国际商法英文版.ppt

1、,InternationalBusinessLawTextbookRayAugust,DonMayer,MichaelBixby.“InternationalBusinessLawText,CasesandReadings”6thEditionPearson,InternationalBusinessLaw(2Credits)Purpose:Thiscourseaimstogivestudentsfrommanyculturesandtraditionsagoodlookattheoverallstructureoftheglobal“legalenvironment”inwhichbusin

2、essoperatestoday.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

3、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Transportati

4、on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-ImportProhibit

5、ionofCertainShrimpandShrimpProducts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

6、,INTRODUCTIONTOINTERNATIONALANDCOMPARATIVELAW,1-2,CHAPTER1,DefiningInternationalLawMakingInternationalLawSourcesofInternationallawScopeofInternationalLawinPracticeInternationalPersonsIndividualRightsUnderInternationalLawComparisonofMunicipalLegalSystems,1-3,InternationalLaw,Historically,dealtwiththe

7、rulesandnormsregulatingtherelationshipsbetweenstates(countries)ThislawbetweennationsiscalledpublicinternationallawWithgrowthofrelationshipsbetweenpersonsandcorporationsindifferentstates,privateinternationallawdevelopedtogoverntheirconduct,whatisinternationalbusinesslaw?,Internationalbusinesslawisthe

8、bodyofrulesandnormsthatregulatesbusinessactivitiescarriedoutsidethelegalboundariesofstates.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?

9、Internationallawdealswith3kindsofinternationalrelationships:thosebetweenstatesandstates,thosebetweenstatesandpersons,thosebetweenpersonsandpersons.Traditionally,internationallawwasallabouttherelationshipsbetweenstates.Thatis,thelawofnationsresolvedissuesbetweentwoormorestates,andthelegalrelationship

10、sbetweenandamongstatesiswhatisgenerallycalledpublicinternationallaw.Astransactionsamongprivateentitiesgrew,thephraseprivateinternationallawwasappliedtothelawsgoverningconductbetweenpeople(andcorporations)fromdifferentstates.,Formany,internationallawremainsacontradictioninterms.Thereisnosingleworldgo

11、vernmenttomakeandenforcelaws,andnogloballyrecognizedforuminwhichtobringdisputesbetweencitizensofdifferentnations-states.Tothosewhoseelawas“thecommandofasovereign”,themoreconsensualnature(诺成性，契约性)ofinternationallawmakesit“soft”lawornolawatall.Moreover,thedeclineinthepowerofstatesrelativetotheprivates

12、ectorposesnewchallengestocontemporaryinternationallaw.Today,theterminternationallawappliestoanyconductoutsidetheboundariesofstates,whetherofapublicoraprivatenature.,Thereareatleast3waysoflookingatinternationallaw.Cosmopolitans（世界主义者）claimthatinternationallawisbasedonuniversalhumanrights.Thus,interna

13、tionallawshouldrestrainstatesfromviolatingnormsbasedonuniversalhumanrights,andtheconsentofastateisirrelevant.Bycontrast,Positivists(实证主义者)focusonthesovereigntyofstatesandtheirconsenttolimitsonthatsovereignty.ThusPositivistsclaimthatinternationallawisbasedon(1)thesovereignequalityofallstatesintheinte

14、rnationalsystemand(2)stateconsenttoindividualinternationallaws,eitherthroughtreatiesorcustoms.,Positivistsinternationallawcanbeseenasaseriesofcontractsbetweenstates;internationallawbecomesbindingonlythroughsuchexplicitorimplicitcontracts.IncontrasttoeitherCosmopolitansorPositivists,Hobbesians(霍布斯主义“

15、Leviathan”利维坦)aremorecynical,believingthatstateswillmakeagreementsandabidebyinternationallawonlywhenitsuitstheirself-interests.,Scholars,jurists,andpoliticianswillrarelyadoptoneschoolofanotherwithconsistency,andcombinationsoftheseviewscancoexistamongprincipalactorsinthesamenation-state.Ataminimum,ho

