtofAppealsoverturnedtheorder.Heldthatacourtcouldrequestcompliancebyaforeignsovereignasamatterofcomity,butcouldnotordercompliance.Comityrequiresthatwerespectothercountriessovereigntyandlawsothattheywillrespectours.,.,1-8,U.S.CourtsApplyComityandRefusetoTakeJurisdictionWhen:,ThedefendantisasovereignstateDefendanthasinsufficientcontactswiththeU.S.AnotherjudicialforumismoreconvenientCongressdidnotintendU.S.statutetoapplyextraterritoriallyCaseconcernsactofsovereignstateonitsownterritory,.,1-9,TheMakingofInternationalLaw,Generally,ILcomesintoeffectonlywhenstatesconsenttoit.Generalconsentfoundinstatepracticetheconductandpracticesofstatesintheirdealingswitheachother.Evidenceofgeneralconsent:DecisionsoftheInternationalCourtofJusticeResolutionspassedbytheUNGeneralAssemblyMultilateraltreaties,conclusionsofinternationalconferences,andprovisionsrepeatedoverandoveragaininbilateraltreaties,.,1-10,SourcesofInternationalLaw,TreatiesorconventionsInternationalcustomGeneralprinciplesoflawrecognizedbycivilizednationsJudicialdecisionsandteachingsofhighlyqualifiedlegalwriters,Thislist,ascontainedinArticle38(1)oftheStatuteoftheInternationalCourtofJustice,impliesahierarchy,ororder,inwhichthesesourcesaretobereliedon.,.,1-11,TreatiesandConventions,EquivalentsoflegislationinILare:Treatieslegallybindingagreementbetweentwoormorestates.Conventionslegallybindingagreementbetweenstatessponsoredbyaninternationalorganization.CustomaryrulesthatgoverntreatiesarecontainedintheViennaConventionontheLawofTreaties,ratifiedby108countries.,.,1-12,CustomAsSourceofInternationalLaw,Customalong-establishedtraditionorusagethatbecomescustomarylawifitis:Consistentlyandregularlyobserved,and(Evidenceofthisfoundinofficialstatementsofgovernments,opinionsoflegaladvisors,executivedecrees,orderstomilitaryforces,andcourtdecisions.)Recognizedbythosestatesobservingitasapracticethattheymustobligatorilyfollow.,.,1-13,GeneralPrinciplesofLawandJusCogens,Courtswilloftenrelyupongeneralprinciplesoflawthatarecommontothelegalsystemsoftheworldtosolveinternationaldisputes.Juscogens(强制性法规)isaperemptorynormofgeneralinternationallaw,recognizedbytheinternationalcommunityasanormfromwhichnoderogationispermitted.Juscogens-statesmustrespectcertainfundamentalprinciples.Treatiesarevoidiftheyconflictwithjuscogens.Ex:Treatybytwonationstouseviolenceagainstathirdnationviolateshigherstandardofjuscogens.,.,1-14,ScopeofInternationalLawinActualPractice,Internationaltribunalsregardmunicipallawassubservienttointernationallaw.Stateshaveobligationtobringtheirmunicipallawintocompliancewithinternationalnorms.Municipalcourtsoftenbalkatthisobligationbaseduponstrongfeelingsofnationalismandbeliefinpriorityforthesovereignstatesownlaw.,.,1-15,PracticeinMunicipalCourts,Inmunicipalcourts,internationallawgenerallytreatedascorrelative.Iftheinternationallawisbasedoncustomarypractice,itisreceivedinaccordancewiththedoctrineofincorporation（纳入原则）.CustomaryILispartofdomesticlawtotheextentthatitisnotinconsistent.Minorityofcourts-doctrineoftransformationCustomaryILisapplicabledomesticallyonlyafteradoptedbylegislation,courtdecision,orlocalusage.,.,1-16,MunicipalCourtReceptionRulesFoundinTreatiesTwoFactors,Natureofthetreaty:Self-executing（自动执行条约）containsaprovisionstatingthatthetreatywillapplytothepartieswithouthavingtoadoptdomesticenablinglegislation.