基于公共道德、公共秩序和公共政策的被占领领土和对WTO和欧盟规则的例外

Q2 Social Sciences European Business Law Review Pub Date : 2023-06-01 DOI:10.54648/eulr2023035
Jonathan D. C. Turner, T. Howard
{"title":"基于公共道德、公共秩序和公共政策的被占领领土和对WTO和欧盟规则的例外","authors":"Jonathan D. C. Turner, T. Howard","doi":"10.54648/eulr2023035","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article discusses whether restrictions on trade with occupied territories imposed by national or sub-national authorities are permitted under exceptions to WTO and EU free trade rules on grounds of public morality, public order or public policy. The relevant provisions have a common origin and similarities in their terms. However, our analysis finds significant differences in their interpretation and application.\nRestrictions on trade with occupied territories are unlikely to be permitted on these grounds under WTO rules unless there is a strong justification for the restrictions in all the circumstances and they do not discriminate between different territories where relevant conditions are similar. By contrast, such restrictions are unlikely to be permitted under EU law if adopted unilaterally by an EU member state or sub-national authority.\nThe different approaches and potentially different outcomes reflect the different priorities of the WTO and the EU. The primary objective of the WTO is to remove barriers and discrimination in international trade in a diverse global economy in which countries with differing values and alliances participate. By contrast, the highest priority of the EU is the integration of the economies and societies of its member states.\nOccupied territories, WTO, EU, free trade, exceptions, public morality, public order, public policy, discrimination, common commercial policy","PeriodicalId":53431,"journal":{"name":"European Business Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Occupied Territories and the Exceptions to WTO and EU Rules on grounds of Public Morality, Public Order and Public Policy\",\"authors\":\"Jonathan D. C. Turner, T. Howard\",\"doi\":\"10.54648/eulr2023035\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article discusses whether restrictions on trade with occupied territories imposed by national or sub-national authorities are permitted under exceptions to WTO and EU free trade rules on grounds of public morality, public order or public policy. The relevant provisions have a common origin and similarities in their terms. However, our analysis finds significant differences in their interpretation and application.\\nRestrictions on trade with occupied territories are unlikely to be permitted on these grounds under WTO rules unless there is a strong justification for the restrictions in all the circumstances and they do not discriminate between different territories where relevant conditions are similar. By contrast, such restrictions are unlikely to be permitted under EU law if adopted unilaterally by an EU member state or sub-national authority.\\nThe different approaches and potentially different outcomes reflect the different priorities of the WTO and the EU. The primary objective of the WTO is to remove barriers and discrimination in international trade in a diverse global economy in which countries with differing values and alliances participate. By contrast, the highest priority of the EU is the integration of the economies and societies of its member states.\\nOccupied territories, WTO, EU, free trade, exceptions, public morality, public order, public policy, discrimination, common commercial policy\",\"PeriodicalId\":53431,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Business Law Review\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Business Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.54648/eulr2023035\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Business Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.54648/eulr2023035","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文讨论了在WTO和欧盟自由贸易规则的例外情况下,基于公共道德、公共秩序或公共政策,国家或地方当局对被占领土施加的贸易限制是否被允许。有关规定有共同的渊源和相似之处。然而,我们的分析发现它们在解释和应用上存在显著差异。根据世贸组织的规则,不太可能基于这些理由对与被占领领土的贸易进行限制,除非在所有情况下都有强有力的理由进行限制,并且在有关条件相似的不同领土之间不存在歧视。相比之下,如果由欧盟成员国或地方政府单方面采取此类限制措施,则不太可能得到欧盟法律的允许。不同的方法和可能不同的结果反映了世贸组织和欧盟不同的优先事项。世界贸易组织的主要目标是在具有不同价值观和联盟的国家参与的多元化全球经济中消除国际贸易中的壁垒和歧视。相比之下,欧盟最优先考虑的是其成员国的经济和社会一体化。被占领土,WTO,欧盟,自由贸易,例外,公共道德,公共秩序,公共政策,歧视,共同商业政策
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Occupied Territories and the Exceptions to WTO and EU Rules on grounds of Public Morality, Public Order and Public Policy
This article discusses whether restrictions on trade with occupied territories imposed by national or sub-national authorities are permitted under exceptions to WTO and EU free trade rules on grounds of public morality, public order or public policy. The relevant provisions have a common origin and similarities in their terms. However, our analysis finds significant differences in their interpretation and application. Restrictions on trade with occupied territories are unlikely to be permitted on these grounds under WTO rules unless there is a strong justification for the restrictions in all the circumstances and they do not discriminate between different territories where relevant conditions are similar. By contrast, such restrictions are unlikely to be permitted under EU law if adopted unilaterally by an EU member state or sub-national authority. The different approaches and potentially different outcomes reflect the different priorities of the WTO and the EU. The primary objective of the WTO is to remove barriers and discrimination in international trade in a diverse global economy in which countries with differing values and alliances participate. By contrast, the highest priority of the EU is the integration of the economies and societies of its member states. Occupied territories, WTO, EU, free trade, exceptions, public morality, public order, public policy, discrimination, common commercial policy
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
European Business Law Review
European Business Law Review Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
34
期刊介绍: The mission of the European Business Law Review is to provide a forum for analysis and discussion of business law, including European Union law and the laws of the Member States and other European countries, as well as legal frameworks and issues in international and comparative contexts. The Review moves freely over the boundaries that divide the law, and covers business law, broadly defined, in public or private law, domestic, European or international law. Our topics of interest include commercial, financial, corporate, private and regulatory laws with a broadly business dimension. The Review offers current, authoritative scholarship on a wide range of issues and developments, featuring contributors providing an international as well as a European perspective. The Review is an invaluable source of current scholarship, information, practical analysis, and expert guidance for all practising lawyers, advisers, and scholars dealing with European business law on a regular basis. The Review has over 25 years established the highest scholarly standards. It distinguishes itself as open-minded, embracing interests that appeal to the scholarly, practitioner and policy-making spheres. It practices strict routines of peer review. The Review imposes no word limit on submissions, subject to the appropriateness of the word length to the subject under discussion.
期刊最新文献
Article: Legislation Comment: Considerations on the Digital Markets Act, the Way to a Fair and Open Digital Environment Article: Open-Price Contracts Under the CISG: The Law in Action Article: EU Law and the Member States’ Competence to Regulate the Operation of Collaborative Economy Platforms – Where Do We Stand after the Digital Services Act Article: The Systemic Importance of Asset Managers: A Case Study for the Future of SIFI Regulation Article: Codes of Conduct in German Employment Relationships – A Measure to Adequately Implementing Compliance and Data Protection?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1