國際經濟法英文

㈠ 國際經濟法英文案例及翻譯 跪求

案例一：

TSAKIROGLOU & CO. LTD. V NOBLEE THORL G. m. b. H.House of Lords
[1962] A. C. 93

事實：
THE FACTS:
By a contract dated Hamburg, October 4, 1956 between Tsakiroglou & Co. Ltd, of Khartoum as sellers, and the respondents, Noblee Thorl G. m. b. H. of Hamburg/Hargurg as buyers, through agents, the sellers agreed to sell and the buyers to buy about 300 tons of Sudanese groundnuts in the shell basis 3 percent, admixture new crop 1956/1957 at $50 per 1,000 kilos including bags c.i.f. Hamburg. Shipment November/December, 1956, with payment cash against documents on first presentation for 95 percent of the amount of provisional invoice, balance to be paid after the analysis on final invoice. The contract form was to be the incorporated Oil Seed Association Contract No.38(hereinafter called 「I.O.S.A Contract No. 38」) with arbitration in London. Clause 1 of I.O.S.A Contract No. 38 provided for 「shipment from an East African port…by steamers(tankers excluded) direct or indirect with or without transshipment.」
Both parties contracted on the basis that the goods would be shipped from Port Sudan. Clause 6 of the contract provided: 「in case of prohibition of import or export, blockade or war, and in all cases of force majeure preventing the shipment within the time fixed, or the delivery, the period allowed by not exceeding two months. After that, if the case of force majeure be still operating, the contract shall be cancled.」
At the date when the contract was made, both partied contemplated that shipment would be made via the Suez Canal. On October 29, 1956, the Israelis invaded Egypt, on November 1 Britain and France commenced military operations, and on November 2 the Suez Canal was blocked to shipping. At the date when the contract entered into, the usual and normal routes for the shipment of Sudanese groundnuts from Port Sudan to Hamburg was via the Suez Canal. However, the closure of the Suez Canal prevented transport from Port Sudan to Hamburg via the Canal and the impossibility by that route continued until April 1957. The distance via the Suez Canal is approximately 4,386 miles and the distance via the Cape of Good Hope is approximately 11,137 miles. From November 10, 1956, after the closure of the Canal, a 25% freight surcharge was placed on goods shipped on vessels proceeding via the Cape of Good Hope and this was increased to 100% on December 13, 1956.
The seller』s claim that the contract was frustrated and was at an end because of the closure of the Suez Canal was not accepted by the buyers.

法院程序：
PROCEDURE BEFORE THE COURT
In arbitration proceedings, the umpire, by an award dated February 20, 1957, awarded that the sellers were in default and should pay to the buyers as the damages the sum of $5,625 together with $79 15s. costs of the award. The sellers were dissatisfied with the award, and a board of appeal appointed to hear the appeal on January 28, 1958, dismissed the appeal and upheld the umpire』s award.

判決：
JURISDICTION
The board of appeal』s award was in following term: 「so far as it is a question of fact we find and as far as it is a question of law we hold:
(i) These were hostilities but not war in Egypt at the material time.
(ii) Neither war nor force majeur prevented the shipment of the contract goods in the contract period to the contract destination, since shipment via the cape was not so prevented when the shipment via the Suez Canal was prevented by reason of force majeur.
(iii) It was not an implied term of the contract that shipment or transportation should be made via the Suez Canal and shipping the goods on a vessel via the Cape of Good Hope was not commercially and fundamentally different from shipping the goods on a vessel via the Suez Canal. So, the contract was not frustrated by the closure of Suez Canal.」

