International Law, International Trade, WTO, Vienna Convention, Ottawa Conventions, conflict rules, material rules, trade law, international sales, transport law
Reader
Abstract
Extract
of 5
Abstract
This document discusses international conventions and laws governing international trade, including the unification of material and conflict rules.
Extract
[...] Today there are 166 members of world trade. Russia joined the WTO in 2012 (this did not prevent it from making war). The WTO's objective is the freedom of trade by fighting against tariff and non-tariff barriers to trade. Tariff barriers are customs duties equivalent to a tax due on customs clearance of a product). Thanks to negotiations between States, the average value of customs duties is 3.8%. So the WTO had as its primary objective to lower customs duties. [...]
[...] We can see that international trade is not always peaceful (large, sometimes violent demonstrations in France, etc.). So these are examples of macro-eco agreements that concern global trade. Let's now look at agreements that have micro-eco effects (the private law aspect of the matter, which deals with targeted operation conventions such as sales or transportation, conventions dealing with these international trade operations). States want to facilitate trade and give economic actors the means to carry out trade. The texts we will see use private law tools to carry out trade. [...]
[...] The CJEU said no, it is contrary to EU law, because in reality it is an intra-European Treaty that aims to cover intra-European investments. Must be subject to EU law, cannot be governed by a Treaty between States. Therefore, inconsistency of investment arbitration. Following this, there was an agreement between EU Member States in 2020 on the extinction of intra-European Treaties. No more possibility of protection. Intra-European BITs are coming to an end. The protection of investors in intra-European relations can only be done under EU law. [...]
[...] Today the WTO is in a state of clinical death. There is a dispute settlement body, the DSU. Which is a major advancement of WTO law. Before that, it was resolved through diplomatic means. Now, the treatment of disputes is judicialized (there is an organ). A state can file a complaint against another state for accusing it of violating an agreement. We see that it is possible to have a dispute between two states, a plaintiff and a defendant, resolved by the constitution of a panel that will conclude or not to the violation of the agreement. [...]
[...] Form of appellate arbitration tribunal. But USA are not parties to this arrangement. We have never talked so much about customs rights as today. Admin Trump decided to increase them. China files a complaint against the US with the WTO. What is the possible fate of this complaint? The unilateral increase by a country of customs rights is a violation of WTO law. This is what happens when there is a dispute between WTO member states (we have a plaintiff state and a defendant state) after the consultation phase. [...]