16、wever,internationallawisunderstoodtobemorethanjustgoodmannersormutualrespectbetweenoramongsovereignnation-states.Comity,forexample,isthepracticebetweenstatesoftreatingeachotherwithgoodwillandcivility.Itisnotlaw,however,becausestatesdonotregarditassomethingtheyarerequiredtorespect.Forexample,untilitb

17、ecameamatteroflegalobligationunderArt.36ofthe1961ViennaConventiononDiplomaticRelations,itwaslongconsideredtobeacustomarycourtesytoallow,foreigndiplomatstheprivilegeofimportinggoodstheyintendedfortheirprivateusefreeofcustomsduties.Thisprivilegewasnotalegalrightguaranteedbyinternationallaw,however,bec

18、ausestatesdidnotfeelcompelledtogranttheprivilegeexceptasacourtesy.Suchcourtesycanbeseenasakindofanticipatoryreciprocityinwhichstatesdountootherstatesastheywouldhopetobetreatedinturn.Comityisthusunderstoodasaninformalprinciplethatnationswillextendcertaincourtesiestoothernations,particularlybyrecogniz

19、ingthevalidityandeffectoftheirexecutive,legislative,andjudicialacts.Thisprincipleismostfrequentlyinvokedbycourts,whichwillnotactinawaythatdemeansthejurisdiction,laws,orjudicialdecisionsofanothercountry.,1-4,SchoolsofThoughtDefiningTheBasisofInternationalLaw(IL),CosmopolitansarguethatILisbaseduponuni

20、versalhumanrights.PositivistssaythatILisbasedonthesovereignequalityofallstatesandstateconsenttoILthroughtreatiesorcustom.HobbesiansclaimthatstateswillmakeagreementsandabidebyILonlywhenitsuitstheirself-interests.,1-5,ExamplesofPublicandPrivateInternationalLaw,Case1-1IgnacioSequihuav.TexacoInc.etal.Un

21、itedStatesDistrictCourtfortheSouthernDistrictofTexas,HoustonDivision,847F.Supp.61(1994),OpinionofJudgeBlackPlaintiffs,residentsofEcuador,filedthisactioninTexasstatecourtassertingavarietyofcausesofactionarisingoutoftheallegedcontaminationoftheair,ground,andwaterinEcuador.Inadditiontomonetaryrelief,Pl

22、aintiffsaskedforaninjunctionrequiringDefendantstoreturnthelandtoitsformerconditionandfora“trustfund”tobeadministeredbytheCourt.Thecasewasremovedtofederalcourt,andtheCourtfindsthattheremovalwasprocedurallyproper.Inconsideringthedefendantsmotionstodismiss,theCourtused“comity”torulefordefendants.,Under

23、thedoctrineknownascomityofnations,acourtshoulddeclinetoexercisejurisdictionundercertaincircumstancesindeferencetothelawsandinterestsofanotherforeigncountry.Section403(3)oftheRestatement(Third)oftheForeignRelationsLawoftheUnitedStatessetsforthanumberoffactorstobeconsideredindeterminingwhetherthecomit

24、yofnationsdeferenceshouldbeapplied.TheNinthCircuitappliedsimilarfactorsinTimberlaneLumberCo.v.BankofAmericaNationalTrustandSavingsAssn.,749F.2d1378(9thCir.1984),toaffirmaDistrictCourtsdecisionnottoexercisejurisdiction.ConsiderationofthesefactorsleadstotheinescapableconclusionthattheCourtshoulddeclin

25、etoexercisejurisdictionoverthiscase.,ThechallengedactivityandtheallegedharmoccurredentirelyinEcuador;PlaintiffsareallresidentsofEcuador;DefendantsarenotresidentsofTexas;enforcementinEcuadorofanyjudgmentissuedbythisCourtisquestionableatbest;thechallengedconductisregulatedbytheRepublicofEcuadorandexer

26、ciseofjurisdictionbythisCourtwouldinterferewithEcuadorssovereignrighttocontrolitsownenvironmentandresources;andtheRepublicofEcuadorhasexpresseditsstrenuousobjectiontotheexerciseofjurisdictionbythisCourt.Indeed,noneofthefactorsfavortheexerciseofjurisdiction.Accordingly,thecaseshouldbedismissedunderth