分析問題：
MERITS: Is there an implied term that the goods shall be carried by a particular rout? Is the contract frustrated?
(a) usual and customary route
The contention that the shipment of goods must be via Suez can only prevail if a term is implied, for the contract dose not say so. For the general proposition that in a c.i.f. contract the obligation, in the absence of express terms, is to follow the usual or customary route. It is not the date of the contract but the time of performance that determines what is customary. As the section 32(2) of the Sale of Goods Act, 1893, provides that: 「unless otherwise authorized by the buyer, the seller must make such contract with the carrier on behalf of the buyer as may be reasonable having regarded to the nature of the goods and the other circumstances of the case.」 Therefore, if there is no customary route, that route must be chosen which is reasonable. If there is only one route, that must be taken if it is practicable. At the date when the performance was called for, there was no usual or customary route because the Suez Canal was closed and the only practicable route was via the Cape of Good Hope. The sellers could have fulfilled their obligation by a bill of lading via the Cape.
(b) whether the contract was frustrated by the closure of Suez？
The board should consider whether the imposition upon the sellers the obligation to ship by an emergence route via the Cape would be to impose upon them a fundamentally different obligation which neither party could at the time when the contract was performed have dreamed that the sellers would be required to perform. The board found no justification for the positive answer. A c.i.f. contract is for the sale of goods, not a contract of affreightment. The primary ty on the part of sellers was to dispatch the groundnuts by sea from one port to destination of the other. There was no evidence that the buyers attached any importance to the route. They were content that the nuts should be shipped at any date in November or December. There was no stipulated date for arrival at Hamburg. There was no evidence either, that the nuts would deteriorate or the transportation would involve special packing or stowing as a result of a longer voyage, nor any evidence that the market was seasonable. In a word, there was no evidence that the buyers cared by what route, or within seasonable limits, when the nuts arrived.
What, then, of the sellers? Clearly the contract of affreightment will be different and so may be the terms of insurance. In both these respects the sellers may be put to greater cost: their profit may be reced or even disappear. But an increase of expense is not a ground of frustration, the doctrine of frustration must be applied within very narrow limits, and this case falls far short of satisfying the necessary conditions. With all these facts before them, the board of appeal made their finding that performance by shipping on the Cape route was not commercially or fundamentally different from shipping via the Suez Canal, and the appeal should be dismissed.

TSAKIROGLOU和股份有限公司。有限公司。V . NOBLEE THORL m . b。H。上議院

亞特蘭大93][1962年

事實:

事實:

日期由一個合同,1956年10月4日漢堡,Tsakiroglou &公司之間。有限公司是作為賣方,和對喀土穆的受訪者,Noblee Thorl g . m . b。h .漢堡/ Hargurg通過代理人進行的,因為買方,賣方同意出售,買方購買約300噸花生殼的基礎上在蘇丹3%,新作物1956/1957摻合料在50美元每1000公斤包括塑料袋的cif價格。漢堡。1956年11、12、裝運,以付款交單方式付款先介紹為95%的數量的臨時發票後再付款,平衡分析最終的發票。合同的形式也要被合並的石油合同出版社,種子協會(以下簡稱「三八」號合同,我們已將I.O.S.A)與仲裁在倫敦。合同第一條規定的I.O.S.A 38號規定的「裝運港…從一個非洲東部由輪船(加油機除外)直接或間接的或有或無轉船。」

雙方的合同的基礎上從港口裝運的貨物將蘇丹。第6條合同提供的:"如果發生禁止進出口,封鎖或戰爭,在任何情況下都不可抗力防止固定的時間內裝船,或交貨、時期所允許不超過兩個月。在這之後,如果不可抗力的情況下還是操作,本合同應取消了。」

當合同之日起,兩partied沉思,貨物會經蘇伊士運河。1956年10月29日,以色列入侵埃及,11月1日,英國和法國開始軍事行動,並將於11月2日蘇伊士運河航運堵住了。當合同之日起進入,常規的和正常的路線的裝運港蘇丹從蘇丹落花生去漢堡是經過蘇伊士運河。然而,關閉蘇伊士運河運輸從港口阻止蘇丹運往漢堡,通過運河與不可能通過這條路線一直持續到四月1957年。通過蘇伊士運河的距離大約是通過4,386英里的路程,距離好望角是大約11,137英里。從11月10日,1956年關閉後,運河裡,有25%的貨運附加費是放在通過血管進行貨物的好望角和這是增加到100% 1956年12月13日。

