1. 國際經濟法的判斷題請幫忙解答一下謝謝~
1.錯，同時要表明提議人有在其建議一旦得到接受就受其約束的意思方構成要約。
2.錯，國際經濟法的法律淵源還包括國內立法等。
3.錯，反補貼協議（Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures，SCM Agreement）的簡稱，是世界貿易組織管轄的一項多邊貿易協議，是在關貿總協定東京回合同名協議的基礎上修改和補充的，是對《關貿總協定》第6條、第16條規定的具體化。
反傾銷協議（Anti-mping Agreement)，即《關於執行1994年關貿總協定第六條的協議》（Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of GATT 1994），是世界貿易組織管轄的一項多邊貿易協議，是在關貿總協定東京回合《反傾銷守則》的基礎上修改和補充的。
4.對，國際逃稅是指跨國納稅人採取某種違反稅法的手段或措施，減少或逃避其跨國納稅義務的行為。國際逃稅屬於違法行為。
5.對
6.錯，貨款主要是跟單托收。光票托收(CLEANBILLFORCOLLECTION),是指賣方僅開立匯票而不附帶任何貨運單據,委託銀行收取款項的一種托收結算方式。一般來講,光票托收用於收取貨款尾數、代墊費。
7.對，公約只適用於國際貨物買賣合同，即營業地在不同國家的雙方當事人之間所訂立的貨物買賣合同，但對某些貨物的國際買賣不能適用該公約作了明確規定。
2. 國際經濟法的一個案例
1、中國國際經濟來貿易仲裁委源員會有權受理此案，因為根據《聯合國國際貨物銷售合同公約》的規定，合同雙方當事人有權約定爭議處理的方式，所以只要雙方協商一致就可以選擇中國國際經濟貿易仲裁委員會處理。
2、 銀行不應該追回已付貨款，因為銀行的職責只負責審查信用證單證相符，單單相符的義務，所以銀行不對信用證真實情況負責，也就無需追回貨款。
3、 甲公司無權向銀行拒付貨款，因為信用證和合同相互獨立，根據信用證獨立原則，甲公司無權拒付貨款。
4、 乙公司抗辯不成立，根據《聯合國國際貨物銷售合同公約》的規定賣方應該對自己履行合同義務承擔質量擔保義務，乙公司根據商檢書並不意味著乙公司不對合同貨物質量負責。
5、 如果貨物在運輸途中遭遇風險而損失，此種風險應該由買方，也就是我國的甲公司承擔，因為CIF術語是「成本加運費加保險費」，風險自裝運港越過船舷時轉移，所以風險應該由甲公司承擔。
3. 國際經濟法的一個問題
圖書目錄-WTO反傾銷協議解讀
第1章 概述
第1節 傾銷與反傾銷的基本概念——《WT0反傾銷協議》第1條
1．傾銷的概念
2．傾銷的分類
3．反傾銷制度在國際貿易中的作用
第2節 國際反傾銷法律制度概述
1．反傾銷制度的產生
2．美國反傾銷法
3．歐盟反傾銷法
4．中國反傾銷法體系的建立
第3節 《關貿總協定》以及世界貿易組織反傾銷協議的歷史發展過程
1．《關貿總協定》第6條的產生
2．20世紀50、60年代《關貿總協定》第6條的有關規定適用情況
3．肯尼迪回合《關於執行第6條的協議》
4．東京回合《1979年反傾銷守則》
5．烏拉圭回合《關於執行<1994年關貿總協定)第6條的協議》
第4節 世界貿易組織反傾銷協議的結構
第5節 經典案例
第2章 傾銷的確定——《WTO反傾銷協議》第2條
第1節 傾銷的相關定義
1．《WTO反傾銷協議》對傾銷的定義
2．同類產品的確定
第2節正常價值的確定
1．國內市場銷售價格
2．向第三國出口價格
3．結構價格
第3節出口價格的確定
1．實際出口價格
2．推定價格
3．轉口貿易的影響
第4節 價格比較及傾銷幅度的計算
1．傾銷幅度計算
2．價格比較的原則
3．比較方法的選擇
第5節 經典案例
第3章 損害的確定——《WTo反傾銷協議》第3條和
第4條
第1節 與損害調查有關的概念
1．確定產業損害的意義
2．協議第3條的結構
3．產業損害調查期限
4．傾銷進口產品的范圍
第2節 國內產業——《WTo反傾銷協議》第4條
1．國內產業的定義
2．關聯企業的排除
3．地區產業
4．國內產業的定義與損害調查之間的關系
5．區域經濟共同體
第3節 調查機關對損害的審查標准
1．產業損害調查的一般標准
2．對傾銷進口產品的數量和價格的變化的審查
