博客2015國際經濟法年會

❶ 哪裡可以找到更多的國際經濟法案例謝謝大家

不太清楚 不過你可以說說你想知道什麼 我或許能幫你

❷ 關於國際經濟法的網站

以下幾個網站不錯：
http://www.ila-hq.org/
http://www.csil.org.tw/
http://www.un.org/chinese/law/lawtxt.htm
http://www.ili.org/
http://www.cel.cn/

另外還有如下：
http://www.chinainterlaw.org/default.asp 國際法論壇
http://www.lib.whu.e.cn/dh/gjfn/yjjg.htm 國際法研究機構

以上都是我認為較好的，也是我常進去的網站，希望對你有幫助

❸ 國際經濟法大師、教授、專家請進！

問題一：CFR術語的意思是cost and freight,即貨物的價格由成本加運費構成，不包括保險費，其風險轉移的時間是貨交承運人時。該術語中賣方雖負責訂立運輸合同並支付運費，但對貨物在途風險概不負責。本案中中國賣方不承擔水果腐爛損失；國際運輸業務中，依據通行的《海牙規則》（傾向於維護船方利益），船方只負有適航義務、管貨義務和不做不適當繞航義務，對管船過失是免責的，即使船方在船隻擱淺中存有過錯也不承擔責任。所以水果腐爛的損失只能由買方承擔。買方規避風險的最好方法就是事先投保，由於CFR術語中貨物並未投保，買方所負風險較大。
問題二：Q1：在國際貨物運輸保險制度中，平安險承保范圍最小，單獨海損不理賠；水漬險只承保海上險，外來風險不賠；一切險也不是什麼風險都賠，它只比水漬險多了一項一般外來險。就本案而言，途中燒毀的化肥屬於單獨海損，是水漬險的承包范圍，由保險公司負責；救火過程中濕毀的化肥屬於共同海損，也是水漬險的承保范圍，均由保險公司賠償，買方沒有損失；
Q2：降價銷售是由於裝船遲延所致，但由於船方已經倒簽提單，只能自己承擔貨物延遲的責任。而後再依據B公司的保函向其索賠。姑且不說倒簽提單船方不易再找到托運方，即使順利找到並成功提起訴訟，由於裝船遲延的始作俑者就是船方，所以船方承擔損失幾乎是肯定的。