賣方的要求正當,宣布該合同不灰心、到了末日,因為蘇伊士運河的關閉由買方不被接受。

法院程序:

程序之前,法庭

在仲裁程序中,裁判裁決日期,2月20日,1957年,授予,賣方違約,應在買方支付美元的損害5,625的總和15s.連同79美元的成本獎。賣方不滿的獎勵,聽到中的上訴委員會任命上訴1月28日,1958年,解散了上訴,維持裁判員的裁決。

判決:

管轄權

中的上訴委員會的裁決是在以下條件:「到目前為止,因為它是一個事實問題,我們發現,只要是一個問題的法律,我們持有:

(我)這些人都是在埃及敵對行動而不是戰爭在材料的時候。

(二)並且戰爭還是不可抗力阻止了一批合同貨物與合同的合同期限裝運目的地,因為通過好望角時也不那麼預防經蘇伊士運河裝運的原因是預防不可抗力。

(3)這不是一項默示合同期內的那批貨的裝運或交通應經蘇伊士運河和運輸貨物的船隻通過好望角不是商業和根本不同的船隻裝運此貨通過蘇伊士運河。所以,合同都沒有挫傷的關閉蘇伊士運河。」

分析問題:

優點:有一項默示的術語,它的貨物,應當由被某個特定的潰敗嗎?是合同煩躁嗎?

(一)常規和習慣航線

爭論貨物的裝船必須經蘇伊士運河只能流行如果一個學期的合同是暗示的,不這么說。在為廣大主張合同義務的到岸價格,在缺乏明示條款,是遵循通常和習慣的路線。它不是合同簽訂之日起,不過時間的表現,決定什麼是慣例。作為部分32(2)的商品銷售的行為,1893年,規定:「除非其他授權由買方、賣方必須做出這樣的合同與載體代表買方合理有認為商品的性質和其他情況下的案子。」因此,如果沒有習慣航線,這條路線的一定要選哪是合理的。如果只有一位路線,必須採取措施,如果它是可行的。在約會當表現是呼籲,沒有普通或者習慣航線,因為蘇伊士運河被關閉和唯一可行的路線是經過好望角。賣方可以履行他們的義務由提單通過的斗篷。

(b)是否該合同是沮喪的封蘇伊士運河嗎?

董事會應該考慮是否在賣方的稅款的義務,由一個出現船通過好望角路線會強加在他們身上是一個從根本上完全不同的義務,任何一方可以在海上保險合同進行的想像中,賣方將被要求完成。董事會發現沒有理由積極的回答。合同是到岸價格銷售的商品,而不是一個運輸合同中的。對部分的基本義務的銷售商是派遣落花生海運從一港運至目的地。沒有證據表明買方的任何重要附路線。他們是內容應該被清理的堅果在任何日期在11月或12月。沒有規定的日期為到達漢堡。不是的,是沒有證據的堅果會退化或交通將涉及到特殊包裝或害羞,結果較長的旅程,也沒有任何證據顯示市場得到了及時。總之,沒有證據表明買方關心哪條路線,或在被限制,當螺母及時到達。

那麼,什麼賣方索賠嗎?運輸合同中的清楚的將是不同的,因此可能是整個的保險待遇。在這兩個方面的賣方可能把利潤更大的成本:他們可能會減少甚至消失。但增加的費用支出不是地沮喪,沮喪的教義必須應用在非常狹窄的范圍,而本案異常不夠滿足的必要條件。他們與所有這些事實之前,董事會的求援:他們發現,在開普敦性能由船公司沒有商業路線或從根本上不同於船舶經蘇伊士運河,上訴應該被開除。

