国际经济法英文

㈠ 国际经济法英文案例及翻译 跪求

案例一：

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

事实：
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.

判决：
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.”

分析问题：
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。上议院

亚特兰大93][1962年

事实:

事实:

日期由一个合同,1956年10月4日汉堡,Tsakiroglou &公司之间。有限公司是作为卖方,和对喀土穆的受访者,Noblee Thorl g . m . b。h .汉堡/ Hargurg通过代理人进行的,因为买方,卖方同意出售,买方购买约300吨花生壳的基础上在苏丹3%,新作物1956/1957掺合料在50美元每1000公斤包括塑料袋的cif价格。汉堡。1956年11、12、装运,以付款交单方式付款先介绍为95%的数量的临时发票后再付款,平衡分析最终的发票。合同的形式也要被合并的石油合同出版社,种子协会(以下简称“三八”号合同,我们已将I.O.S.A)与仲裁在伦敦。合同第一条规定的I.O.S.A 38号规定的“装运港…从一个非洲东部由轮船(加油机除外)直接或间接的或有或无转船。”

双方的合同的基础上从港口装运的货物将苏丹。第6条合同提供的:"如果发生禁止进出口,封锁或战争,在任何情况下都不可抗力防止固定的时间内装船,或交货、时期所允许不超过两个月。在这之后,如果不可抗力的情况下还是操作,本合同应取消了。”

当合同之日起,两partied沉思,货物会经苏伊士运河。1956年10月29日,以色列入侵埃及,11月1日,英国和法国开始军事行动,并将于11月2日苏伊士运河航运堵住了。当合同之日起进入,常规的和正常的路线的装运港苏丹从苏丹落花生去汉堡是经过苏伊士运河。然而,关闭苏伊士运河运输从港口阻止苏丹运往汉堡,通过运河与不可能通过这条路线一直持续到四月1957年。通过苏伊士运河的距离大约是通过4,386英里的路程,距离好望角是大约11,137英里。从11月10日,1956年关闭后,运河里,有25%的货运附加费是放在通过血管进行货物的好望角和这是增加到100% 1956年12月13日。

卖方的要求正当,宣布该合同不灰心、到了末日,因为苏伊士运河的关闭由买方不被接受。

法院程序:

程序之前,法庭

在仲裁程序中,裁判裁决日期,2月20日,1957年,授予,卖方违约,应在买方支付美元的损害5,625的总和15s.连同79美元的成本奖。卖方不满的奖励,听到中的上诉委员会任命上诉1月28日,1958年,解散了上诉,维持裁判员的裁决。

判决:

管辖权

中的上诉委员会的裁决是在以下条件:“到目前为止,因为它是一个事实问题,我们发现,只要是一个问题的法律,我们持有:

(我)这些人都是在埃及敌对行动而不是战争在材料的时候。

(二)并且战争还是不可抗力阻止了一批合同货物与合同的合同期限装运目的地,因为通过好望角时也不那么预防经苏伊士运河装运的原因是预防不可抗力。

(3)这不是一项默示合同期内的那批货的装运或交通应经苏伊士运河和运输货物的船只通过好望角不是商业和根本不同的船只装运此货通过苏伊士运河。所以,合同都没有挫伤的关闭苏伊士运河。”

分析问题:

优点:有一项默示的术语,它的货物,应当由被某个特定的溃败吗?是合同烦躁吗?

(一)常规和习惯航线

争论货物的装船必须经苏伊士运河只能流行如果一个学期的合同是暗示的,不这么说。在为广大主张合同义务的到岸价格,在缺乏明示条款,是遵循通常和习惯的路线。它不是合同签订之日起,不过时间的表现,决定什么是惯例。作为部分32(2)的商品销售的行为,1893年,规定:“除非其他授权由买方、卖方必须做出这样的合同与载体代表买方合理有认为商品的性质和其他情况下的案子。”因此,如果没有习惯航线,这条路线的一定要选哪是合理的。如果只有一位路线,必须采取措施,如果它是可行的。在约会当表现是呼吁,没有普通或者习惯航线,因为苏伊士运河被关闭和唯一可行的路线是经过好望角。卖方可以履行他们的义务由提单通过的斗篷。

(b)是否该合同是沮丧的封苏伊士运河吗?

