University of Macau / Faculty of Law

University of Macau / Faculty of Law

No description available.

<p>The general objective of the proposed research is to do a needs analysis for the tourism and hospitality industries of South Africa, Botswana, Namibia, Lesotho and Swaziland. This will be followed by an alignment of these industries with the provisions of the General Agreement of Trade in Services, commonly known as GATS, so that a Tourism and Hospitality Services Charter may be moulded that may be used uniformly throughout SACU. The specific objectives of the research are: To analyze impact assessment reports and studies conducted on the Tourism and Hospitality Industries for all five SACU member states with the aim of harmonizing standards, costs and border procedures. To ecognize SACU member states&rsquo / schedule of GATS Commitments, especially in the service sectors being investigated, by improving market access, and to recommend minimal infrastructural development levels to be attained for such sectors&rsquo / support. To make recommendations to harness the challenges faced by the said industries into a working document. To calibrate a uniformity of trade standards in these sectors that shall be used by the SACU membership. To ensure that the template is flexible enough for SACU to easily adopt and use in ongoing bilateral negotiations, for example.</p>

No description available.

隨著WTO爭端解決機構近年來的實踐，許多制度性問題紛紛浮現，特別是WTO爭端解決小組或上訴機構在反傾銷爭端中審查基準實踐上所引發之爭議。批評者主要認為上訴機構於反傾銷規範之法律解釋上不當適用解釋規則，並未遵循反傾銷協定第17.6(ii)條之規範。另外，上訴機構實質上近乎重新審理被訴會員之法律見解，似乎違反第17.6(ii)條之規範意旨。本文嘗試整理相關經由WTO上訴機構裁決之反傾銷爭端，觀察及彙整第17.6(ii)條於現行運作中之實踐情形，並檢視上述兩項爭議之正反意見。經分析後發現，上述兩項爭議皆涉及不同之政策考量與WTO組織間的互動。易言之，除爭端解決機構對於協定條文之法律解釋外，偏重與選擇不同之政策考量做為正當性基礎，將決定著審查基準之面貌。在進一步分析並檢討在反傾銷制度下可能影響審查基準之政策價值後，本文認為WTO爭端解決機制為維繫其準司法機關之正當性與確保經由多邊架構所帶來之合作利益，有統一法律解釋與重新審理被控訴會員之法律解釋之必要。另外，反傾銷協定第17.6(ii)條審查基準之解釋上，不宜採取其立法來源—美國法Chevron doctrine—之規範內涵。同時，為避免反傾銷制度遭濫用成為貿易保護政策之工具，應賦予WTO爭端解決機構於審理反傾銷爭端時較為自主之法律解釋權力。然而，基於適度尊重WTO會員主權之考量與司法自制之要求，本文建議，WTO爭端解決機構在審理反傾銷案件時，除須正確地援引並靈活運用國際法上習慣解釋規則外，更需適度參照第17.6(ii)條之立法目的，藉由嚴格適用WTO協定，以充實其所採取審查基準之正當性基礎。 / With practices of WTO Dispute Settlement Body (DSB), the institutional issues on Standards of Review have emerged, especially on WTO Anti-dumping disputes. Contestations are focus on whether Appellate Body has mal-applied rules of interpretations on Anti-Dumping Agreement (ADA) as to go beyond Article 17.6(ii). Moreover, Critics query whether Appellate Body De Novo reviewed member’s legal interpretations as to disregard purpose of Article 17.6(ii). By examining relevant anti-dumping penal and appellate body reports, current modes of practices on ADA Article 17.6(ii) are concluded, and probed to its different critiques. Further, issues of such are result from policy considerations of Standards of Review under Anti-Dumping System. In other words, apart from penal and appellate body’s interpretations on ADA, different policy ends will influence current practices of Standards of Review. Consequently, the article checks on and assays on relevant policy justifications of deferential standards of review under anti-dumping system. Concluded, for retaining its institution justifications and ensuring the cooperation gains under multilateral approach, WTO dispute settlement institutes have the necessities in de novo review and leveling legal interpretations. Moreover, due to the different characters, the Chevron mode interpretations on standards of review is without analogy to ADA article 17.6(ii); meanwhile, for preventing distorting antidumping measures as trade protection tools, WTO dispute settlement institutes should have much room on discretion of reviewing members’ ADA legal interpretations. However, in respecting WTO Member’s sovereignty and the requiring of judicial restraint, when taking the standards of review on examining anti-dumping disputes, WTO dispute settlement institutes would strictly and nimbly retain customary rules of interpretation of public international law with considering purposes of ADA article 17.6(ii).

Univ., Diss.--Copenhagen, 2007.

Univ., Diss.--Tübingen, 1999. / Literaturverz. S. [511] - 545. Literaturverz. S. [511] - 545.

Zugl.: Kyushu, University, Diss., 2008.

Diss. Univ. Bern, 2005. / Ed. commerciale de la thèse de Bern, 2005. Bibliogr.