The introduction and signing of the Economic Partnership Agreements (hereafter EPA’s) have been received with mixed feelings legally, politically and economically. African Caribbean and Pacific countries have taken different positions with regards to their signing, ratification and implementation. A lot has been written about the legal effect of EPA’ The Southern Africa Customs Union (hereafter SACU) has not been spared either. SACU is made up of Botswana, Lesotho, Namibia, South Africa and Swaziland. Article 31 (3) of the 2002 SACU Agreement prohibits any of the SACU member states to negotiate and enter into new preferential agreements with third parties or amend existing agreements without the consent of other member states. Botswana, Lesotho and Swaziland signed Economic Partnership Agreements with the European Union in direct violation of article 31 (3) of the 2002 SACU Agreement. The actions of these three countries have exposed the vulnerabilities and short-comings of the 2002 Agreement. The key findings of this study are that Botswana, Lesotho and Swaziland have violated the 2002 Agreement. Namibia and South Africa have openly castigated the actions of Botswana, Lesotho and Swaziland. SACU institutions that are mandated to monitor and implement the 2002 Agreement such as the Council of Ministers, Customs Union Commission, Secretariat, Tariff Board, Technical Liaison Committees and ad hoc Tribunal appear to have not taken sufficient action to penalise the actions of Botswana, Lesotho and Swaziland. This has led some critics to argue that the SACU 2002 Agreement has to be reviewed or suspended or that it has lost its legal force. / Thesis (LLM (Import and Export Law))--North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2013.

The introduction and signing of the Economic Partnership Agreements (hereafter EPA’s) have been received with mixed feelings legally, politically and economically. African Caribbean and Pacific countries have taken different positions with regards to their signing, ratification and implementation. A lot has been written about the legal effect of EPA’ The Southern Africa Customs Union (hereafter SACU) has not been spared either. SACU is made up of Botswana, Lesotho, Namibia, South Africa and Swaziland. Article 31 (3) of the 2002 SACU Agreement prohibits any of the SACU member states to negotiate and enter into new preferential agreements with third parties or amend existing agreements without the consent of other member states. Botswana, Lesotho and Swaziland signed Economic Partnership Agreements with the European Union in direct violation of article 31 (3) of the 2002 SACU Agreement. The actions of these three countries have exposed the vulnerabilities and short-comings of the 2002 Agreement. The key findings of this study are that Botswana, Lesotho and Swaziland have violated the 2002 Agreement. Namibia and South Africa have openly castigated the actions of Botswana, Lesotho and Swaziland. SACU institutions that are mandated to monitor and implement the 2002 Agreement such as the Council of Ministers, Customs Union Commission, Secretariat, Tariff Board, Technical Liaison Committees and ad hoc Tribunal appear to have not taken sufficient action to penalise the actions of Botswana, Lesotho and Swaziland. This has led some critics to argue that the SACU 2002 Agreement has to be reviewed or suspended or that it has lost its legal force. / Thesis (LLM (Import and Export Law))--North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2013.

歐盟廣泛地與世界各國簽訂優惠貿易協定，透過優惠貿易待遇的給予來促進與各國間政治與經貿的緊密連繫。而對於生產者而言，要適用這些貿易優惠的前提就是透過遵循歐盟優惠性原產地規則而使產品取得原產產品身分，無論是以完全取得或是經過充分作業或加工而產生實質轉型的方式。 本論文主要的研究目的，在於分析個別歐盟優惠貿易協定下關於累積規定、微量條款、出口退稅禁止等關鍵條文，與附錄清單就產品「實質轉型」標準規定的法律義涵，以及其隱含的政經意義；並就該意義進一步推衍出對於台灣的生產者，在眾多的歐盟優惠性協定法律架構下，存在個別規則適用難易程度具有差別且該差別將對生產成本有所影響之事實。而本論文另一重點則是就法規與生產稟賦搭配後得推衍出原則性之評估方法來評比出個別優惠性原產地規則在適用上之優劣順序，以協助台灣廠商未來考慮使用此項貿易優惠來進軍歐盟市場時，在國際投資之佈局上可以納入考量或作為參考，以選擇出最有利的受惠國或區域作為生產資源配置之基礎。 為使法律層面與實務上之運作加以結合，本論文進一步以台灣的成鞋廠商做為研究觀察之對象，檢視其是否會因為適用歐盟優惠性原產地規則而改變投資模式，另亦將與鞋廠商實際訪談所得之結論與推演出原則性評估方法加以比較，進一步檢討該評估方法之適用能力與情形，並提出應隨不同情況而加以修正相關假設之注意。 關鍵詞：歐盟優惠性原產地規則；原產地規則；原產產品；實質轉型；累積規定；微量條款；出口退稅禁止；附錄清單；生產稟賦；國際投資；成鞋。 / Europe Union (EU) broadly sign the preferential trade agreements with the other countries in the globe, and through the conferring of the preferential trade treatments, EU attempts to build up the tight political and economic bonds worldwide. The premise for producers who want to enjoy these trade preferences is to make sure that their product are qualified and recognized as “original product” in those beneficiary countries either by following the regulation of standard of “wholly obtained” or “sufficiently working or processing” stipulated in each preferential Rule of Origin (ROO). The main subject of this thesis is to analyze the legal meaning and the underlined policy purpose of the critical provisions in each EU preferential ROO, such as “cumulation”, “general tolerance rule”, “no-drawback rule”, and the standard of “sufficiently working or processing” of a product (substantial transformation) stipulated in the List Rules (in the Annex part) attached in each preferential trade agreement. And from those meaning Author reasons out the fact that the level of difficulty concerning applying and using these preferential ROO are different and the difference has its influence on cost of producing. Author also infers the basic method to assess the level of difficulty of these ROO while combining analyzing the ROO provisions and endowment in the beneficiary countries. This method is to assist those Taiwanese producers who have willing to use the EU preferential ROO to make their product qualified as “original product” with the minimized producing cost when entering into EU market, that is, to help producers cherry pick the beneficial countries (or area) for making investments distribution and deploying concerned producing resources and still have their the products entitled as “original product”. To combine the legal dimension and the producer’s operation in practice, Author further chooses Taiwanese footwear producers as observed subject of using the ROO and see if they would change their mode of investment thereafter. Author compares the conclusion derived from interviewing footwear producers with the basic assessment method, and further examines the applicability of the method and the potential correction of hypothesis under certained situations. Key words: EU preferential Rule of Origin, Rule of Origin, original product, substantial transformation, cumulation, general tolerance rule, no-drawback rule, List Rules, endowment, international investment, footwear.