㈡ 誰能幫我翻譯一下這段英文，國際經濟法裡面的

1堅持小組的結論，在第7.212歐共體小組報告說，負責根據含義范圍內的第Ⅲ回 ： 2 1994年關貿總協定，而不答是一個奧爾丁關稅的含義與第Ⅱ ： （二）
2上傳小組的結論，在第7.223和第Ⅷ ：甲（ a ） （一）歐共體小組報告，在對進口汽車零部件的一般問題的措施不符合第Ⅲ ： 2 ，第一句，在GATT1994在這一議題，以進口汽車零部件的內部chanrge不是。
3堅持小組的結論，在第7.272和第Ⅷ ：甲（ a ） （二）歐共體小組報告，就重要的汽車零部件一般，
問題的措施不符合第Ⅲ ： 4 1994年關貿總協定中，他們給予importuned汽車零部件較為不利的待遇比國內汽車零部件一樣;認為有必要的規則小組的「替代性」調查第Ⅷ ：甲（二） （一）歐共體小組報告，關於進口汽車零部件的一般措施，問題是在符合第Ⅱ ： （ a ）和（二） 1994年關貿總協定。

看看有幫助沒

㈢ 案例分析題 國際經濟法 英文版

ask you teacher for answer

㈣ 國際經濟法，英文，名詞解釋

International Economic Law
國際經濟法是指調整國家之間；國際組織之版間；國家與國際組織之間；國家與他國權私人之間；國際組織與私人之間以及不同國籍私人之間，相互經濟關系的法律規范的總稱。

㈤ 什麼地方可以找到國際經濟法的英文案例

Woodtrans Navigation Corporation & SAN WAI Navigation S.A. Panama

I. Parties involved

Applicant: Woodtrans Navigation Corporation (hereinafter referred to as Woodtrans).
Applicant: Sanwai Navigation S.A Panama (hereinafter referred to as Sanwai)
Respondent: Angang Group International Trade Corporation (hereinafter referred to as Angang)

II. Main facts of the case

Angang signed a contract with Billion Golden Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Billion Golden) on Feb. 20th 1995 to sell Billion Golden hot rolling steel for 5,000 tons with FOB price for USD 295 per ton and payment by L/C. on June 30th of the same year, M.V. UNISON PRAISE owned by Woodtrans was loaded with the cargo under above contract at port of Dalian. When the cargo have been loaded on board, the carrier Merpati Lines S.A. (hereinafter referred to as Merpati) issued the original bill of lading in triplicate to Angang. The bill of lading states that: Shipper: Angang, Consignee: to order of PT Bank Bumi Daya (persero) Jakarta Rasuna Said Branch, Port of Loading: Dalian, Port of Destination: Jakarta, Weight of Cargo: 5155.520 ton. On July 21st, UNISON PRAISE arrived at the port of Jakarta, and then the carrier delivered the cargo to the Notify party listed in bill of lading without presentation of the same after the cargo was discharged from the vessel. Upon receipt of the shipped clean bill of lading issued by the carrier, Angang then submitted to the issuing bank through Anshan Branch of China the whole set of documents including original bill of lading, commercial invoice to settle the payment. The value of cargo as recorded by the invoice amounts to USD 1,520,878.4. Above documents are transferred to the issuing bank on July 8th and rejected by the issuing bank because of inconsistence with L/C. Angang received the returned bill of lading and the invoice on August 20th. Woodtrans is the registry owner of the carrying vessel UNISON PRAISE. M.V UNISON GREAT arrested by Dalian Maritime Court and owned by Woodtrans is the sister vessel of UNISON PRAISE. On April 16th 1996, Woodtrans sold UNISON GREAT to Sanwai who changed the name of vessel to SAN WAI. Through the statement from Panama Public Registry Authority, the owner of UNISON PRAISE did not logout the registry. As a result, the owner of this vessel is still Woodtrans.