27、edoctrineofcomityofnations.CasepointUnderthedoctrineknownascomity,acourtshoulddeclinetoexercisejurisdictionundercertaincircumstancesindeferencetothelawsandinterestsofanothercountry.,1-7,Case1-1IgnacioSequihuav.TexacoInc.,Comityappliedtoprivatedispute.CourtinTexasdeclinedtoexercisejurisdictionoveract

28、ivityandharmthatoccurredinEcuador.TakingjurisdictioninU.S.wouldhaveinterferedwithEcuadorssovereignrighttocontrolitsownenvironment.Casedismissedunderthedoctrineofcomityofnations.,1-6,GoodwillandCivilityBetweenStates:Comity,RepublicofthePhilippinesv.WestinghouseElec.Corp.43F3d65(3rdCir,1994)U.S.trialc

29、ourtorderedthePhilippinegovernmenttonotharasswitnessesinvolvedinthecase.CourtofAppealsoverturnedtheorder.Heldthatacourtcouldrequestcompliancebyaforeignsovereignasamatterofcomity,butcouldnotordercompliance.Comityrequiresthatwerespectothercountriessovereigntyandlawsothattheywillrespectours.,1-8,U.S.Co

30、urtsApplyComityandRefusetoTakeJurisdictionWhen:,ThedefendantisasovereignstateDefendanthasinsufficientcontactswiththeU.S.AnotherjudicialforumismoreconvenientCongressdidnotintendU.S.statutetoapplyextraterritoriallyCaseconcernsactofsovereignstateonitsownterritory,1-9,TheMakingofInternationalLaw,General

31、ly,ILcomesintoeffectonlywhenstatesconsenttoit.Generalconsentfoundinstatepracticetheconductandpracticesofstatesintheirdealingswitheachother.Evidenceofgeneralconsent:DecisionsoftheInternationalCourtofJusticeResolutionspassedbytheUNGeneralAssemblyMultilateraltreaties,conclusionsofinternationalconferenc

32、es,andprovisionsrepeatedoverandoveragaininbilateraltreaties,1-10,SourcesofInternationalLaw,TreatiesorconventionsInternationalcustomGeneralprinciplesoflawrecognizedbycivilizednationsJudicialdecisionsandteachingsofhighlyqualifiedlegalwriters,Thislist,ascontainedinArticle38(1)oftheStatuteoftheInternati

33、onalCourtofJustice,impliesahierarchy,ororder,inwhichthesesourcesaretobereliedon.,1-11,TreatiesandConventions,EquivalentsoflegislationinILare:Treatieslegallybindingagreementbetweentwoormorestates.Conventionslegallybindingagreementbetweenstatessponsoredbyaninternationalorganization.Customaryrulesthatg

34、overntreatiesarecontainedintheViennaConventionontheLawofTreaties,ratifiedby108countries.,1-12,CustomAsSourceofInternationalLaw,Customalong-establishedtraditionorusagethatbecomescustomarylawifitis:Consistentlyandregularlyobserved,and(Evidenceofthisfoundinofficialstatementsofgovernments,opinionsoflega

35、ladvisors,executivedecrees,orderstomilitaryforces,andcourtdecisions.)Recognizedbythosestatesobservingitasapracticethattheymustobligatorilyfollow.,1-13,GeneralPrinciplesofLawandJusCogens,Courtswilloftenrelyupongeneralprinciplesoflawthatarecommontothelegalsystemsoftheworldtosolveinternationaldisputes.

36、Juscogens(强制性法规)isaperemptorynormofgeneralinternationallaw,recognizedbytheinternationalcommunityasanormfromwhichnoderogationispermitted.Juscogens-statesmustrespectcertainfundamentalprinciples.Treatiesarevoidiftheyconflictwithjuscogens.Ex:Treatybytwonationstouseviolenceagainstathirdnationviolateshigh

37、erstandardofjuscogens.,1-14,ScopeofInternationalLawinActualPractice,Internationaltribunalsregardmunicipallawassubservienttointernationallaw.Stateshaveobligationtobringtheirmunicipallawintocompliancewithinternationalnorms.Municipalcourtsoftenbalkatthisobligationbaseduponstrongfeelingsofnationalismand

