國際經濟法主題3模擬測試一

㈠ 一個關於國際經濟法的問題

國際投資爭端解決中心（簡稱ICSID）是依據《解決國家與他國國民間投資爭端公約》（華盛頓公約，ICSID公約）而建立的世界上第一個專門解決國際投資爭端的仲裁機構。

ICSID受理案件的范圍，需要闡明三層含義：

（1）可以受理的爭端限於以一締約國政府（東道國）與另一締約國國民（外國投資者）直接因國際投資而引起的法律爭端（有些法人雖然具有東道國國籍，事實上歸外國投資者控制，如爭端雙方同意，也可視同另一締約國國民）。除此以外，不受理其他當事方之間的爭端。

（2）必須是因「投資」而引起的「法律爭端」。秘書長、調解委員會或仲裁庭有權確認一項交易是否屬於「投資」的范疇。而「法律爭端」則是指「關於法律權利或義務的存在或其范圍，或是關於違反法律義務而實行賠償的性質或限度」的爭端。

（3）爭端雙方出具將某一項投資爭端提交「中心」調解或仲裁的書面協議，是「中心」有權登記受理的法定前提。任何締約國隨時可以通知「中心」其同意交由「中心」管轄的爭端的范圍。但「中心」每一項具體爭端的管轄權仍取決於締約國的具體表態和書面同意。凡當事雙方已經書面同意提交「中心」管轄的爭端，任何一方不得片面撤回其同意。除東道國有權要求優先適用當地救濟外，此書面同意可排除任何其他救濟方法及投資者母國提供外交保護的權利。

（主要參考北大《國際經濟法概論》自考通）

㈡ 國際經濟法試題

23、b c d
24、<1> b
<2> a b c d
<3> a b c d
<4> a
<5> b
<6> c
<7> c

㈢ 國際經濟法有哪些經典案例

一、國際經濟法的三個層次

私人之間跨國商事交易關系——跨國鋼材進出口合同——違約
政府與私人之間跨國經濟管制關系——美國政府保障措施——關稅
國家之間跨國經濟交往關系——GATT/WTO多邊世界貿易協定體系——保障措施條約

二、三個層次的法律問題
進出口當事人是否有效？是否是不是違約？出口方如何得到救濟？進口方如何抗辯？涉及哪些法律？
美國政府的保障措施決定是否符合其國內法？受到影響的國內國外當事人是否可以提出申訴？涉及哪些法律？
中國是否可以向美國提出質疑？是否能夠從國家間爭議角度解決？涉及哪些法律？

三、三個層次的法律解決

首先，看合同是否成立，涉及到中美合同法規則和國際合同公約，可以認定合同已經有效成立，那麼，進口方的行為就屬於違約，可以追究其違約責任，但是，進口方可以抗辯，主張美國政府行為構成情勢變更，這樣，就可能免責。

其次，美國政府採取進口保障措施是基於其1974年貿易法第201條款，其中規定外國進口導致美國相關產業受到嚴重損害或其威脅則有權進行調查，如果進口與損害之間存在因果關系，則可以由國際貿易委員會提出建議，由美國總統決定是否採取進口保障措施。因而，美國政府的做法是有國內法依據的。至於外國受到影響的私人當事人，根據美國法律，卻沒有申訴權，所以，無法從美國國內法尋求救濟。

㈣ 國際經濟法題目

一、
1、國際貿易慣例，是指在國際貿易的長期實踐中，在某一地區或某一行業逐漸形成的為該版地區權或該行業所普遍認知、適用的商業做法或貿易習慣，作為確立當事人權利義務的規則對適用的當事人有約束力。現在的國際貿易慣例經過人們的整理、編纂，表現為書面的成文形式。某一組織、協會的標准合同文本，指導原則，業務規范，術語解釋，都可以是國際貿易慣例。
2、我國《合同法》對要約邀請這一概念的規定是：要約邀請是希望他人向自己發出要約的意思表示。寄送的價目表、拍賣公告、招標公告、招股說明書、商業廣告等為要約邀請。但商業廣告的內容符合要約規定的，視為要約。
3、根據《匯票與本票統一法》，匯票是出票人要求付款人見票即付或見票後定期付給受款人或其代理人一定金額的無條件支付的命令。我國《票據法》對匯票的定義略有不同：匯票是出票人簽發的，委託付款人在見票時或者在指定日期無條件支付確定的金額給收款人或者持票人的票據。

㈤ 國際經濟法主體包括哪些

（1）個人。個人作為一般的民事關系主體，有權從事國際經濟活動。（2）法人版。包括法人、法人集團、權跨國公司等，是國際經濟交往活動中最積極、最活躍，也是數量最多的部分。（3）國際組織。國際組織在國際法和國內法上具有法人資格，有些國際組織的決議、規定、原則、制定的標准合同已成為國際經濟活動中各國遵守的原則和准則，成為國際經濟法的重要淵源之一。（4）國家。國家是一個特殊的主體，可以自己的名義從事各種國際、國內的經濟活動，簽訂各種合同、條約和協議，並以國庫的全部資產承擔責任。除了直接從事各種經濟活動之外，國家作為國際經濟法的主體，還具有其他主體所不具有的特殊職能，即對經濟進行管理和監督的職能。

㈥ 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。
打字不易，如滿意，望採納。

㈦ 國際經濟法計算題

1. 由母公司A承擔的子公司B已繳納的乙國稅額：30×50% = 15萬
2. 母公司A來自乙國子公司B的所得額：
35+15= 50萬
3. 甲國的抵免限額：
50 ×40% = 20萬
4. 母公司A應向甲國繳納的所得稅額：
（150+50）×40% — 15 = 65萬

㈧ 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``