World international trade is moving towards more free trade, through globalization and trade liberalization. These moves are guided by trade theories which state that on an aggregated level, nations involved in free trade should benefit, and further that free trade is fair. However, in practice, contradictory views have been raised, stating that free trade may not necessarily be benefiting all participants equally. Rather, other nations, especially developing nations, have become worse-off after opening up their markets for free trade. On the other hand, many developed nations have benefited substantially from free trade. Among other factors, the difference in benefits is believed to have been influenced by the types of commodities being traded (where developing nations mainly trade in primary goods and developed nations in anufactured goods) and unequal power relations (some nations for example, the EU and the US, still adopt protectionism in their agricultural sector). In order to address market imbalances resulting from free trade, Fairtrade has arisen. Fairtrade aims to improve international trading conditions in order to benefit small-scale farmers and farm workers in the developing nations. The Fairtrade organization further claims that its principles are in line with sustainable development. However, Fairtrade suffers a credibility gap because there is a lack of independent research to support their claims. To date in South Africa, there is little research examining the claims of the Fairtrade organization. In order to contribute to the Fairtrade discussion in South Africa, this study has investigated the validity of Fairtrade‘s claims that it contributes towards sustainable development. The study utilised primary data, which was collected from ten commercial farms and two small-scale farmer cooperatives located in the Eastern Cape and Western Cape provinces that are/were Fairtrade certified. The main reason for including commercial farmers and small-scale farmer cooperatives in the study was for comparing relative impacts in the two Fairtrade structures. The data was then analysed using a sustainable livelihoods framework, which was developed in the study. The study focussed on investigating the impact of Fairtrade tools, which are minimum prices, premiums, pre-financing and support for long-term relationships, on its intended beneficiaries. Minimum prices offered to producers cover production costs and are above market prices, and Fairtrade premiums are to be invested in developmental projects. Therefore, examining the influence of Fairtrade tools on individuals and communities provides an overview of how Fairtrade influences development. The results of the study show that sampled Fairtrade beneficiaries in South Africa have witnessed substantial positive changes as a result of Fairtrade. The Fairtrade initiative has managed to empower small-scale producers and farm workers, as well as leverage development opportunities for their wider communities. It has supported organizational development in the supply chain, facilitated investment in community development projects and in business-related training. Producers, both commercial and small-scale producers, managed to access a market that offers stable prices, and have gained from minimum prices. Furthermore, small-scale farmers have been allowed an opportunity to expand their business into export markets, and enjoyed an increase in incomes. Fairtrade benefits further trickle down to non-Fairtrade community members, in the form of employment creation and community development. Despite positive effects, Fairtrade producers faced challenges, including high Fairtrade administration costs and a small market for Fairtrade commodities. The study concludes that in the face of challenges, Fairtrade brings economic, social and environmental benefits, but as compared to economic and social development, the impact on environmental development is rather limited. Even though that is the case, Fairtrade offers valuable development opportunities to producers in South Africa.

Universiẗat, Diss.--Freiburg. i. Br., 2005. / Literaturverz. S. 274 - 285.

Univ., Diss.--Kiel, 2002.

Univ., Diss.--Basel, 2002.

Thesis (doctoral)--Universität, Heidelberg, 2007. / Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (doctoral)--Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg im Breisgau, 2007. / Includes bibliographical references (p. 271-284).

The focus of this thesis is the question whether or not the WTO discriminates unfairly against developing economies. In the absence of a test of guidelines for detennining unfairness or fairness of WTO provisions or Agreements has been drawn up using welfare economic and constitutional law principles as a foundation. Unfairness is therefore determined by asking whether the provisions of each Agreement are rational, proportional, efficient and whether they prevent the abuse of power amongst states. In addition, the economic effects of the provisions of the selected Agreements have been analysed to determine whether the relevant provisions are welfare enhancing and conclusive to promoting growth and development within developing economies. The Agreements chosed for analysis are the Agreements on Trade-related Investment Measures (TRIMS), Trade-related Intellectual Property (TRIPS), Agriculture and Services (GATS). The dispute settlement and negotiating process, labour standards and the impact of decreasing most-favoured nation rates on developing economy competitiveness is also discussed. Application of the test has shown that the WTO provisions do not reflect the interests of all members. Even though most member states are developing economies, the3 Agreements constantly cater foe developed country concerns and interests. Where provision is made for developing country interests, it is the LDC's who are favoured, with nonnal developing economies being bound by the same provisions as the developed economies. A fonnal, as opposed to a substantive, defmition has been adopted by the WTO, with a result that the process of equality is placed above the outcomes. While concessions have been made to development, members have not gone for enough. A main reason for the imbalance can be attributed to the negotiating process, which is based upon concessionary bargaining and trade-off. Those states with greater economic power are therefore at an advantage as they have the leverage needed to influence the outcomes of negotiations and hence the provisions of the various Agreements. Even with the LDC's, the WTO has been found to discriminate unfairly against developing economies because it does not adequately address developing country concerns. / KMBT_363 / Adobe Acrobat 9.54 Paper Capture Plug-in

In South Africa compliance with competition law has become a major concern for firms that achieve and maintain certain levels of success and growth in the market, as their actions are often a source of complaints and litigation by rivals and competition authorities. With substantial financial penalties often levied against them for a variety of conduct deemed to constitute an abuse of their market position, dominant firms must constantly be aware of the likely impact of their business strategies and actions on both rivals and consumers. What were once thought to be normal and economically sound business practices and decisions, such as cutting prices to attract customers, have now acquired new meanings, with devastating consequences for dominant firms. So, are dominant firms under attack from competition law? In this study I aim to determine this. I track the historical development of competition law in three jurisdictions: South Africa, America, and the EU, with the aim of identifying traces, if any, of hostility towards dominant firms in the origins of competition law. I further investigate whether the formulation and enforcement of certain aspects of existing abuse of dominance provisions manifest as hostility towards dominant firms. While acknowledging the important role that competition law enforcement plays in promoting competition and enhancing consumer welfare, I conclude that significant unjustified economic and legal prejudice is suffered by dominant firms as a result of the way in which certain abuse of dominance provisions have been formulated and applied. I also offer appropriate recommendations. / Mercantile Law / LL. D.

This thesis investigates the role of prior use in common and statutory trade mark law. In the United States a pertinent requirement is priority of use. In the United Kingdom and South Africa, a reputation must be present. In the United Kingdom a plaintiff is required to have goodwill in the country, but in the United States and South Africa it is not required. The conception of a mark does not qualify for protection. It is not required that a business must have actually entered the market. In the United States the general approach is that a plaintiff will not receive protection in a remote area, but regard must be had to zones of natural expansion. British and South African law is the same, and protection may be obtained in areas where there is no trading. Where a dual reputation exists, neither party will be able to act against the other. The mere fact that the user of a mark was aware of the use thereof by another person, does not exclude protection. A trade mark application can be opposed on the basis of another application, combined with use of a mark, or on the ground of prior use. In some instances the fact that a mark has been filed will influence the burden of proof. In general, a registration can be expunged on the same grounds as would constitute grounds of opposition. The concurrent use of a mark can form the basis for the registration of a mark. In the United States, the use must have taken place prior to the filing date of the other party, but in the United Kingdom and South Africa, prior to the own filing date. In the latter two countries, knowledge of a mark is not necessarily exclusionary. Prior use is generally accepted as a defence to an infringement action. It is, however, noted that in various countries, it is only use prior to the relevant date that will be protected, and there is not necessarily a right to extend the scope of use concerned. / Mercantile Law / LL.D. (Mercantile Law)

No description available.