Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Browse subjects
  3. Law
  4. International Trade Law
  5. Content listing

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

12383 results in International Trade Law

Page 290 of 620

  • Canada - Certain Measures Affecting the Renewable Energy Generation Sector / Canada - Measures Relating to the Feed-in Tariff Program (WT/DS412, WT/DS426): Reports of the Appellate Body

  • Corporate Author World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2013
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    30 April 2015, pp 7-236

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    Canada, Japan, and the European Union each appeals certain issues of law and legal interpretations developed in the Panel Reports, Canada – Certain Measures Affecting the Renewable Energy Generation Sector and Canada – Measures Relating to the Feed-in Tariff Program (Panel Reports). The Panel was established to consider complaints by Japan and the European Union8 (the complainants) with respect to certain domestic content requirements in the feedin tariff programme (FIT Programme) established by the Canadian Province of Ontario.

    The measures at issue in these disputes, as identified by the Panel, are the following:

    a. the FIT Programme, as evidenced by the following measures:

  • i. the Electricity Act of 1998, as amended, including in particular Part II – Independent Electricity System Operator, Part II.1 – Ontario Power Authority, and Part II.2 – Management of Electricity Supply, Capacity and Demand, including in particular Section 25.35 – Feed-in tariff program;

  • ii. an Act to enact the Green Energy Act of 2009 and to build a green economy, to repeal the Energy Conservation Leadership Act of 2006 and the Energy Efficiency Act and to amend other statutes (Green Energy and Green Economy Act of 2009), including in particular Schedule B, amending the Electricity Act of 1998;

  • iii. an Act to amend the Electricity Act of 1998 and the Ontario Energy Board Act of 1998 and to make consequential amendments to other Acts (Electricity Restructuring Act of 2004), including in particular Schedule A, Sections 29- 32, enacting Part II.1 of the Electricity Act of 1998, and Sections 33-38, enacting Part II.2 of the Electricity Act of 1998, and Schedule B, Sections 17-18, enacting Sections 78.3-78.4 of the Ontario Energy Board Act of 1998;

  • iv. Ontario Regulation 578/05, made under the Ontario Energy Board Act of 1998, entitled “Prescribed Contracts Re Sections 78.3 and 78.4 of the Act”;

  • v. the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) Market Manual, including in particular Part 5.5 – Physical Markets Settlement Statements;

  • 10 - Justiciable standards of equity

  • from PART III - Delimitation based on equity
  • Thomas Cottier, Universität Bern, Switzerland
  • Book:
    Equitable Principles of Maritime Boundary Delimitation
    Published online:
    05 May 2015
    Print publication:
    30 April 2015, pp 515-601

  • Summary

    The legal nature of equitable standards

    A. The requirement of justiciability

    The conceptualization and specification of the fundamental rule of maritime boundary delimitation and of equitable standards (hitherto variously labelled equitable principles, relevant circumstances, criteria, factors or rules) has to result in the formulation of operational standards. These standards need to be of such a nature that they are legally enforceable by judges in a rational and transparent manner.

    During the process of negotiation, parties may invoke any argument they choose and put forward reflections and considerations that do not necessarily need to conform to such specifications. We return to this dimension in Chapter 12, where the role of equity in the negotiating process is discussed. The situation is different with respect to judicial settlements. Here, a need arises for a limitation of the scope and number of equitable standards. In order to achieve a legally operable delimitation, the standards must be manageable by courts, using only the limited tools with which judges are equipped. Standards, in other words, need to be justiciable. Justiciability stands for the proposition that conceptualization and specification remain within the province of reasoned and transparent decision-making based on law. Thus, it cannot involve major discretionary decisions for which the courts neither have the necessary legitimacy, nor the authority in the international system, or in any political system. Equity, as a legal concept, is therefore bound to operate on the basis of justiciable standards only.

    In the present context, it is worth recalling that decision-making ex aequo et bono transgresses the boundary of a legal operation. It is not a justiciable standard as described. It entails high levels of discretionary and creative powers beyond the limits of the law that the parties concerned agreed to vest in the court because this seems to be the best avenue for promoting their mutual interests of peaceful dispute settlement under the particular circumstances of the case.

International Economic Law after the Global Crisis
  • A Tale of Fragmented Disciplines
  • Edited by C. L. Lim, Bryan Mercurio
  • Published online:
    05 May 2015
    Print publication:
    30 April 2015
  • This collection explores the theme of fragmentation within international economic law as the world emerges from the 2008 global financial crisis, the subsequent recession and the European sovereign debt crisis which began in early 2010. The post-crisis 'moment' itself forms a contemporary backdrop to the book's focus on fragmentation as it traces the evolution of the international economic system from the original Bretton Woods design in the aftermath of the Second World War to the present time. The volume covers issues concerning monetary cooperation, trade and finance, trade and its linkages, international investment law, intellectual property protection and climate change. By connecting a broad, cross-disciplinary survey of international economic law with contemporary debate over international norm and authority fragmentation, the book demonstrates that this has been essentially a fragmented and multi-focal system of international economic regulation.

  • China - Definitive Anti-Dumping Duties on X-Ray Security Inspection Equipment from the European Union (WT/DS425): Report of the Panel

  • Corporate Author World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2013
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    30 April 2015, pp 659-1012

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    On 25 July 2011 the European Union requested consultations with the Government of the People's Republic of China (“China”) pursuant to Article XXIII:1 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (“GATT 1994”), Article 17.3 of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the GATT 1994 (“Anti-Dumping Agreement”) and Article 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlem0ent of Disputes (“DSU”) with respect to the imposition of definitive anti-dumping duties on x-ray security inspection equipment from the EU, pursuant to Ministry of Commerce of the People's Republic of China (“MOFCOM”), Notice No. 1 (2011), including its annex. The consultations were held on 19 September and 18 October 2011. The consultations failed to resolve the dispute.

    On 8 December 2011, the European Union requested, pursuant to Article 6 of the DSU and Article 17.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement that the Dispute Settlement Body (the “DSB”) establish a Panel to examine this matter.

    At its meeting on 20 January 2012, the DSB established a panel pursuant to the request of the European Union in document WT/DS425/2, in accordance with Article 6 of the DSU.

    The Panel's terms of reference are the following:

    To examine, in the light of the relevant provisions of the covered agreements cited by the parties to the dispute, the matter referred to the DSB by the European Union in document WT/DS425/2 and to make such findings as will assist the DSB in making the recommendations or in giving the rulings provided for in those agreements.

    On 2 March 2012, the European Union requested the Director-General to determine the composition of the panel, pursuant to Article 8.7 of the DSU. This paragraph provides:

    If there is no agreement on the panelists within 20 days after the date of the establishment of a panel, at the request of either party, the Director-General, in consultation with the Chairman of the DSB and the Chairman of the relevant Council or Committee, shall determine the composition of the panel by appointing the panelists whom the Director-General considers most appropriate in accordance with any relevant special or additional rules or procedures of the covered agreement or covered agreements which are at issue in the dispute, after consulting with the parties to the dispute.

Page 290 of 620