❹ 國際經濟法案例分析

法國政府行使稅收管轄權的原因是收入來源地稅收管轄權，美國行使的依據是居民稅收管轄權，居民稅收管轄權的自然人居民身份確認主要有住所標准和居所標准。

❺ 國際經濟法的對外經濟

源遠流長的中國對外經濟交往及其法理原則
中國的對外經濟交往，可以大體劃分為三個階段：
1．古代中國時期，即奴隸社會後期和封建社會時期，約相當於公元前四、五世紀至公元1840年；
2．半殖民地半封建中國時期，約相當於公元1840年至1949年；
3．社會主義新中國時期，即公元1949年以後。
一、古代中國的對外經濟交往及其法理內涵
（一）古代中國對外經濟交往簡況
夏朝時期，各個部落聯盟之間就時常開展跨越聯盟疆界的貿易。商朝時期，商品交換關系有了進一步的發展，並且開始使用原始形態的貨幣。到了周朝，實行「朝貢貿易」。春秋戰國時期，開始出現同海外歐洲國家之間的貿易往業，明顯的標志是：早在公元前四五世紀之間，中國的絲綢就已開始輾轉遠銷希臘等地。
秦朝時中國與印度支那半島、朝鮮半島兩個半島廣大地區的經濟貿易往來是相當密切的。
漢朝對外經濟交往也日益發達，開拓了 「絲綢之路」，又辟海市。經過隋朝進入唐朝，全國重新統一安定，對外經濟文化交往也空前興旺發達。
宋朝時期，政府側重於在南方發展海上國際貿易。元朝建立陸上國際商道暢通無阻，海上貿易也有新的發展。
明代初期，多沿襲元朝，且又有重大發展，如鄭和下西洋。明代中葉以後，關閉口岸，停止對外貿易，實行「鎖國」政策。清朝則變本加厲實行「海禁」，雖一度解禁開港，但對外來商人一律嚴加限制。
（二）古代中國對外經濟交往的法理內涵
第一，古代中國開展對外經濟交往，是國內生產力發展的結果，也是生產力進一步發展所必需。
第二，古代中國的對外經濟交往，其主要動因植根於社會生產力的發展。秦漢以來，兩千多年的對外經濟交往史上，雖然經歷了許多曲折和起落，但總的來說，積極開展對外經濟交是主流。
第三，在古代中國長期的對外經濟交往中，基本上體現了自主自願和平等互利的法理原則。
第四，古代中國的對外經濟交往由於歷史的和階級的局限，其規模和意義都難以與近現代的對外經濟交往相提並論。
二、半殖民地半封建中國的對外經濟交往及其「法理」內涵
（一）半殖民地半封建中國對外經濟交往簡況
繼1840年英國侵華的鴉片戰爭之後，殖民主義、帝國主義列強又發動了多次侵華戰爭。用戰爭暴力打敗中國，強迫中國訂立了許多不平等條約，攫取了各種政治、經濟特權，嚴重破壞了中國的政治主權和經濟主權，形成了中國對外經濟交往中的惡性循環。
（二）強加於半殖民地半封建中國對外經濟交往的「法理」
在這個時期里，由於中國的政治主權和經濟主權受到嚴重破壞，中國的對外經濟交往始終貫穿著兩條線索：第一，中國對外經濟交往中，往往處在非自願、被強迫的地位，受制於人，聽命於人。第二，中國總是遭到不平等的屈辱，忍受不等價的交換。弱肉強食的原則，不僅被列強推崇為「文明」國家的正當行為准則，而且通過國際不平等條約的締結和簽訂，取得了國際法上的合法地位和約束力。
三、社會主義新中國的對外經濟交往及其法理原則
（一）獨立自主精神的堅持
與平等互利原則的貫徹
獨立自主和平等互利，乃是新中國在對外經濟交往中一貫堅持的最基本的法理原則和行為規范，也是中國對外經濟交往健康發展的兩大基石。它由國家的根本正式加以肯定和固定，上升為具有法律拘束力和基本行為規范。
（二）閉關自守意識的終結與對外開放觀念的更新
半殖民地時期中國長期遭受的歷史屈辱，本世紀五六十年代帝國主義所強加於中國的經濟封鎖，以及霸權主義背信棄義對中國所造成的經濟破壞，都激發了和增強了中國人民獨立自主、自力更生、奮發圖強的意識。但是，在中國特定的歷史條件下，也產生了對於獨立自主、自力更生的片面認識和錯誤理解。對外經濟交往受到重大的消極影響，使中國的社會主義經濟建設失去了調動國外積極因素的良機，拉大了與先進國家經濟發展水平的差距。
黨的第十一屆三中全會，作出了把工作重點轉移到社會主義現代化建設上來的戰略決策，這是新中國建國以來具有深遠歷史意義的偉大轉折，使源遠流長的中國對外經濟交往，開始進入一個嶄新的、更加自覺、更加成熟的歷史發展階段。
1993年，中國憲法正式規定：「國家實行社會主義市場經濟」；黨的第十四屆三中全會針對在中國建立社會主義市場經濟體制問題，提出了綱領性的文件，大大加強了對外開放的力度、廣度和深度。
第五節 貫徹對外開放基本國策與學習國際經濟法
一、中國實行經濟上對外開放國策的主要根據
它是在總結該國多年實踐經驗以及參考國際實踐經驗的基礎上提出來的。中國在實現「四化」過程中不應該、也不可能孤立於國際社會之外。中國應積極參加和利用國際分工，實行平等互利的國際交換，大力發展開放型經濟，使國內經濟與國際經濟實現互接互補。
因此，中國在進行社會主義建設的過程中，一定要學會充分利用國內和國外兩種資源，開拓國內和國外兩個市場，學會組織國內建設和發展對外經濟交往兩套本領。
二、深入學習國際經濟法對貫徹上述基該國策的重大作用
其主要意義，可大體歸納為：
第一，依法辦事：世界各國經濟交往日益頻繁，十分需要藉助於國際經濟法的統一行為規范加以指導、調整和約束。中國應積極參加國際經濟交往，對於這種法律規范的現狀和發展趨向，需深入了解，自覺地「依法辦事」，避免因無知或誤解引起無謂的糾紛，造成不應有的損失。
第二，完善立法：廣泛深入地了解上述規范和慣例的有關內容，使中國涉外經濟法的立法、司法和行政執法工作有所借鑒，為社會主義市場經濟提供法律規范和日益完善的法制保障。
第三，以法護權：要熟悉國際經濟法的有關規定，和有關國家的涉外經濟法的有關知識，在「國際官司」中，運用法律手段來維護中國的應有權益。
第四，據法仗義：建立新的國際經濟秩序要以國際經濟法作為一種手段，按照公平合理和平等互利的原則，為全世界眾多弱小民族仗義執言和爭得公道，促進國際經濟秩序的新舊更替。
第五，發展法學：立足於該國的實際，以該國利益為核心，重點研究該國對外經濟交往中產生的法律問題，作出符合其該國權益的分析和論證。逐步創立起以馬克思主義為指導的，具有中國特色的國際經濟法學科體系。