自行生效的，无需立法手续即可生效的Non-Self-Executing（非自动执行条约）requiresenablinglegislationbeforeeffectivedomestically.Constitutionalstructureoftheratifyingstate:InU.S.,PresidentnegotiatesconstitutionaltreatiesthatarethenratifiedbytheSenate.Executiveagreements-treatiesenteredintobythePresident,notratified,noteffectivedomestically.,.,1-17,Case1-2SeiFujiiv.Statepp.10-12,ExamineswhetherprovisionsofUNCharterpromotingfundamentalfreedomswithoutdistinctionastoraceareself-executingornot.CaliforniaappellatecourtruledthatlandpurchasedbyFujii,aJapanesealien,violatedalienlandlawandescheatedtostate.CASupremeCourtaffirmedthatUNCharterwasnotself-executingbecauselanguagewasnotmandatoryandrequiredadditionalimplementinglegislation.However,lawviolated14thAmend.,Fujiismoneyreturned.,.,1-18,InternationalPersonspp.12-42,StatesIndependentstatesDependentstatesInchoatestatesp.12InternationalOrganizationsIntergovernmentalorganizations(IGO)Nongovernmentalorganizations(NGO),.,1-19,InternationalPersons-States,State-politicalentitycomprisingaterritory,apopulation,agovernmentcapableofenteringintointernationalrelations,andagovernmentcapableofcontrollingitsterritoryandpeoples.Anindependentstateissovereignandoperatesindependentlyinternationally.Adependentstate(PuertoRico)hasformallysurrenderedsomeaspectoftheirpoliticalandgovernmentalfunctionstoanotherstate.Aninchoatestatelacksattributesofindependentstate,suchasterritoryorpopulation.,.,1-20,CaseMatimakTradingCo.v.KhalilyandD.A.Y.KidsSportswearInc.,Matimak,aHongKongcorporation,suedinfederalcourtinNYunderdiversityjurisdictionasacitizenofforeignstate.Thoughnotformallyrecognizedbyexecutivebranch,MatimakargueddefactorecognitionofHongKong.Ruling:HongKongnotanindependentstate.MatimaknotacitizenorsubjectofUnitedKingdomoranyforeignstate.Suitdismissedforlackofjurisdiction.,.,1-21,Case1-4pp.3133CourtofJusticeoftheEuropeanCommunitiesCase274/87CommissionoftheEuropeanCommunitiesv.FederalRepublicofGermany欧共体委员会诉联邦德国案,.,1-21,JudgmentCase1-4examinesboththeobligationofmemberstatestobringtheirlawsintoaccordwiththeEUtreaties(inparticulartheEuropeanCommunityTreatythenknownastheEECTreaty)andthedirecteffectofthosetreaties.,.,1-21,JudgmentByapplicationlodgedattheCourtRegistryon16September1987,theCommissionoftheEuropeanCommunitiesbroughtanactionbeforetheCourtunderthesecondparagraphofArticle169oftheEECTreatyforadeclarationthatbyprohibitingtheimportationandmarketinginitsterritoryofmeatproductsfromotherMemberStateswhichdonotcomplywith,.,1-21,Paragraphs4and5oftheFleisch-Verordnung(MeatRegulation)of21January1982theFederalRepublicofGermanyhasfailedtofulfillitsobligationsunderArticle30oftheEECTreaty.Theregulationinquestionprohibitsthemarketingofmeatproductswhichcontainingredientsotherthanmeat,subjecttoexceptionsinrespectof,.,1-21,specifiedproductsthecompositionofwhichisdefined,witharequirement,incertaincases,forspecificinformationtobeshownonthepackagingordisplayedonsigns.ThebanonmarketingthoseproductsissupplementedbyParagraph47,subparagraph1,oftheLebensmittelundBedarfsgegenstaendegesetz(Lawonfoodstuffsandnecessities)of15August1974,whichprohibitstheimportationoffoodstuffswhichdonot,.,1-21,complywithGermanstandards.Compliancewiththoserulesisensuredbymeansofcriminaloradministrativepenalties.ItshouldbenotedattheoutsetthatitisundisputedthatthecontestedruleshavearestrictiveeffectonimportsofmeatproductslegallymanufacturedandmarketedinotherMemberStates.Theissuebetweenthepartiesiswhetherornotthemeasuresinquestionare,.,1-21,justifiedonthegroundsputforwardbytheGermanGovernment,thatistosaytheprotectionofhealthandmandatoryrequirementsrelatingtoconsumerprotection,fairtradingandthecommonagriculturalpolicy.ItshouldalsobenotedattheoutsetthatthecontestedrulesprohibitthemarketingoftheproductsconcernedinGermanterritoryregardlessofwhethertheyarenationalorforeignproducts.,.,1-21,JustificationBasedontheProtectionofHealthWithintheMeaningofArticle36oftheTreatyBeforeconsideringtheargumentsputforwardbythedefendantGovernmentinthisregard,itmustbepointedoutthattheCourthasconsistentlyheldthat,whilsthumanlifeandhealthareamongthemattersprotectedbyArticle36anditisthereforefortheMemberStatestodecidewithinthelimitssetbytheTreatythe,.,1-21,degreeofprotectionwhichtheywishtoensure,nationalrulesrestrictingimportsarecompatiblewiththeTreatyonlyinsofarastheyarenecessaryfortheeffectiveprotectionofhumanlifeandhealthandonlyifthatobjectivecannotbeachievedbymeasureslessrestrictiveofintra-Communitytrade(judgmentsof20May1976inCase104/75,DePeijper(1976)ECR613andof4February1988inCase261/85,Commissionv.UnitedKingdom(1988)ECR547).,.,1-21,TheGermanGovernmentmaintainsthatthecontestedprohibitionofimportationisjustifiedongroundsrelatingtotheprotectionofhealthwithinthemeaningofArticle36oftheTreatybecauseitisnecessarytoensureasufficientintakeofcertainessentialnutrientscontainedinmeat,especiallyproteins.Itmustbepointedoutatoncethatthatargumentiscontradictedbyinformationwhichappearsinreportsonnutrition,.,1-21,publishedin1980and1984bytheGermanGovernmentitself.ThosereportsshowthatproteinintakelevelsinGermanyareingeneralmorethanadequateandthateveninthecaseofcertaingroupsofthepopulation,particularlyyoungpeople,whoseproteinintakeislowerthantherecommendedlevel,thelowerintakeposesnothreattohealthinviewofthesafetymarginsincorporatedintherelevantrecommendations.,.,1-21,Itisalsoclearfromthosereportsthatsomemeatingredientscontainharmfulsubstancessuchaspurine(嘌呤),cholesterol(胆固醇)andsaturatedfattyacids(饱和脂肪酸);thereportsthereforeexpresssomeconcernaboutanyfutureincreaseintheconsumptionofmeatandmeatproducts.Finally,withregardtotheGermanGovernmentsargumentthatvegetableproteinshavealowernutritionalvalue,.,1-21,thananimalproteins,itmustbestressedthat,astheCourthasalreadystatedinitsjudgmentof23February1988inCase216/84,Commissionv.France(1988)ECR793,aMemberStatemaynotinvokepublichealthgroundsinordertoprohibittheimportationofaproductbyarguingthatitsnutritionalvalueislowerthananotherproductalreadyavailableonthemarketinquestion,sinceitisplainthatthechoiceoffoodstuffsavailableto,.,1-21,consumersintheCommunityissuchthatthemerefactthatanimportedproducthasalowernutritionalvaluedoesnotposearealthreattohumanhealth.Itfollowsfromtheforegoingthatthecontestedpr