Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-qs9v7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-12T09:23:28.574Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Asian Nations in Transition to Market Economies and the World Trade Organisation: The Shrimp Case

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2019

Gillian Triggs
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Since the late 1970's the Asian region has witnessed the paradox of socialist nations moving to market or “capitalist” economies. The experiment began with economic reforms in the People's Republic of China (PRC), spreading to the Soviet Union in 1985 with the adoption of perestroika, to Viet Nam under doi moi in 1986 and since then to the former republics of the Soviet Union after the ‘cold war’ in 1991. There are now nine countries in transition in the Asian region; the PRC, Viet Nam, Cambodia, Lao PDR, Mongolia, Myanmar, Kazakstan, Krygyz Republic and Uzbekistan.

Type
Research Article
Information
International Journal of Legal Information , Volume 28 , Issue 2 , Summer 2000 , pp. 336 - 349
Copyright
Copyright © 2000 by the International Association of Law Libraries 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1. 38 ILM 118 (1999).Google Scholar

2. Economies in Transition: the Asian Experience, ADB Theme Paper 4, reprinted from the ADB Annual Report 1995, at 4.Google Scholar

3. The “bad debt” problem is common to developing countries and centrally planned economies.Google Scholar

4. ADB Theme Paper, supra, n. 2, at 10.Google Scholar

5. See, for example, Viet Nam's Decree 57 of 31 July, 1998 permits all enterprises to engage in import/export activities within the scope of their registered business without first obtaining a licence. Subsequent implementing circulars from the Ministry of Trade and other departments, impose constraints on this liberalisation, requiring tax and customs code numbers. No enterprise has yet been successful in obtaining a customs code number; below, n. 8, at 42.Google Scholar

6. Vietnam's Legal framework for Economic Development, Discussion Paper No. 2 March, 1999.Google Scholar

7. ADB Theme paper, supra, n. 2, at 37.Google Scholar

8. Carol V. Rose, “The ‘New’ Law and Development Movement in the Post-Cold War Era: A Viet Nam Case Study,” 32(1) Law and Society Review (1998).Google Scholar

9. General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 19994, Article I “With respect to customs duties and charges of any kind imposed on or in connection with importation or exportation…any advantage, favour, privilege or immunity granted by any contracting party to any product originating in or destined for any other country shall be accorded immediately and unconditionally to the like product originating in or destined for the territories of all other contracting States.”Google Scholar

Article III “The Products of the territory of any contracting party imported into the territory of any other contracting party shall be accorded treatment no less favourable than that accorded to like products of national origin in respect of all law, regulations and requirements affecting their internal a sale, offering for sale, purchase etc…”Google Scholar

Article XI, No restriction on imports or exports are permitted other than taxes and other charges that are “tariff-visible,” non-discriminatory and subject to tariff rounds to reduce gradually.Google Scholar

10. Nov. 21, 1989, S.609 US Public Law 101–162.Google Scholar

11. Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora 1973 ('CITES'); since 1975 the Leatherback, Green, Hawksbill and Olive Ridley have been listed in Appendix 1 of CITES as endangered species. They are also protected by U.S. law under the Endangered Species Act 1973, 16 USC 1531.Google Scholar

12. Shaffer, , “International Decisions,” 93 American Journal of International Law, (1999) 507, at 508.Google Scholar

13. US- Reformulated Gasoline Case, 35 ILM 274 (1996).Google Scholar

14. Report 15 May, 1998; 37 International Legal Materials 832 (1998).Google Scholar

15. Ibid., at para. 131.Google Scholar

16. 30 ILM 1594 (1991); 33 ILM 839 (1994).Google Scholar

17. Shaffer, , supra, n. 13.Google Scholar

18. For an examination of these cases see S. Charnovitz, “The Moral Exception in Trade Policy” (1997-8) 38 Virginia J.I.L. 689.Google Scholar

19. Perkins, Nancy L., “World Trade Organisation: US-Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products,” 38 International Legal Materials 118 (1999), at 119.Google Scholar

20. Para. 133.Google Scholar

21. Perkins, , supra, n. 20, at 119.Google Scholar

22. For a discussion of jurisdiction at international law see Shearer, (ed) Starke's International Law (11th Ed.) 1994, Chapter 8.Google Scholar

23. Para. 158 and footnotes referring to B. Cheng, General Principles of International law as Applied by International Courts and Tribunals, 1953.Google Scholar

24. Note the recent application by Australia and New Zealand to the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, for an interim injunction against Japan for its “scientific” taking of whales.Google Scholar

25. Article 13 of the DSU.Google Scholar

26. Para. 86.Google Scholar

27. Para. 104.Google Scholar

28. Para. 110.Google Scholar

29. Inside US Trade, Nov. 13, 1998, at 7-8, quoted by Shaffer, supra n. 13.Google Scholar

30. Ibid. Google Scholar