❻ 國際經濟法案例

你可以申請有管轄權的法院中止支付信用證項下的款項，但限於開征申請人、開證專行、和其他屬利害關系人。但是申請中止附加了很多限制條件，如未進行付款、未承兌、未保兌、未議付。同時需要法院有管轄權，申請人提供確切的證據，情況緊急，不中止將會造成重大損害，申請人提供可靠、充分的擔保。如有疑問可具體詢問

❼ 國際經濟法,急!

合同雙方合意不違返法律法規都可以，採用這種方式，不是很有利於賣方就是了！
首先解釋一下，CIF(成本+運費+保險)
COST,INSURANCE AND FREIGHT(…named port of destination)--成本加保險費、運費（…指定目的港）是指賣方必須在合同規定的裝運期內在裝運港將貨物交至運往指定目的港的船上，負擔貨物越過船舷為止的一切費用和貨物滅失或損壞的風險，並負責辦理貨運保險，支付保險費，以及負責租船或訂艙，支付從裝運港到目的港的運費。

按照《1990年通則》，CIF合同買賣雙方的主要義務如下：

（一） 賣方的主要義務

1． 負責在合同規定的日期或期間內，在裝運港將符合合同的貨物交至運往指定目的港的船上，並給予買方充分的通知；

2． 負責辦理貨物出口手續，取得出口許可證或其他核准書；

3． 負責租船或訂艙，並支付至目的港的運費；

4． 負責辦理貨物運輸保險，支付保險費；

5． 負擔貨物在裝運港越過船舷為止的一切費用和風險；

6． 負責提供商業發票，保險單和貨物運往約定目的港的通常運輸單據。如果買賣雙方約定採用電子通信，則所有單據可被具有同等效力的電子數據交換信息所替代。

（二） 買方的主要義務

1． 負責按合同規定支付價款；

2． 負責辦理貨物進口手續，取得進口許可證或其他核准書；

3． 負擔貨物在裝運港越過船舷後的一切費用和風險；

4． 收取賣方按合同規定交付的貨物，接受與合同相符的單據。

在採用CIF術語時，需注意以下幾點：

1. CIF合同屬"裝運合同"，盡管我們通常稱之為"到岸價"，但這是指價格的構成，是由成本運費+保險費。而不是指賣方也負責貨物到岸前的風險。賣方在按合同規定的裝運地將貨物交付裝運後，對貨物可能發生的任何風險不再承擔責任。

2. 賣方應及時租船訂艙。

3. 賣方應按合同要求辦理保險，有關保險責任的起訖期限必須與貨物運輸相符合，並必須至遲自買方需負擔貨物滅失或損壞的風險時（即自貨物在裝運港越過船舷時）起對買方的保障生效。該保險責任的期限必須展延至貨物到達約定的目的港為止。

