1. 国际经济法的判断题请帮忙解答一下谢谢~
1.错，同时要表明提议人有在其建议一旦得到接受就受其约束的意思方构成要约。
2.错，国际经济法的法律渊源还包括国内立法等。
3.错，反补贴协议（Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures，SCM Agreement）的简称，是世界贸易组织管辖的一项多边贸易协议，是在关贸总协定东京回合同名协议的基础上修改和补充的，是对《关贸总协定》第6条、第16条规定的具体化。
反倾销协议（Anti-mping Agreement)，即《关于执行1994年关贸总协定第六条的协议》（Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of GATT 1994），是世界贸易组织管辖的一项多边贸易协议，是在关贸总协定东京回合《反倾销守则》的基础上修改和补充的。
4.对，国际逃税是指跨国纳税人采取某种违反税法的手段或措施，减少或逃避其跨国纳税义务的行为。国际逃税属于违法行为。
5.对
6.错，货款主要是跟单托收。光票托收(CLEANBILLFORCOLLECTION),是指卖方仅开立汇票而不附带任何货运单据,委托银行收取款项的一种托收结算方式。一般来讲,光票托收用于收取货款尾数、代垫费。
7.对，公约只适用于国际货物买卖合同，即营业地在不同国家的双方当事人之间所订立的货物买卖合同，但对某些货物的国际买卖不能适用该公约作了明确规定。
2. 国际经济法的一个案例
1、中国国际经济来贸易仲裁委源员会有权受理此案，因为根据《联合国国际货物销售合同公约》的规定，合同双方当事人有权约定争议处理的方式，所以只要双方协商一致就可以选择中国国际经济贸易仲裁委员会处理。
2、 银行不应该追回已付货款，因为银行的职责只负责审查信用证单证相符，单单相符的义务，所以银行不对信用证真实情况负责，也就无需追回货款。
3、 甲公司无权向银行拒付货款，因为信用证和合同相互独立，根据信用证独立原则，甲公司无权拒付货款。
4、 乙公司抗辩不成立，根据《联合国国际货物销售合同公约》的规定卖方应该对自己履行合同义务承担质量担保义务，乙公司根据商检书并不意味着乙公司不对合同货物质量负责。
5、 如果货物在运输途中遭遇风险而损失，此种风险应该由买方，也就是我国的甲公司承担，因为CIF术语是“成本加运费加保险费”，风险自装运港越过船舷时转移，所以风险应该由甲公司承担。
3. 国际经济法的一个问题
图书目录-WTO反倾销协议解读
第1章 概述
第1节 倾销与反倾销的基本概念——《WT0反倾销协议》第1条
1．倾销的概念
2．倾销的分类
3．反倾销制度在国际贸易中的作用
第2节 国际反倾销法律制度概述
1．反倾销制度的产生
2．美国反倾销法
3．欧盟反倾销法
4．中国反倾销法体系的建立
第3节 《关贸总协定》以及世界贸易组织反倾销协议的历史发展过程
1．《关贸总协定》第6条的产生
2．20世纪50、60年代《关贸总协定》第6条的有关规定适用情况
3．肯尼迪回合《关于执行第6条的协议》
4．东京回合《1979年反倾销守则》
5．乌拉圭回合《关于执行<1994年关贸总协定)第6条的协议》
第4节 世界贸易组织反倾销协议的结构
第5节 经典案例
第2章 倾销的确定——《WTO反倾销协议》第2条
第1节 倾销的相关定义
1．《WTO反倾销协议》对倾销的定义
2．同类产品的确定
第2节正常价值的确定
1．国内市场销售价格
2．向第三国出口价格
3．结构价格
第3节出口价格的确定
1．实际出口价格
2．推定价格
3．转口贸易的影响
第4节 价格比较及倾销幅度的计算
1．倾销幅度计算
2．价格比较的原则
3．比较方法的选择
第5节 经典案例
第3章 损害的确定——《WTo反倾销协议》第3条和
第4条
第1节 与损害调查有关的概念
1．确定产业损害的意义
2．协议第3条的结构
3．产业损害调查期限
4．倾销进口产品的范围
第2节 国内产业——《WTo反倾销协议》第4条
1．国内产业的定义
2．关联企业的排除
3．地区产业
4．国内产业的定义与损害调查之间的关系
5．区域经济共同体
第3节 调查机关对损害的审查标准
1．产业损害调查的一般标准
2．对倾销进口产品的数量和价格的变化的审查
3．关于倾销进口产品对国内产业影响的审查
4．实质性损害之威胁
5．对国内产业的新建产生严重阻碍
第4节 产业损害的其他问题
……
图书简介-WTO反倾销协议解读
本书对每个单一法律文件逐条进行解释，每一个协定的释义均构成一篇独立文章，且均分为两个部分：第一部分：简要说明该协定的相关背景、发展，在WTO整个体系中的地位和作用；第二部分：逐条阐释，根据每一条的不同情况繁简不同，突出重点……重点解释特殊条款和主要条款，同时用相关的案例作为佐证。对于协定条文涉及的其他国际条约及相关协定或协定的内容，尽可能地作出介绍，帮助读者理解。
4. 关于国际经济法的一道案例题
（1）有理，应支付。（2）可以，只要有明确的受约束的意思表示即可。
“天不想亮”你懂不懂啊？这是英国法判例上大名鼎鼎的薰剂案！
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？我给你大致讲一下。法官是这么说的，虽然说广告是对不特定人提出的，一般情况下属于要约邀请（ITT），但是本案中，被告不仅将悬赏内容写得十分具体，而且已经把1000英镑存进银行，充分显示出它愿意受到该广告内容的约束（to be bound）,所以符合了要约的根本特征，即受约束的意思表示。所以，本案中的广告是一个要约。而原告通过购买并使用薰剂的行为作出了行为承诺。有要约，有承诺，这个合同就成立了。
英美法教材用这个案例来说明，要约不一定要向特定人发出，只要有明确的受约束的意思表示即可。
5. 国际经济法案例，请帮忙解答一下！
（1）卖方对火灾损毁货物不承担责任。根据《2000年国际贸易术语解释通则》A5，B5，在指定的船只未按时到达的情况下，买方自约定的交货日期或交货期限届满之日起承担货物灭失或损坏的一切风险， 但以该项货物已正式划归合同项下，即清楚地划出或以其他方式确定为合同项下之货物为限。本案中，卖方备好货物后将其单独存放于上海港码头标准仓库。由于承运人船期安排的原因，指定船舶于8月20日到达上海港装货，此时风险已经由卖方转移于买方。
（2）卖方对变质货物承担责任。根据CISG
第三十五条
（1）卖方交付的货物必须与合同所规定的数量、质量和规格相符，并须按照合同所规定的方式装箱或包装。
（2）除双方当事人业已另有协议外，货物除非符合以下规定，否则即为与合同不符：
（d）货物按照同类货物通用的方式装箱或包装，如果没有此种通用方式，则按照足以保全和保护货物的方式装箱或包装。
（3）如果买方在订立合同时知道或者不可能不知道货物不符合同，卖方就无须按上一款（a）项至（d）项负有此种不符合同的责任。
第三十六条
（1）卖方应按照合同和本公约的规定，对风险移转到买方时所存在的任何不符合同情形，负有责任，即使这种不符合同情形在该时间后方始明显。
部分货物因包装不符合同约定而发生变质，卖方违反了35条规定的义务，应当承担责任。
6. 国际经济法1多选
1.ABCD
2.BC
3.ABCD
4.ABC
5.BD
6.ABC
7.ABD
8.ABCD
9.BC