38、beliefinpriorityforthesovereignstatesownlaw.,1-15,PracticeinMunicipalCourts,Inmunicipalcourts,internationallawgenerallytreatedascorrelative.Iftheinternationallawisbasedoncustomarypractice,itisreceivedinaccordancewiththedoctrineofincorporation（纳入原则）.CustomaryILispartofdomesticlawtotheextentthatitisno

39、tinconsistent.Minorityofcourts-doctrineoftransformationCustomaryILisapplicabledomesticallyonlyafteradoptedbylegislation,courtdecision,orlocalusage.,1-16,MunicipalCourtReceptionRulesFoundinTreatiesTwoFactors,Natureofthetreaty:Self-executing（自动执行条约）containsaprovisionstatingthatthetreatywillapplytothep

40、artieswithouthavingtoadoptdomesticenablinglegislation.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-treat

41、iesenteredintobythePresident,notratified,noteffectivedomestically.,1-17,Case1-2SeiFujiiv.Statepp.10-12,ExamineswhetherprovisionsofUNCharterpromotingfundamentalfreedomswithoutdistinctionastoraceareself-executingornot.CaliforniaappellatecourtruledthatlandpurchasedbyFujii,aJapanesealien,violatedalienla

42、ndlawandescheatedtostate.CASupremeCourtaffirmedthatUNCharterwasnotself-executingbecauselanguagewasnotmandatoryandrequiredadditionalimplementinglegislation.However,lawviolated14thAmend.,Fujiismoneyreturned.,1-18,InternationalPersonspp.12-42,StatesIndependentstatesDependentstatesInchoatestatesp.12Inte

43、rnationalOrganizationsIntergovernmentalorganizations(IGO)Nongovernmentalorganizations(NGO),1-19,InternationalPersons-States,State-politicalentitycomprisingaterritory,apopulation,agovernmentcapableofenteringintointernationalrelations,andagovernmentcapableofcontrollingitsterritoryandpeoples.Anindepend

44、entstateissovereignandoperatesindependentlyinternationally.Adependentstate(PuertoRico)hasformallysurrenderedsomeaspectoftheirpoliticalandgovernmentalfunctionstoanotherstate.Aninchoatestatelacksattributesofindependentstate,suchasterritoryorpopulation.,1-20,CaseMatimakTradingCo.v.KhalilyandD.A.Y.KidsS

45、portswearInc.,Matimak,aHongKongcorporation,suedinfederalcourtinNYunderdiversityjurisdictionasacitizenofforeignstate.Thoughnotformallyrecognizedbyexecutivebranch,MatimakargueddefactorecognitionofHongKong.Ruling:HongKongnotanindependentstate.MatimaknotacitizenorsubjectofUnitedKingdomoranyforeignstate.

46、Suitdismissedforlackofjurisdiction.,1-21,Case1-4pp.3133CourtofJusticeoftheEuropeanCommunitiesCase274/87CommissionoftheEuropeanCommunitiesv.FederalRepublicofGermany欧共体委员会诉联邦德国案,1-21,JudgmentCase1-4examinesboththeobligationofmemberstatestobringtheirlawsintoaccordwiththeEUtreaties(inparticulartheEurope

47、anCommunityTreatythenknownastheEECTreaty)andthedirecteffectofthosetreaties.,1-21,JudgmentByapplicationlodgedattheCourtRegistryon16September1987,theCommissionoftheEuropeanCommunitiesbroughtanactionbeforetheCourtunderthesecondparagraphofArticle169oftheEECTreatyforadeclarationthatbyprohibitingtheimport

48、ationandmarketinginitsterritoryofmeatproductsfromotherMemberStateswhichdonotcomplywith,1-21,Paragraphs4and5oftheFleisch-Verordnung(MeatRegulation)of21January1982theFederalRepublicofGermanyhasfailedtofulfillitsobligationsunderArticle30oftheEECTreaty.Theregulationinquestionprohibitsthemarketingofmeatp

49、roductswhichcontainingredientsotherthanmeat,subjecttoexceptionsinrespectof,1-21,specifiedproductsthecompositionofwhichisdefined,witharequirement,incertaincases,forspecificinformationtobeshownonthepackagingordisplayedonsigns.ThebanonmarketingthoseproductsissupplementedbyParagraph47,subparagraph1,ofth