4. 卸貨費用的負擔，常用CIF術語的變形來表示，例如：

2 CIF班輪條件（CIF liner terms），指卸貨費用按班輪條件處理，由支付運費的一方（即賣方）負擔；

2 CIF艙底交貨（CIF ex ship's hold），指買方負擔將貨物從艙底起吊卸到碼頭的費用；

2 CIF吊鉤交貨（CIF ex tackle），指賣方負擔將貨物從艙底吊至船邊卸離吊鉤為止的費用；

2 CIF卸到岸上（CIF landed），指賣方負擔將貨物卸到目的港岸上的費用。

5.CIF合同屬於象徵性交貨(symbolic delivery)合同。賣方只提交符合合同要求的單據，即等同於交付貨物，即使在賣方提交單據時，貨物已經滅失或損壞，買方仍必須憑單據付款，但他可憑提單向船方或憑保險單向保險公司要求賠償。

再解釋一下，水漬險
水漬險的責任范圍除了包括「平安險」的各項責任外，還負責被保險貨物由於惡劣氣候、雷電、海嘯、地震、洪水等自然災害所造成的部分損失。
平安險這一名稱在我國保行業中沿用甚久。人其英文原意是指單獨海損不負責賠償。根據國際保險界對單獨海損的解釋，它是指部分損失。因此，平安險的原來保障范圍只賠全部損失。但在長期實踐的過程中對平安險的責任范圍進行了補么和修訂，當前平安險的責任范圍已經超出只賠全損的限制。概括起來，這一險別的責任范圍主要包括：

a. 運輸過程中，由於自然災害和運輸工具發生意外事件，民被保險貨物的實物的實際全損或推定全損。

B. 由於運輸工具遭擱淺、觸礁、沉沒、互撞。與流一其他物體碰撞以及失火、爆炸等意外事故造成被保險貨物的部分損失。

C. 只要運輸工具曾經發生擱淺、觸礁、沉沒、焚毀等意外事故，不論這意個事故發生之前或者以後曾在海上遭惡劣氣候、雷電、海嘯等自然災害所造成的被保險貨物的部分損失。

D. 在裝卸轉船過程中，被保險貨物一件或數件落海所造成的全部損失或部分損失。

E. 運輸工具遭自然災害或意外事故，在避難港卸貨所引起被保險貨物的全部損失或部分損失。

F. 運輸工具遭自然或災害或意外事故，需要在中途的港口或者在避難港口停靠，因而引起的卸貨、裝貨、存倉以及運送貨物所產生的特別費用。

G. 發生共同海損所引起的犧牲、公攤費和救助費用。

H. 發生了保險責任范圍內的危險，被保險人對貨物採取搶求、防止或少損失的各種措施，因而產生合理施遇用。但是保險公司承擔費用的限額不能超過這批被救貨物的保險金額。施救費用可以在賠款金額以外的一個保險金額限度內承擔。

❽ 關於國際經濟法的一道案例題

（1）有理，應支付。（2）可以，只要有明確的受約束的意思表示即可。
「天不想亮」你懂不懂啊？這是英國法判例上大名鼎鼎的薰劑案！
Carlill Vs. Carbolic smoke ball
The Full decision of the case
APPEAL from a decision of Hawkins, J.(2)

The defendants, who were the proprietors and vendors of a medical preparation called "The Carbolic Smoke Ball," inserted in the Pall Mall Gazette of November 13, 1891, and in other newspapers, the following advertisement: "100 reward will be paid by the Carbolic Smoke Ball Company to any person who contracts the increasing epidemic influenza, colds, or any disease caused by taking cold, after having used the ball three times daily for two weeks according to the printed directions supplied with each ball. 1000 is deposited with the Alliance Bank, Regent Street, shewing our sincerity in the matter.

"During the last epidemic of influenza many thousand carbolic smoke balls were sold as preventives against this disease, and in no ascertained case was the disease contracted by those using the carbolic smoke ball.

"One carbolic smoke ball will last a family several months, making it the cheapest remedy in the world at the price, 10, post free. The ball can be refilled at a cost of 5 Address, Carbolic Smoke Ball Company, 27, Princes Street, Hanover Square, London."