董事会应该考虑是否在卖方的税款的义务,由一个出现船通过好望角路线会强加在他们身上是一个从根本上完全不同的义务,任何一方可以在海上保险合同进行的想象中,卖方将被要求完成。董事会发现没有理由积极的回答。合同是到岸价格销售的商品,而不是一个运输合同中的。对部分的基本义务的销售商是派遣落花生海运从一港运至目的地。没有证据表明买方的任何重要附路线。他们是内容应该被清理的坚果在任何日期在11月或12月。没有规定的日期为到达汉堡。不是的,是没有证据的坚果会退化或交通将涉及到特殊包装或害羞,结果较长的旅程,也没有任何证据显示市场得到了及时。总之,没有证据表明买方关心哪条路线,或在被限制,当螺母及时到达。

那么,什么卖方索赔吗?运输合同中的清楚的将是不同的,因此可能是整个的保险待遇。在这两个方面的卖方可能把利润更大的成本:他们可能会减少甚至消失。但增加的费用支出不是地沮丧,沮丧的教义必须应用在非常狭窄的范围,而本案异常不够满足的必要条件。他们与所有这些事实之前,董事会的求援:他们发现,在开普敦性能由船公司没有商业路线或从根本上不同于船舶经苏伊士运河,上诉应该被开除。

㈡ 谁能帮我翻译一下这段英文，国际经济法里面的

1坚持小组的结论，在第7.212欧共体小组报告说，负责根据含义范围内的第Ⅲ回 ： 2 1994年关贸总协定，而不答是一个奥尔丁关税的含义与第Ⅱ ： （二）
2上传小组的结论，在第7.223和第Ⅷ ：甲（ a ） （一）欧共体小组报告，在对进口汽车零部件的一般问题的措施不符合第Ⅲ ： 2 ，第一句，在GATT1994在这一议题，以进口汽车零部件的内部chanrge不是。
3坚持小组的结论，在第7.272和第Ⅷ ：甲（ a ） （二）欧共体小组报告，就重要的汽车零部件一般，
问题的措施不符合第Ⅲ ： 4 1994年关贸总协定中，他们给予importuned汽车零部件较为不利的待遇比国内汽车零部件一样;认为有必要的规则小组的“替代性”调查第Ⅷ ：甲（二） （一）欧共体小组报告，关于进口汽车零部件的一般措施，问题是在符合第Ⅱ ： （ a ）和（二） 1994年关贸总协定。

看看有帮助没

㈢ 案例分析题 国际经济法 英文版

ask you teacher for answer

㈣ 国际经济法，英文，名词解释

International Economic Law
国际经济法是指调整国家之间；国际组织之版间；国家与国际组织之间；国家与他国权私人之间；国际组织与私人之间以及不同国籍私人之间，相互经济关系的法律规范的总称。

㈤ 什么地方可以找到国际经济法的英文案例

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 高手帮我翻译一下这段英文，国际经济法里的

1 支持小组在EC 小组报告的7.212 段落抄发现，费用强加在袭下面在文章的意思内？ :关贸总协定1994中的2项，以及并非有物品的意思的ording关税吗？ : (b)

2在第7.223 段落和部分上载小组发现？ :A ( a ) (i) 在EC 小组报告，中，在尊重在进口汽车零件内通常，在争论中的度量标准不符合于条款？ :2，第一个句子，GATT1994在那内进口随着是不的一内部chanrge的汽车零件的主题。

3在第7.272 段落和部分支持小组发现？ :A ( a ) (ii) 在EC 小组报告中，关于重要汽车零件通常，在争论中的度量标准不符合于条款？ : 1994 关贸总协定4在他们给予一再要求的汽车零件较少有利处理比喜欢国内汽车零件的那内； 发现在部分里在小组lternativefinding 管理是不必要的吗？ :A ( b ) (i) 在EC 小组报告，中，关于进口汽车零件通常，在争论中的议案在与一致文章内？ : (a) 以及(b) 关贸总协定1994。

㈦ 急需一篇国际经济法英文论文及翻译！！！

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 国际经济法英文翻译...实在译不出,麻烦高手帮帮忙啊...