III. The original judgment of the case

Dalian Maritime Court tried the case and decided that: Since the carrier Merpati issued the bill of lading and delivered the cargo to UNISON PRAISE to undertake the carriage, Woodtrans is in the legal position of actual carrier as provided by Maritime Code of P.R.C. The Bill of Lading is the evidence of contract of goods by sea, and the certificate for title and documents against which the carrier guarantee to deliver the cargo. When the shipper holds the bill of lading, the relationship of right and liability between the carrier and the holder shall be defined as the provisions of bill of lading. It is the legal responsibility of the carrier to deliver the cargo upon presentation of original bill of lading according to the law. According to Article 61 of Maritime Code, it is also the responsibility of the actual carrier to delivery the cargo against the surrendering of bill of lading. Under the time charter party, even the charterer is entitled to direct the master concerning the operation of vessel as provided by Article 136 of Maritime Code, the instruction made by the carrier in the name of the charterer to the master to deliver the cargo without presentation of bill of lading has not only exceed the legal right of the charterer but also violated the forcible obligation for the carrier and the actual carrier to delivery the cargo against the presentation of bill of lading. Woodtrans knew its forcible obligation to delivery the cargo against the presentation of bill of lading but still violated this obligation, which constitutes an illegal act done with intent and shall not be entitled to benefit from the exemption and the limitation of liability as provided by bill of lading and therefore shall take complete responsibility for the losses suffered by Angang. Meantime, Dalian Maritime Court also determined that the flag of SANWAI is Panama. When exercising the arrest of vessel, the identification of the ownership of SANWAI (original UNISON GREAT) shall apply the law of Panama in accordance with Article 270 of Maritime Code. According to Article 1083 and 1089 of Maritime Code of Panama, under any circumstances, the transference of vessel』 ownership would not act against the third party without registry at public authority. Although the buyer obtained the UNISON GREAT, Woodtrans did not register the transference of ownership at public registry authority at Panama when the vessel was arrested by Dalian Maritime Court. Therefore, the vessel still owned by Woodtrans when the court exercised arrest of the vessel. The objection raised by Sanwai with the court is the legal owner of the vessel shall not be sustained. Hence, the court made a judgment: Woodtrans shall compensate Angang for the loss of cargo in amount of RMB 12,700,000 and the interests thereto in rate of 10.98% per month counting from August 20th 1995 to the date the payment actually being paid; dismiss the claim filed by Sanwai who is in a position of owner in claiming for the incorrect arrest of vessel against Angang. Woodtrans and Sanwai refused to accept the judgment of first trial and filed an appeal with the Liaoning Higher People』s Court. The Liaoning Higher People』s Court heard the case and decided that: Angang is the legal holder of the bill of lading who, under the provision of Maritime Code and internal maritime practice, is entitled to claim for the losses of cargo against Woodtrans who delivered the cargo without presentation of bill of lading. Although Woodtrans entered into a time charter party with Merpati, the act of delivery of cargo without presentation of bill of lading was done by UNISON PRAISE ring the performance of time charter party and Woodtrans therefore could not be exempted from the legalized liability. Since UNISON PRAISE carried the cargo under the bill of lading, Woodtrans as the owner of the vessel has acted as the actual carrier under Maritime Code. It is the responsibility not only of the carrier but also the actual carrier to deliver the cargo to the holders who surrender the original bill of lading. Without presentation of original bill of lading, the cargo was delivered to the Notify Party recorded in bill of lading and all the losses suffered by Angang shall be compensated fully by the liability party. UNISON PRAISE owned by Woodtrans shall oblige herself according to the law of China and international maritime practice. Her obeying of the instruction of carrier in delivering of cargo without presentation of bill of lading did not satisfy the condition for exemption, although she enjoyed the right to recourse the losses thereto against the instructor. Therefore the reason for appeal of Woodtrans shall not be supported by the Higher People』s Court. The appeal filed by Sanwai is concerned with objection to the arrest of the vessel before instating an action and is lack of basis for facts and laws because the facts was ascertained at the original proceres for preservation. The appeal has not interested relationship with the concerned disputes of delivery of cargo without presentation of bill of lading and is not provided with the independent claim as required by the law. This appeal is overruled by the court. In the end, Liaoning Higher People』s Court rejected the appeal and affirmed the original judgment.