The plaintiff, a lady, on the faith of this advertisement, bought one of the balls at a chemist』s, and used it as directed, three times a day, from November 20, 1891, to January 17, 1892, when she was attacked by influenza. Hawkins, J., held that she was entitled to recover the 100 The defendants appealed.

Finlay, Q.C., and T. Terrell, for the defendants. The facts shew that there was no binding contract between the parties. The case is not like Williams v. Carwardine (4 B. Ad. 621), where the money was to become payable on the performance of certain acts by the plaintiff; here the plaintiff could not by any act of her own establish a claim, for, to establish her right to the money, it was necessary that she should be attacked by influenza - an event over which she had no control. The words express an intention, but do not amount to a promise: Week v. Tibold. 1 Roll. Abr. 6 (M.). The present case is similar to Harris v. Nickerson. Law Rep. 8 Q. B. 286. The advertisement is too vague to be the basis of a contract; there is no limit as to time, and no means of checking the use of the ball. Anyone who had influenza might come forward and depose that he had used the ball for a fortnight, and it would be impossible to disprove it. Guthing v. Lynn 2 B. Ad. 232 supports the view that the terms are too vague to make a contract, there being no limit as to time, a person might claim who took the influenza ten years after using the remedy. There is no consideration moving from the plaintiff: Gerhard v. Bates 2 E. B. 476. The present case differs from Denton v. Great Northern Ry. Co. 5 E. B. 860, for there an overt act was done by the plaintiff on the faith of a statement by the defendants. In order to make a contract by fulfilment of a condition, there must either be a communication of intention to accept the offer, or there must be the performance of some overt act. The mere doing an act in private will not be enough. This principle was laid down by Lord Blackburn in Brogden v. Metropolitan Ry. Co. 2 App. Cas. 666. The terms of the advertisement would enable a person who stole the balls to claim the reward, though his using them was no possible benefit to the defendants. At all events, the advertisement should be held to apply only to persons who bought directly from the defendants. But, if there be a contract at all, it is a wagering contract, as being one where the liability depends on an event beyond the control of the parties, and which is therefore void under 8 9 Vict. c. 109. Or, if not, it is bad under 14 Geo. 3, c. 48, s. 2, as being a policy of insurance on the happening of an uncertain event, and not conforming with the provisions of that section.

Dickens, Q.C., and W. B. Allen, for the plaintiff. [THE COURT intimated that they required no argument as to the question whether the contract was a wager or a policy of insurance.] The advertisement clearly was an offer by the defendants; it was published that it might be read and acted on, and they cannot be heard to say that it was an empty boast, which they were under no obligation to fulfil. The offer was ly accepted. An advertisement was addressed to all the public - as soon as a person does the act mentioned, there is a contract with him. It is said that there must be a communication of the acceptance; but the language of Lord Blackburn, in Brogden v. Metropolitan Ry. Co. 2 App. Cas. 666, shews that merely doing the acts indicated is an acceptance of the proposal. It never was intended that a person proposing to use the smoke ball should go to the office and obtain a repetition of the statements in the advertisement. The defendants are endeavouring to introce words into the advertisement to the effect that the use of the preparation must be with their privity or under their superintendence. Where an offer is made to all the world, nothing can be imported beyond the fulfilment of the conditions. Notice before the event cannot be required; the advertisement is an offer made to any person who fulfils the condition, as is explained in Spencer v. Harding Law Rep. 5 C. P. 561. Williams v. Carwardine 4 B. Ad. 621 shews strongly that notice to the person making the offer is not necessary. The promise is to the person who does an act, not to the person who says he is going to do it and then does it. As to notice after the event, it could have no effect, and the present case is within the language of Lord Blackburn in Brogden v. Metropolitan Ry. Co. 2 App. Cas. 666. It is urged that the terms are too vague and uncertain to make a contract; but, as regards parties, there is no more uncertainty than in all other cases of this description. It is said, too, that the promise might apply to a person who stole any one of the balls. But it is clear that only a person who lawfully acquired the preparation could claim the benefit of the advertisement. It is also urged that the terms should be held to apply only to persons who bought directly from the defendants; but that is not the import of the words, and there is no reason for implying such a limitation, an increased sale being a benefit to the defendants, though effected through a middleman, and the use of the balls must be presumed to serve as an advertisement and increase the sale. As to the want of restriction as to time, there are several possible constructions of the terms; they may mean that, after you have used it for a fortnight, you will be safe so long as you go on using it, or that you will be safe ring the prevalence of the epidemic. Or the true view may be that a fortnight』s use will make a person safe for a reasonable time.

