国际经济法主题3模拟测试一

㈠ 一个关于国际经济法的问题

国际投资争端解决中心（简称ICSID）是依据《解决国家与他国国民间投资争端公约》（华盛顿公约，ICSID公约）而建立的世界上第一个专门解决国际投资争端的仲裁机构。

ICSID受理案件的范围，需要阐明三层含义：

（1）可以受理的争端限于以一缔约国政府（东道国）与另一缔约国国民（外国投资者）直接因国际投资而引起的法律争端（有些法人虽然具有东道国国籍，事实上归外国投资者控制，如争端双方同意，也可视同另一缔约国国民）。除此以外，不受理其他当事方之间的争端。

（2）必须是因“投资”而引起的“法律争端”。秘书长、调解委员会或仲裁庭有权确认一项交易是否属于“投资”的范畴。而“法律争端”则是指“关于法律权利或义务的存在或其范围，或是关于违反法律义务而实行赔偿的性质或限度”的争端。

（3）争端双方出具将某一项投资争端提交“中心”调解或仲裁的书面协议，是“中心”有权登记受理的法定前提。任何缔约国随时可以通知“中心”其同意交由“中心”管辖的争端的范围。但“中心”每一项具体争端的管辖权仍取决于缔约国的具体表态和书面同意。凡当事双方已经书面同意提交“中心”管辖的争端，任何一方不得片面撤回其同意。除东道国有权要求优先适用当地救济外，此书面同意可排除任何其他救济方法及投资者母国提供外交保护的权利。

（主要参考北大《国际经济法概论》自考通）

㈡ 国际经济法试题

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 国际经济法有哪些经典案例

一、国际经济法的三个层次

私人之间跨国商事交易关系——跨国钢材进出口合同——违约
政府与私人之间跨国经济管制关系——美国政府保障措施——关税
国家之间跨国经济交往关系——GATT/WTO多边世界贸易协定体系——保障措施条约

二、三个层次的法律问题
进出口当事人是否有效？是否是不是违约？出口方如何得到救济？进口方如何抗辩？涉及哪些法律？
美国政府的保障措施决定是否符合其国内法？受到影响的国内国外当事人是否可以提出申诉？涉及哪些法律？
中国是否可以向美国提出质疑？是否能够从国家间争议角度解决？涉及哪些法律？

三、三个层次的法律解决

首先，看合同是否成立，涉及到中美合同法规则和国际合同公约，可以认定合同已经有效成立，那么，进口方的行为就属于违约，可以追究其违约责任，但是，进口方可以抗辩，主张美国政府行为构成情势变更，这样，就可能免责。

其次，美国政府采取进口保障措施是基于其1974年贸易法第201条款，其中规定外国进口导致美国相关产业受到严重损害或其威胁则有权进行调查，如果进口与损害之间存在因果关系，则可以由国际贸易委员会提出建议，由美国总统决定是否采取进口保障措施。因而，美国政府的做法是有国内法依据的。至于外国受到影响的私人当事人，根据美国法律，却没有申诉权，所以，无法从美国国内法寻求救济。

㈣ 国际经济法题目

一、
1、国际贸易惯例，是指在国际贸易的长期实践中，在某一地区或某一行业逐渐形成的为该版地区权或该行业所普遍认知、适用的商业做法或贸易习惯，作为确立当事人权利义务的规则对适用的当事人有约束力。现在的国际贸易惯例经过人们的整理、编纂，表现为书面的成文形式。某一组织、协会的标准合同文本，指导原则，业务规范，术语解释，都可以是国际贸易惯例。
2、我国《合同法》对要约邀请这一概念的规定是：要约邀请是希望他人向自己发出要约的意思表示。寄送的价目表、拍卖公告、招标公告、招股说明书、商业广告等为要约邀请。但商业广告的内容符合要约规定的，视为要约。
3、根据《汇票与本票统一法》，汇票是出票人要求付款人见票即付或见票后定期付给受款人或其代理人一定金额的无条件支付的命令。我国《票据法》对汇票的定义略有不同：汇票是出票人签发的，委托付款人在见票时或者在指定日期无条件支付确定的金额给收款人或者持票人的票据。

㈤ 国际经济法主体包括哪些

（1）个人。个人作为一般的民事关系主体，有权从事国际经济活动。（2）法人版。包括法人、法人集团、权跨国公司等，是国际经济交往活动中最积极、最活跃，也是数量最多的部分。（3）国际组织。国际组织在国际法和国内法上具有法人资格，有些国际组织的决议、规定、原则、制定的标准合同已成为国际经济活动中各国遵守的原则和准则，成为国际经济法的重要渊源之一。（4）国家。国家是一个特殊的主体，可以自己的名义从事各种国际、国内的经济活动，签订各种合同、条约和协议，并以国库的全部资产承担责任。除了直接从事各种经济活动之外，国家作为国际经济法的主体，还具有其他主体所不具有的特殊职能，即对经济进行管理和监督的职能。

㈥ 国际经济法的一道案例题

（1）有理，应支付。（2）可以，只要有明确的受约束的意思表示即可。
“天不想亮”你懂不懂啊？这是英国法判例上大名鼎鼎的薰剂案！
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？我给你大致讲一下。法官是这么说的，虽然说广告是对不特定人提出的，一般情况下属于要约邀请（ITT），但是本案中，被告不仅将悬赏内容写得十分具体，而且已经把1000英镑存进银行，充分显示出它愿意受到该广告内容的约束（to be bound）,所以符合了要约的根本特征，即受约束的意思表示。所以，本案中的广告是一个要约。而原告通过购买并使用薰剂的行为作出了行为承诺。有要约，有承诺，这个合同就成立了。
英美法教材用这个案例来说明，要约不一定要向特定人发出，只要有明确的受约束的意思表示即可。
打字不易，如满意，望采纳。

㈦ 国际经济法计算题

1. 由母公司A承担的子公司B已缴纳的乙国税额：30×50% = 15万
2. 母公司A来自乙国子公司B的所得额：
35+15= 50万
3. 甲国的抵免限额：
50 ×40% = 20万
4. 母公司A应向甲国缴纳的所得税额：
（150+50）×40% — 15 = 65万

㈧ 国际经济法

呵呵``所有大学生入学前都会这样想的``
1,就业前景良好,我国在法律方面的人才很专缺乏.再加上经济全球化,国际经属济方面的法学人才就更加吃香了.
2,我不是学法的,我学经济,第二学位是法.建议大一有空就多读读法条和法条解释,虽然很枯燥,在你第一年基础课的时候几乎没什么用,但是你会发现当你后面学的时候会轻松很多.
3,外语的话有法律专业英语.你还可以看原版的法条.这个一半图书馆有阅览的,网上也有,再就是看著名国际官司的实录,比如克林顿的.
4,政府肯定是需要的``不过我认为做跨国企业的法律顾问可能更那个些``呵呵``