50、eLebensmittelundBedarfsgegenstaendegesetz(Lawonfoodstuffsandnecessities)of15August1974,whichprohibitstheimportationoffoodstuffswhichdonot,1-21,complywithGermanstandards.Compliancewiththoserulesisensuredbymeansofcriminaloradministrativepenalties.Itshouldbenotedattheoutsetthatitisundisputedthatthecont

51、estedruleshavearestrictiveeffectonimportsofmeatproductslegallymanufacturedandmarketedinotherMemberStates.Theissuebetweenthepartiesiswhetherornotthemeasuresinquestionare,1-21,justifiedonthegroundsputforwardbytheGermanGovernment,thatistosaytheprotectionofhealthandmandatoryrequirementsrelatingtoconsume

52、rprotection,fairtradingandthecommonagriculturalpolicy.ItshouldalsobenotedattheoutsetthatthecontestedrulesprohibitthemarketingoftheproductsconcernedinGermanterritoryregardlessofwhethertheyarenationalorforeignproducts.,1-21,JustificationBasedontheProtectionofHealthWithintheMeaningofArticle36oftheTreat

53、yBeforeconsideringtheargumentsputforwardbythedefendantGovernmentinthisregard,itmustbepointedoutthattheCourthasconsistentlyheldthat,whilsthumanlifeandhealthareamongthemattersprotectedbyArticle36anditisthereforefortheMemberStatestodecidewithinthelimitssetbytheTreatythe,1-21,degreeofprotectionwhichthey

54、wishtoensure,nationalrulesrestrictingimportsarecompatiblewiththeTreatyonlyinsofarastheyarenecessaryfortheeffectiveprotectionofhumanlifeandhealthandonlyifthatobjectivecannotbeachievedbymeasureslessrestrictiveofintra-Communitytrade(judgmentsof20May1976inCase104/75,DePeijper(1976)ECR613andof4February19

55、88inCase261/85,Commissionv.UnitedKingdom(1988)ECR547).,1-21,TheGermanGovernmentmaintainsthatthecontestedprohibitionofimportationisjustifiedongroundsrelatingtotheprotectionofhealthwithinthemeaningofArticle36oftheTreatybecauseitisnecessarytoensureasufficientintakeofcertainessentialnutrientscontainedin

56、meat,especiallyproteins.Itmustbepointedoutatoncethatthatargumentiscontradictedbyinformationwhichappearsinreportsonnutrition,1-21,publishedin1980and1984bytheGermanGovernmentitself.ThosereportsshowthatproteinintakelevelsinGermanyareingeneralmorethanadequateandthateveninthecaseofcertaingroupsofthepopul

57、ation,particularlyyoungpeople,whoseproteinintakeislowerthantherecommendedlevel,thelowerintakeposesnothreattohealthinviewofthesafetymarginsincorporatedintherelevantrecommendations.,1-21,Itisalsoclearfromthosereportsthatsomemeatingredientscontainharmfulsubstancessuchaspurine(嘌呤),cholesterol(胆固醇)andsat

58、uratedfattyacids(饱和脂肪酸);thereportsthereforeexpresssomeconcernaboutanyfutureincreaseintheconsumptionofmeatandmeatproducts.Finally,withregardtotheGermanGovernmentsargumentthatvegetableproteinshavealowernutritionalvalue,1-21,thananimalproteins,itmustbestressedthat,astheCourthasalreadystatedinitsjudgmen

59、tof23February1988inCase216/84,Commissionv.France(1988)ECR793,aMemberStatemaynotinvokepublichealthgroundsinordertoprohibittheimportationofaproductbyarguingthatitsnutritionalvalueislowerthananotherproductalreadyavailableonthemarketinquestion,sinceitisplainthatthechoiceoffoodstuffsavailableto,1-21,consumersintheCommunityissuchthatthemerefactthatanimportedproducthasalowernutritionalvaluedoesnotposearealthreattohumanhealth.ItfollowsfromtheforegoingthatthecontestedprohibitionofimportationmaynotbejustifiedongroundsrelatingtotheprotectionofhealthwithinthemeaningofArt