Then as to the consideration. In Gerhard v. Bates 2 E. B. 476, Lord Campbell never meant to say that if there was a direct invitation to take shares, and shares were taken on the faith of it, there was no consideration. The decision went on the form of the declaration, which did not state that the contract extended to future holders. The decision that there was no consideration was qualified by the words "as between these parties," the plaintiff not having alleged himself to be a member of the class to whom the promise was made.

Finlay, Q.C., in reply. There is no binding contract. The money is payable on a person』s taking influenza after having used the ball for a fortnight, and the language would apply just as well to a person who had used it for a fortnight before the advertisement as to a person who used it on the faith of the advertisement. The advertisement is merely an expression of intention to pay 100 to a person who fulfils two conditions; but it is not a request to do anything, and there is no more consideration in using the ball than in contracting the influenza. That a contract should be completed by a private act is against the language of Lord Blackburn in Brogden v. Metropolitan Ry. Co. 2 App. Cas. 692. The use of the ball at home stands on the same level as the writing a letter which is kept in the writer』s drawer. In Denton v. Great Northern Ry. Co. 5 E. B. 860 the fact was ascertained by a public, not a secret act. The respondent relies on Williams v. Carwardine 4 B. Ad. 621, and the other cases of that class; but there a service was done to the advertiser. Here no service to the defendants was requested, for it was no benefit to them that the balls should be used: their interest was only that they should be sold. Those cases also differ from the present in this important particular, that in them the service was one which could only be performed by a limited number of persons, so there was no difficulty in ascertaining with whom the contract was made. It is said the advertisement was not a legal contract, but a promise in honour, which, if the defendants had been approached in a proper way, they would have fulfilled. A request is as necessary in the case of an executed consideration as of an executory one:

Lampleigh v. Braithwait 1 Sm. L. C. 9th ed. pp. 153, 157, 159; and here there was no request. Then as to the want of limitation as to time, it is conceded that the defendants cannot have meant to contract without some limit, and three limitations have been suggested. The limitation "ring the prevalence of the epidemic" is inadmissible, for the advertisement applies to colds as well as influenza. The limitation "ring use" is excluded by the language "after having used." The third is, "within a reasonable time," and that is probably what was intended; but it cannot be deced from the words; so the fair result is that there was no legal contract at all.

看不懂？我給你大致講一下。法官是這么說的，雖然說廣告是對不特定人提出的，一般情況下屬於要約邀請（ITT），但是本案中，被告不僅將懸賞內容寫得十分具體，而且已經把1000英鎊存進銀行，充分顯示出它願意受到該廣告內容的約束（to be bound）,所以符合了要約的根本特徵，即受約束的意思表示。所以，本案中的廣告是一個要約。而原告通過購買並使用薰劑的行為作出了行為承諾。有要約，有承諾，這個合同就成立了。
英美法教材用這個案例來說明，要約不一定要向特定人發出，只要有明確的受約束的意思表示即可。

❾ 國際經濟法

呵呵``所有大學生入學前都會這樣想的``
1,就業前景良好,我國在法律方面的人才很專缺乏.再加上經濟全球化,國際經屬濟方面的法學人才就更加吃香了.
2,我不是學法的,我學經濟,第二學位是法.建議大一有空就多讀讀法條和法條解釋,雖然很枯燥,在你第一年基礎課的時候幾乎沒什麼用,但是你會發現當你後面學的時候會輕松很多.
3,外語的話有法律專業英語.你還可以看原版的法條.這個一半圖書館有閱覽的,網上也有,再就是看著名國際官司的實錄,比如柯林頓的.
4,政府肯定是需要的``不過我認為做跨國企業的法律顧問可能更那個些``呵呵``