International Trade and the Law of the WTO

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-9
Keyword(s):  
2003 ◽  
Vol 34 (3) ◽  
pp. 521
Author(s):  
Malcolm McKinnon

This paper examines the UNCITRAL Convention on the Assignment of Receivables in International Trade as it affects New Zealand.  The focus of the paper is on the potential effect of the Convention on New Zealand's relationship with Australia.  The law in the two countries is very different especially since the passing of New Zealand's Personal Property Securities Act 1999, which is, the author concludes, highly compatible with the UNCITRAL Receivables Convention.  The paper considers two sample transactions to illustrate the effects of the Convention in a trans-Tasman context.  It concludes that where the Convention (if it enters into force in New Zealand and Australia) applies, there are relatively few complications.  Where it does not apply, however, parties to trans-Tasman receivables transactions face complicated applicable law arguments and general uncertainty. 


2021 ◽  
Vol 69 (1) ◽  
pp. 231-249
Author(s):  
Vuk Cucić

Most imported/exported goods are not controlled by customs authorities at the border. This allows for the fast release of goods and the better functioning of international trade. The backbone of this system consists of customs declarations filed by the importers/exporters, selective control at the border, based on risk assessment, and the post-clearance audit (PCA) of the accepted customs declarations. This pape r deals with the questionable practice of the Serbian Customs Administration with regard to the conducting of the PCA, particularly its relation with the Law on General Administrative Procedure and the issues related to the classification of goods according to customs tariff. The author identifies issues regarding the transparency, interpretation and implementation of the PCA in Serbia and contests the (internationally recognized) practice of changing the classification of goods in accepted customs declarations. The author proposes possible solutions for identified challenges.


2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-11 ◽  
Author(s):  
M.C.W. PINTO

AbstractThis paper discusses the Tribunal’s decision to assume jurisdiction over the Philippine claim notwithstanding China’s publicly declared and law-based withholding of consent to the proceedings instituted by the Philippines. The Tribunal relied on its interpretation of China’s general commitment under Section 2 of Part XV (Settlement of Disputes) of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea,1 which was subjected to a Convention-authorized “exception” under Article 298 (China’s Declaration of 25 August 2006) that had selectively deprived any such proceeding of the essential element of China’s consent. The paper calls for inventive consideration of the methods available for resolving disputes, which might be seen currently as excessively influenced by procedures designed for resolving international trade disputes where only one party is a state.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document