國際經濟法英語

『壹』 要考對外經貿大學的國際經濟法研究生，法律英語這部分該如何准備呢

首先，《國際商法教學案例（英文）選編》是必看的，考試的時候很有可能是從中內抽容出一個案例，有時連題目都不會變，可是書中沒有標准答案，還要憑自己的法律知識作答。其次，合同法、公司法以及CISG的中英文對翻要掌握。最後，大量的法律英語專業詞彙的積累也是非常重要的，因為可能涉及到名詞解釋（當然，是英文的法律術語用中文解釋），此外，日常英語，特別是詞義相近的英語單詞需要注意區分，選擇題會考到。

『貳』 中政的國際經濟法對英語有特殊要求嗎復試的時候會不會要求英語特別好和刑法相比，哪個更容易考一些

和刑法相比，中政的國際經濟法對外語的要求肯定是要高一些，因為國際經濟法是調整國際經濟關系的各種法律規范，涉及的方面更廣，不僅僅局限於國內。所以在外語這方面，也會涉及到更廣泛的內容，以便更好地去協調國際經濟方面的問題。

『叄』 法學(國際經濟法)與商英(國際經濟法）差別只是英語么，就業情況差不多麼~~

它們差別可大了，完全是兩回事。法學是法學專業；至於「商英」，是商務英專語的意思嗎屬？那它就是英語語言類的，完全兩回事。一個是法學專業國際經濟法方向（法學院），一個是英語專業商務英語方向（外國語學院），如果是本科的話，畢業後前者拿的是法學學士學位，後者拿的是英語語言學士學位，完全不一樣。至於就業么，如果能通過國家司法考試的話，實質區別也不算大，但英語專業的必須再考過專業八級。

『肆』 國際經濟法（法律系）專業對英語的要求有多高大學有必要選修英語嗎

國際經濟法專業對英語要求相當高！其下各分支科目——例如WTO法、國際投資法、國際組織法版等等，都是需要權英語來閱讀 法律規則以及案例的。
如果要學好本專業，英語是一個硬條件。鑒此，如果你所在大學英語沒有要求必修，可以考慮選修或自學。當然，到了一定程度，應該刻意練習專業英語閱讀。
希望能有所幫助！

『伍』 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。

『陸』 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。

『柒』 國際經濟法考研適合英語專業的學生么是英語專業學生跨專業考研的良好選擇嗎

可以，原來英語專業裡面有法律英語研究方向的，後來砍掉了；但法律英語內容一直是重要內容，所以英語專業考生跨考法律是比較多的，這個沒有問題,並且有一定的優勢,並且就業也非常好,但是確實專業課方向需要從頭開始,但是成功率還是比較高的。