国际经济法英文简称

Ⅰ 会计专业排名

会计专业排名榜前五有：

上海财经大学

简称“上海财大”，是国家“211工程”、“985工程优势学科创新平台”重点建设高校，入选“国家海外高层次人才创新创业基地”、“教育部人文社会科学重点研究基地”、“卓越法律人才教育培养计划”、“国家建设高水平大学公派研究生项目”。

厦门大学

简称厦大，是中华人民共和国教育部直属的全国重点大学，由教育部、福建省和厦门市共建，是国家“211工程”、“985工程”重点建设高校，是国家“2011计划”牵头高校。

对外经济贸易大学

简称“对外经贸大学”、“贸大”，英文简称“UIBE”，以国际经济与贸易、法学（国际经济法）、金融学等优势专业为特色的多科性财经外语类全国重点大学、国家“211工程”重点建设高校，由教育部、商务部共建。

Ⅱ 三国法是指

三国法是国际公法、国际私法、国际经济法。

Ⅲ 请问国际经济法中的这几个缩写是什么国际BOT,TRIPS协议，GATS，ICSID体制,MIGA体制

BOT : Build-Operate-Transfer 建设-经营-转让

TRIPs: Agreement On Trade-related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights 与贸易有关的知识产权协定

GATS: General Agreement on Trade in Services 服务贸易总协定

ICSID: International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes 解决投资争端版国际中心权

MIGA：Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency 多边投资担保机构

Ⅳ 国际私法，国际公法，国际经济法的区别是什么

说到国际上的法则，其实在国内还是有很多大家都比较不熟悉，因为这些法则确实在国内受到影响呀，而且方式这些还是不同，那么小编就给大家来说一说国际私法，国际公法和国际经济法区别。

一、国际私法

国际私法他就是世界各国民法和商法互相歧异情况，对含有涉外因素的民法和商法的关系解决应用，当适应哪个国家的法律的法规，由于涉外因素又称为国际因素，民法的商法在西方传统上称为司法，国际司法因此而的名为广义的民法，可以包括商法，各国的民法和商法互相歧义情况，法律律术语称为民法抵触，民法冲突又称为法律抵触和法律冲突，所以因此长期以来这个部门被称为法律抵触法和法律冲突法。

Ⅳ 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.

Ⅵ 国际经济法上的gatt是什么意

GATT指关税贸易总协定
关税及贸易总协定(General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade,GATT) 是一个政府间缔结的有关关税和贸易规则的多边国际协定，简称关贸总协定。它的宗旨是通过削减关税和其它贸易壁垒，削除国际贸易中的差别待遇，促进国际贸易自由化，以充分利用世界资源，扩大商品的生产与流通。关贸总协定于1947年10月30日在日内瓦签订，并于1948年1月1日开始临时适用。应当注意的是，由于未能达到GATT规定的生效条件，作为多边国际协定的GATT从未正式生效，而是一直通过《临时适用议定书》的形式产生临时适用的效力。
相关资料请见http://ke..com/link?url=uhS2otYPYeWRY2pMN6OtSKkgem-

Ⅶ 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。

Ⅷ 国际经济法中BOT是指什么

bot是英文Build－Operate－Transfer的缩写，通常直译为“建设－经营－转让”。
1、bot实质上是版基础设施投资、建设和经营的权一种方式，以政府和私人机构之间达成协议为前提，由政府向私人机构颁布特许，允许其在一定时期内筹集资金建设某一基础设施并管理和经营该设施及其相应的产品与服务。
2、政府对该机构提供的公共产品或服务的数量和价格可以有所限制，但保证私人资本具有获取利润的机会。整个过程中的风险由政府和私人机构分担。当特许期限结束时，私人机构按约定将该设施移交给政府部门，转由政府指定部门经营和管理。所以，bot一词意译为“基础设施特许权”更为合适。

Ⅸ 国际经济法名词解释

国际经济法的基本涵义
一、狭义说：国际经济法是国际公法的回新分支
国际经济答法只是调整国家政府相互之间、国际组织相互之间以及国家政府与国际组织之间经济关系的法律规范。传统的国际公法，主要用于调整国家政府之间、国际组织之间以及国
家政府与国际组织之间的政治关系。国际经济法是专门用来调整国际经济关系的新的法律分支。它是国际公法的一个新分支，是适用于经济领域的国际公法。持此类观点的主要代表物有英国的施瓦曾伯格、日本的金泽良雄以及法国的卡罗等人。
二、广义说：国际经济法是调整国际（跨国）经济关系的国际法、国内法的边缘性综合体
它是调整超越一国国境的经济交往的法律规范。调整的对象，不仅限于国家政府之间、国际组织之间以及国家政府与国际组织之间的经济关系，而且包括大量的分属于不同国家的个人之间、法人之间、个人与法人之间以及他们与异国政府或国际组织之间的各种经济关系。它的内涵和外延，早已大大地突破了国际公法单一门类或单一学科的局限，而扩及于或涉及到国际私法、国际商法以及各国的民商法、经济法等。

Ⅹ UCC 在国际经济法中指的是什么

《美国统一商法典》（Uniform Commercial Code,简称UCC）。该法典于1952年公布，其后曾专作过多次修订，现在使用的是属1998年修订本。该法典第二编的标题就称为“买卖”，对货物买卖的有关事项作出了具体的规定，其内容在世界各国的买卖法中是最为详尽的。但是，《美国统一商法典》与大陆法国家的商法典有所不同，后者是由立法机关制定并通过的法律，而前者却不是，只是由一些法律团体起草，供美国各州自由采用的一种法律样本，它的法律效力完全取决于各州的立法机关是否于以采纳。由于《美国统一商法典》能适用当代美国经济发展的要求，因此，到1990年，美国各州都通过各自的州的立法程序采用了《美国统一商法典》，使它成为本州的法律。但有的州并不是全部采用，而只是部分采用。例如，路易斯安纳州就没有采用该法典的第二篇--买卖法，据说是因为该州的买卖法与《美国统一商法典》的买卖法十分内似，所以就无须采用《美国统一商法典》的文本。由此可见，《美国统一商法典》是由各州赋予其以法律效力的，而不是美国联邦的立法，所以，它是州法而不是联邦法。自《美国统一商法典》施行后，《1906年统一买卖法》即被废止。