3．關於傾銷進口產品對國內產業影響的審查
4．實質性損害之威脅
5．對國內產業的新建產生嚴重阻礙
第4節 產業損害的其他問題
……
圖書簡介-WTO反傾銷協議解讀
本書對每個單一法律文件逐條進行解釋，每一個協定的釋義均構成一篇獨立文章，且均分為兩個部分：第一部分：簡要說明該協定的相關背景、發展，在WTO整個體系中的地位和作用；第二部分：逐條闡釋，根據每一條的不同情況繁簡不同，突出重點……重點解釋特殊條款和主要條款，同時用相關的案例作為佐證。對於協定條文涉及的其他國際條約及相關協定或協定的內容，盡可能地作出介紹，幫助讀者理解。
4. 關於國際經濟法的一道案例題
（1）有理，應支付。（2）可以，只要有明確的受約束的意思表示即可。
「天不想亮」你懂不懂啊？這是英國法判例上大名鼎鼎的薰劑案！
Carlill Vs. Carbolic smoke ball
The Full decision of the case
APPEAL from a decision of Hawkins, J.(2)
The defendants, who were the proprietors and vendors of a medical preparation called "The Carbolic Smoke Ball," inserted in the Pall Mall Gazette of November 13, 1891, and in other newspapers, the following advertisement: "100 reward will be paid by the Carbolic Smoke Ball Company to any person who contracts the increasing epidemic influenza, colds, or any disease caused by taking cold, after having used the ball three times daily for two weeks according to the printed directions supplied with each ball. 1000 is deposited with the Alliance Bank, Regent Street, shewing our sincerity in the matter.
"During the last epidemic of influenza many thousand carbolic smoke balls were sold as preventives against this disease, and in no ascertained case was the disease contracted by those using the carbolic smoke ball.
"One carbolic smoke ball will last a family several months, making it the cheapest remedy in the world at the price, 10, post free. The ball can be refilled at a cost of 5 Address, Carbolic Smoke Ball Company, 27, Princes Street, Hanover Square, London."
The plaintiff, a lady, on the faith of this advertisement, bought one of the balls at a chemist』s, and used it as directed, three times a day, from November 20, 1891, to January 17, 1892, when she was attacked by influenza. Hawkins, J., held that she was entitled to recover the 100 The defendants appealed.