IV. How is the leading case made:

㈥ 高手幫我翻譯一下這段英文，國際經濟法里的

1 支持小組在EC 小組報告的7.212 段落抄發現，費用強加在襲下面在文章的意思內？ :關貿總協定1994中的2項，以及並非有物品的意思的ording關稅嗎？ : (b)

2在第7.223 段落和部分上載小組發現？ :A ( a ) (i) 在EC 小組報告，中，在尊重在進口汽車零件內通常，在爭論中的度量標准不符合於條款？ :2，第一個句子，GATT1994在那內進口隨著是不的一內部chanrge的汽車零件的主題。

3在第7.272 段落和部分支持小組發現？ :A ( a ) (ii) 在EC 小組報告中，關於重要汽車零件通常，在爭論中的度量標准不符合於條款？ : 1994 關貿總協定4在他們給予一再要求的汽車零件較少有利處理比喜歡國內汽車零件的那內； 發現在部分里在小組lternativefinding 管理是不必要的嗎？ :A ( b ) (i) 在EC 小組報告，中，關於進口汽車零件通常，在爭論中的議案在與一致文章內？ : (a) 以及(b) 關貿總協定1994。

㈦ 急需一篇國際經濟法英文論文及翻譯！！！

Due to different national political systems, different levels of development of proctive forces of integration and cooperation, leading to the development of some developed countries to rece investment in China. Such as the North American Free Trade Area, the Great United States, Canada co-operation not only developed but also with the development of the Mexican League. Mexico is a proction structure in China is similar to developing countries. If the United States investment in developing countries, it will first select a favorable and mutually beneficial terms with their member countries – Mexico, while China was not selected. In addition, the 90』, the North American Free Trade Area of the two regional groups and the EC will focus on development within their respective regional groups, or in order to compete, the funds to invest in the United States, Western Europe, Japan, the developed countries.

㈧ 國際經濟法英文翻譯...實在譯不出,麻煩高手幫幫忙啊...

With the widespread use of letters of credit, letters of credit fraud. Activities are frequent, not only harmed the interests of both the import and export banks and the credibility of the international community but also to bring great harm. This paper attempts to letters of credit fraud by defining the concept of its manifestations and causes of the letters of credit fraud clearly the true colors to remind the parties attention. At the same time, relief on the letter of credit and how to guard against fraulent conct a preliminary study.

㈨ 英語(國際經濟法)是什麼專業

就是學習一些關抄於襲國際進出口買賣相關的知識，例如設有單證、國際貿易實務、國際貿易理論等跟進出口貨物買賣有關的課程。就業的話，則可以做單證員、報關員（這個報關證比較難考）業務員。要是走船運這方面的話會好一點。