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 英语(国际经济法)是什么专业

就是学习一些关抄于袭国际进出口买卖相关的知识，例如设有单证、国际贸易实务、国际贸易理论等跟进出口货物买卖有关的课程。就业的话，则可以做单证员、报关员（这个报关证比较难考）业务员。要是走船运这方面的话会好一点。

㈩ 英语（国际经济法）主要学什么

是指调整国家之间；国际组织之间；国家与国际组织之间；国家与他国私人之间；国际组织与私人之间以及不同国籍私人之间，相互经济关系的法律规范的总称。它是随着各国之间贸易和经济往来日益增长以及国家对贸易和经济活动的干预日益加强而形成和发展的。早在中世纪末期，欧洲主要商业城市就有一些关于国际商业交易的规则。第二次世界大战后，有关国际经济关系的法律规则和制度大量出现 ，并具有了国家之间条约的形式。作为一门学科，国际经济法学也于第二次世界大战后，逐渐发展起来。
概念和范围 关于国际经济法的概念和范围，国际上和国内都学说不一，总的来说，可归纳为广泛和狭窄的两种概念和范围。
广义国际经济法 泛指调整国际经济交往的法律。其范围包括一切关于超越国界并涉及任何经济利益的交易和交往的法律规则和制度，不论进行交往和交易的主体是国家、国际组织或机构、国营金融机构（如国家的中央银行），还是个人、法人或跨国公司。它也不区分国际法和国内法、公法和私法。主张这种概念的法学家一般认为，国际经济法是国际社会中经济关系和经济组织的国际法规范和国内法规范的总称，他们打破了法律各部门之间的界限，强调法律各部门之间的相互作用和相互渗透。这派国际经济法学者特别着重从各种有关法规的综合的角度，研究实际的法律问题，对实际法律工作者来说，较切合实用。
按照广泛的概念，国际经济法的内容甚广，主要包括以下几方面：①关于外国人经济地位的国内立法和国际法。②关于国际商业交易的私法方面，包括货物买卖、运输、契约的法律，保险法，公司法和海商法。③关于国际贸易的国内法规，如关税法规、内地税法规、进出口管制法规、外汇管制法规以及关于质量和包装标准等方面的法规等。④关于外国人投资的国内立法和国际法，包括外国人投资的组织和清理、投资的待遇、保护和保证（见国际投资法），国有化和征收，解决投资争端的方法和适用的法律，等等。⑤关于国际贸易制度、国际货币和金融制度和国际机构投资制度的国际法和国际经济机构法，如关税及贸易总协定，国际货币基金组织，世界银行，区域性国际开发银行（如亚洲开发银行）的法律，国际商品协定等。这部分法律都是通过国际条约的形式制定的，构成国家之间的条约义务，属国际公法的范围，不直接涉及或约束个人。⑥关于区域经济一体化的法律，如欧洲经济共同体，经济互助委员会，安第斯条约组织的法律。⑦国际税法，包括课税管辖权范围，关于解决双重课税的法律（见国际税法） 。
狭义国际经济法 是国际公法的一个特殊部门。凡国际贸易、经济交易中涉及的私法问题(如国际货物买卖合同等)和国内法问题（如关于进出口管理的国内立法等）都不属于国际经济法的范畴。这派学者比较注意国际经济法的理论体系的研究。根据狭窄的概念，国际经济法的范围和内容主要包括以下几方面：①关于一国公民（自然人）和法人在其国境外经济领域的法律地位。②关于私人国外投资的法律制度。③国际机构投资的法律制度，主要涉及世界银行和各区域开发银行的组织机构法和关于其资金来源和经营的法律。④调整国际经济关系的法律制度，其中主要包括国际贸易，金融和货币关系的国际法原则和规则。关于国际货币制度的法律涉及的问题包括：根据《国际货币基金组织协定条款》建立的关于国际货币体制的行为规则以及其实施和改革，区域性货币制度等。国际贸易法律制度包括《关税及贸易总协定 》体现的各项原则（如非歧视原则、多边最惠国待遇和国民待遇、普遍和逐步降低关税、禁止数量定额制、关于防止出口贸易中限制竞争的原则、关税同盟和自由贸易区制度涉及的原则，关于保障措施和免除执行某项原则的制度等），国际商品（初级产品）协定、生产国协会、综合商品方案问题 、调整不同发展水平国家（即发达国家和发展中国家）之间贸易关系的非对等性质的优惠原则、关于禁止商业上限制竞争的做法的国际行为准则、消除或减少非关税贸易障碍等。⑤国际经济组织和机构法，包括组织结构、决策程序和职能范围等方面的问题。⑥区域性经济一体化的法律制度。⑦国际税法，等等。