Finlay, Q.C., and T. Terrell, for the defendants. The facts shew that there was no binding contract between the parties. The case is not like Williams v. Carwardine (4 B. Ad. 621), where the money was to become payable on the performance of certain acts by the plaintiff; here the plaintiff could not by any act of her own establish a claim, for, to establish her right to the money, it was necessary that she should be attacked by influenza - an event over which she had no control. The words express an intention, but do not amount to a promise: Week v. Tibold. 1 Roll. Abr. 6 (M.). The present case is similar to Harris v. Nickerson. Law Rep. 8 Q. B. 286. The advertisement is too vague to be the basis of a contract; there is no limit as to time, and no means of checking the use of the ball. Anyone who had influenza might come forward and depose that he had used the ball for a fortnight, and it would be impossible to disprove it. Guthing v. Lynn 2 B. Ad. 232 supports the view that the terms are too vague to make a contract, there being no limit as to time, a person might claim who took the influenza ten years after using the remedy. There is no consideration moving from the plaintiff: Gerhard v. Bates 2 E. B. 476. The present case differs from Denton v. Great Northern Ry. Co. 5 E. B. 860, for there an overt act was done by the plaintiff on the faith of a statement by the defendants. In order to make a contract by fulfilment of a condition, there must either be a communication of intention to accept the offer, or there must be the performance of some overt act. The mere doing an act in private will not be enough. This principle was laid down by Lord Blackburn in Brogden v. Metropolitan Ry. Co. 2 App. Cas. 666. The terms of the advertisement would enable a person who stole the balls to claim the reward, though his using them was no possible benefit to the defendants. At all events, the advertisement should be held to apply only to persons who bought directly from the defendants. But, if there be a contract at all, it is a wagering contract, as being one where the liability depends on an event beyond the control of the parties, and which is therefore void under 8 9 Vict. c. 109. Or, if not, it is bad under 14 Geo. 3, c. 48, s. 2, as being a policy of insurance on the happening of an uncertain event, and not conforming with the provisions of that section.
Dickens, Q.C., and W. B. Allen, for the plaintiff. [THE COURT intimated that they required no argument as to the question whether the contract was a wager or a policy of insurance.] The advertisement clearly was an offer by the defendants; it was published that it might be read and acted on, and they cannot be heard to say that it was an empty boast, which they were under no obligation to fulfil. The offer was ly accepted. An advertisement was addressed to all the public - as soon as a person does the act mentioned, there is a contract with him. It is said that there must be a communication of the acceptance; but the language of Lord Blackburn, in Brogden v. Metropolitan Ry. Co. 2 App. Cas. 666, shews that merely doing the acts indicated is an acceptance of the proposal. It never was intended that a person proposing to use the smoke ball should go to the office and obtain a repetition of the statements in the advertisement. The defendants are endeavouring to introce words into the advertisement to the effect that the use of the preparation must be with their privity or under their superintendence. Where an offer is made to all the world, nothing can be imported beyond the fulfilment of the conditions. Notice before the event cannot be required; the advertisement is an offer made to any person who fulfils the condition, as is explained in Spencer v. Harding Law Rep. 5 C. P. 561. Williams v. Carwardine 4 B. Ad. 621 shews strongly that notice to the person making the offer is not necessary. The promise is to the person who does an act, not to the person who says he is going to do it and then does it. As to notice after the event, it could have no effect, and the present case is within the language of Lord Blackburn in Brogden v. Metropolitan Ry. Co. 2 App. Cas. 666. It is urged that the terms are too vague and uncertain to make a contract; but, as regards parties, there is no more uncertainty than in all other cases of this description. It is said, too, that the promise might apply to a person who stole any one of the balls. But it is clear that only a person who lawfully acquired the preparation could claim the benefit of the advertisement. It is also urged that the terms should be held to apply only to persons who bought directly from the defendants; but that is not the import of the words, and there is no reason for implying such a limitation, an increased sale being a benefit to the defendants, though effected through a middleman, and the use of the balls must be presumed to serve as an advertisement and increase the sale. As to the want of restriction as to time, there are several possible constructions of the terms; they may mean that, after you have used it for a fortnight, you will be safe so long as you go on using it, or that you will be safe ring the prevalence of the epidemic. Or the true view may be that a fortnight』s use will make a person safe for a reasonable time.
Then as to the consideration. In Gerhard v. Bates 2 E. B. 476, Lord Campbell never meant to say that if there was a direct invitation to take shares, and shares were taken on the faith of it, there was no consideration. The decision went on the form of the declaration, which did not state that the contract extended to future holders. The decision that there was no consideration was qualified by the words "as between these parties," the plaintiff not having alleged himself to be a member of the class to whom the promise was made.