㈩ 英語（國際經濟法）主要學什麼

是指調整國家之間；國際組織之間；國家與國際組織之間；國家與他國私人之間；國際組織與私人之間以及不同國籍私人之間，相互經濟關系的法律規范的總稱。它是隨著各國之間貿易和經濟往來日益增長以及國家對貿易和經濟活動的干預日益加強而形成和發展的。早在中世紀末期，歐洲主要商業城市就有一些關於國際商業交易的規則。第二次世界大戰後，有關國際經濟關系的法律規則和制度大量出現 ，並具有了國家之間條約的形式。作為一門學科，國際經濟法學也於第二次世界大戰後，逐漸發展起來。
概念和范圍 關於國際經濟法的概念和范圍，國際上和國內都學說不一，總的來說，可歸納為廣泛和狹窄的兩種概念和范圍。
廣義國際經濟法 泛指調整國際經濟交往的法律。其范圍包括一切關於超越國界並涉及任何經濟利益的交易和交往的法律規則和制度，不論進行交往和交易的主體是國家、國際組織或機構、國營金融機構（如國家的中央銀行），還是個人、法人或跨國公司。它也不區分國際法和國內法、公法和私法。主張這種概念的法學家一般認為，國際經濟法是國際社會中經濟關系和經濟組織的國際法規范和國內法規范的總稱，他們打破了法律各部門之間的界限，強調法律各部門之間的相互作用和相互滲透。這派國際經濟法學者特別著重從各種有關法規的綜合的角度，研究實際的法律問題，對實際法律工作者來說，較切合實用。
按照廣泛的概念，國際經濟法的內容甚廣，主要包括以下幾方面：①關於外國人經濟地位的國內立法和國際法。②關於國際商業交易的私法方面，包括貨物買賣、運輸、契約的法律，保險法，公司法和海商法。③關於國際貿易的國內法規，如關稅法規、內地稅法規、進出口管製法規、外匯管製法規以及關於質量和包裝標准等方面的法規等。④關於外國人投資的國內立法和國際法，包括外國人投資的組織和清理、投資的待遇、保護和保證（見國際投資法），國有化和徵收，解決投資爭端的方法和適用的法律，等等。⑤關於國際貿易制度、國際貨幣和金融制度和國際機構投資制度的國際法和國際經濟機構法，如關稅及貿易總協定，國際貨幣基金組織，世界銀行，區域性國際開發銀行（如亞洲開發銀行）的法律，國際商品協定等。這部分法律都是通過國際條約的形式制定的，構成國家之間的條約義務，屬國際公法的范圍，不直接涉及或約束個人。⑥關於區域經濟一體化的法律，如歐洲經濟共同體，經濟互助委員會，安第斯條約組織的法律。⑦國際稅法，包括課稅管轄權范圍，關於解決雙重課稅的法律（見國際稅法） 。
狹義國際經濟法 是國際公法的一個特殊部門。凡國際貿易、經濟交易中涉及的私法問題(如國際貨物買賣合同等)和國內法問題（如關於進出口管理的國內立法等）都不屬於國際經濟法的范疇。這派學者比較注意國際經濟法的理論體系的研究。根據狹窄的概念，國際經濟法的范圍和內容主要包括以下幾方面：①關於一國公民（自然人）和法人在其國境外經濟領域的法律地位。②關於私人國外投資的法律制度。③國際機構投資的法律制度，主要涉及世界銀行和各區域開發銀行的組織機構法和關於其資金來源和經營的法律。④調整國際經濟關系的法律制度，其中主要包括國際貿易，金融和貨幣關系的國際法原則和規則。關於國際貨幣制度的法律涉及的問題包括：根據《國際貨幣基金組織協定條款》建立的關於國際貨幣體制的行為規則以及其實施和改革，區域性貨幣制度等。國際貿易法律制度包括《關稅及貿易總協定 》體現的各項原則（如非歧視原則、多邊最惠國待遇和國民待遇、普遍和逐步降低關稅、禁止數量定額制、關於防止出口貿易中限制競爭的原則、關稅同盟和自由貿易區制度涉及的原則，關於保障措施和免除執行某項原則的制度等），國際商品（初級產品）協定、生產國協會、綜合商品方案問題 、調整不同發展水平國家（即發達國家和發展中國家）之間貿易關系的非對等性質的優惠原則、關於禁止商業上限制競爭的做法的國際行為准則、消除或減少非關稅貿易障礙等。⑤國際經濟組織和機構法，包括組織結構、決策程序和職能范圍等方面的問題。⑥區域性經濟一體化的法律制度。⑦國際稅法，等等。