Finlay, Q.C., in reply. There is no binding contract. The money is payable on a person』s taking influenza after having used the ball for a fortnight, and the language would apply just as well to a person who had used it for a fortnight before the advertisement as to a person who used it on the faith of the advertisement. The advertisement is merely an expression of intention to pay 100 to a person who fulfils two conditions; but it is not a request to do anything, and there is no more consideration in using the ball than in contracting the influenza. That a contract should be completed by a private act is against the language of Lord Blackburn in Brogden v. Metropolitan Ry. Co. 2 App. Cas. 692. The use of the ball at home stands on the same level as the writing a letter which is kept in the writer』s drawer. In Denton v. Great Northern Ry. Co. 5 E. B. 860 the fact was ascertained by a public, not a secret act. The respondent relies on Williams v. Carwardine 4 B. Ad. 621, and the other cases of that class; but there a service was done to the advertiser. Here no service to the defendants was requested, for it was no benefit to them that the balls should be used: their interest was only that they should be sold. Those cases also differ from the present in this important particular, that in them the service was one which could only be performed by a limited number of persons, so there was no difficulty in ascertaining with whom the contract was made. It is said the advertisement was not a legal contract, but a promise in honour, which, if the defendants had been approached in a proper way, they would have fulfilled. A request is as necessary in the case of an executed consideration as of an executory one:
Lampleigh v. Braithwait 1 Sm. L. C. 9th ed. pp. 153, 157, 159; and here there was no request. Then as to the want of limitation as to time, it is conceded that the defendants cannot have meant to contract without some limit, and three limitations have been suggested. The limitation "ring the prevalence of the epidemic" is inadmissible, for the advertisement applies to colds as well as influenza. The limitation "ring use" is excluded by the language "after having used." The third is, "within a reasonable time," and that is probably what was intended; but it cannot be deced from the words; so the fair result is that there was no legal contract at all.
看不懂？我給你大致講一下。法官是這么說的，雖然說廣告是對不特定人提出的，一般情況下屬於要約邀請（ITT），但是本案中，被告不僅將懸賞內容寫得十分具體，而且已經把1000英鎊存進銀行，充分顯示出它願意受到該廣告內容的約束（to be bound）,所以符合了要約的根本特徵，即受約束的意思表示。所以，本案中的廣告是一個要約。而原告通過購買並使用薰劑的行為作出了行為承諾。有要約，有承諾，這個合同就成立了。
英美法教材用這個案例來說明，要約不一定要向特定人發出，只要有明確的受約束的意思表示即可。
5. 國際經濟法案例，請幫忙解答一下！
（1）賣方對火災損毀貨物不承擔責任。根據《2000年國際貿易術語解釋通則》A5，B5，在指定的船隻未按時到達的情況下，買方自約定的交貨日期或交貨期限屆滿之日起承擔貨物滅失或損壞的一切風險， 但以該項貨物已正式劃歸合同項下，即清楚地劃出或以其他方式確定為合同項下之貨物為限。本案中，賣方備好貨物後將其單獨存放於上海港碼頭標准倉庫。由於承運人船期安排的原因，指定船舶於8月20日到達上海港裝貨，此時風險已經由賣方轉移於買方。
（2）賣方對變質貨物承擔責任。根據CISG
第三十五條
（1）賣方交付的貨物必須與合同所規定的數量、質量和規格相符，並須按照合同所規定的方式裝箱或包裝。
（2）除雙方當事人業已另有協議外，貨物除非符合以下規定，否則即為與合同不符：
（d）貨物按照同類貨物通用的方式裝箱或包裝，如果沒有此種通用方式，則按照足以保全和保護貨物的方式裝箱或包裝。
（3）如果買方在訂立合同時知道或者不可能不知道貨物不符合同，賣方就無須按上一款（a）項至（d）項負有此種不符合同的責任。
第三十六條
（1）賣方應按照合同和本公約的規定，對風險移轉到買方時所存在的任何不符合同情形，負有責任，即使這種不符合同情形在該時間後方始明顯。
部分貨物因包裝不符合同約定而發生變質，賣方違反了35條規定的義務，應當承擔責任。
6. 國際經濟法1多選
1.ABCD
2.BC
3.ABCD
4.ABC
5.BD
6.ABC
7.ABD
8.ABCD
9.BC