Sample Essay Reference on International Economic Law

International economic law is a general term for the legal norms that regulate the international economic relations between states, international organizations and legal persons and individuals in different countries arising from international economic activities. The following is the content of the essay reference paper on international economic law that I have collected and organized for you, welcome to read and refer to!

International economic law of the paper reference paper 1

On the economic sanctions in international law

In Chinese, ? Sanctions? The basic meaning of sanctions is? The basic meaning of sanction in Chinese is "to restrain and punish by force, so as not to do anything wrong". In English, sanction from the decree, solemn agreement and other meanings to develop a variety of interpretations: one is from the legal point of view refers to ensure compliance with the law and the means adopted, including the violation of the law to implement a variety of penalties and in order to prevent the violation of the law and the adoption of the form of rewards; is from the point of view of morality refers to the maintenance of morality of the binding force; from the point of view of international law or international politics refers to the usual consensus of the several countries to use a coercive means to force the violation of the law. Thirdly, from the perspective of international law or international politics, it refers to a coercive means usually adopted by several countries in unison to compel a country violating international law to stop its illegal activities or comply with the ruling, especially by denying loans, restricting bilateral trade, or adopting measures such as armed intervention or blockade. International economic sanctions generally refer to an economic punishment imposed by one or more countries on another country or countries, and their essence is to use sanctions as a means to achieve certain political and other goals. Western countries have bluntly declared that sanctions are a powerful tool in the conduct of foreign policy. A powerful tool? The United Nations has sometimes adopted certain resolutions to compel Member States to participate in collective sanctions, which have been used more and more frequently since the twentieth century with the accelerated development of economic globalization. According to an analysis of 170 cases from 1914 to 1998 by K?A?Elliott and G.C.Hufbauer, more than 150 took place in more than 50 years after the war, and more than 50 in less than 10 years in the 1990s.

Looking at the examples of international economic sanctions in the post-war period, it can be concluded that there were three main forms taken:

The first and most commonly applied was the strategic embargo. Prohibit the supply of nuclear weapons, conventional weapons and dual-use technology products to the sanctioned country, and prevent the entry of high-tech and its products into the sanctioned country; and when there is usually no need for strategic embargoes, generally integrated trade embargoes. Export and import embargoes, as well as restrictions on the movement of funds and persons, are imposed on the sanctioned State. There are also specialized trade embargoes. These embargoes are focused on a selected number of trade items related to the livelihood of the sanctioned State. The items chosen are usually food and oil.

Characteristics of international economic sanctions

First of all, they are mandatory. In terms of intensity economic sanctions are a means between diplomatic and military means. The sanctioning party will not take into account the feelings of the sanctioned party in order to achieve its goal.

Secondly, it is confrontational. The sanctioner never hides the target of sanctions and the goal to be achieved, which makes the sanctioner and the sanctioned person in a state of open confrontation.

There is also relevance. Economic sanctions are double-edged swords that cause both parties to suffer, and they also affect the interests of third countries. The closer the economic relationship, the greater the loss suffered. This characteristic of economic sanctions determines that most of the sanctions are difficult to succeed, because in the interests of the drive, not only the companies of the sanctioning country may act against the will of the government, but also the member states of the sanctioning coalition will act in their own way, so that the effect of sanctions is greatly reduced.

The core issue of international sanctions is efficiency, that is, how to minimize the cost, the least time to achieve is the other side of the purpose of submission. Illwater and other empirical analysis of a large number of cases found that the success rate of economic sanctions is declining, 1938-1972, forcing the other side to make concessions, to achieve the intended objectives of the sanctions for 67%, 1973-1990 declined to 22%, even in the 1990s, the success rate of economic sanctions is only about 1/4. in the factors affecting the efficiency of the economic sanctions, the first of which is the economic costs borne by the target country. Illwater's statistics find that in most successful cases, the cost of sanctions exceeds 2% of the target country's GDP, while in failed cases this is less than half.

The costs of economic sanctions are borne by the population. In general, economic sanctions cause losses to the population, leading to popular dissatisfaction with the government, which in turn affects its decision-making. This assumption is based on the premise that the sanctioned government is a democratically elected government. If the regime of the sanctioned country is not democratically elected, the effect of the sanctions is questionable. For example, in a country like North Korea, where the government controls all the media and the only source of external news for the people is the official news, it is very easy for the people's pain over the suffering to be transformed into hatred towards the sanctioning party with a little incitement. This not only failed to achieve the purpose of launching sanctions, but also made the regime of the sanctioned country more secure. After the Gulf War, the sanctions imposed by the coalition on Iraq continued until 2003, greatly weakening Iraq's strength and thus paving the way for subsequent military action. But the original purpose of the sanctions? to overthrow Saddam's regime in the hope that Iraqis would revolt on their own? has undoubtedly failed.

Economic sanctions often cause very serious damage to the sanctioning country itself. For example, in the 1970s, the United States in order to force the Soviet Union to withdraw from Afghanistan, launched a food embargo on the Soviet Union, followed by an embargo on oil and gas pipelines. The food and oil and gas pipeline embargoes against the Soviet Union seriously jeopardized the interests of American farmers and industrial enterprises as well as related industries, and in the end, under the pressure of interest groups, the United States later had to take the initiative to lift the sanctions. Of course, this is also related to the course of the war in Afghanistan and the transformation of the international situation. The asset freeze imposed by the United States on Iran and Libya in the 1970s and 1980s included both the assets of the two countries kept in the United States mainland, and also involved the assets in the overseas branches of American banks and their subsidiaries. Their implementation not only gave rise to conflicts of law with the location of the offshore financial markets, to the detriment of the sovereignty and financial community there, but also to the detriment of the U.S. financial community. "More importantly and in the national interest of the United States, the loss of customer confidence in the ability of U.S. banks to provide services will inevitably lead such customers to leave New York or other U.S. markets for foreign markets, such as London, which are perceived to offer a more level playing field." According to a 1995 report by the Institute of International Economic Studies, the cost of the sanctions to American companies ranged from $15 billion to $19 billion and affected the employment of some 200,000 workers, with the inevitable result that there would be dissatisfaction in the relevant industries.

As between democratic countries, the political system is becoming more and more mature, and the links between countries are getting closer and closer, and the whole body is affected by a slight change of heart, in which case it is very difficult to make behaviors that will be sanctioned, let alone sanctioning others.

Therefore, sometimes, often sanctions are not necessarily powerful, direct military means, is the most effective method. With fewer and fewer countries on the planet daring to openly carry out dictatorships, it is foreseeable that sanctions, as a means, are not far from disappearing.

The legal status of international economic sanctions

Generally speaking, the legal status of international economic sanctions consists of two aspects: First, under what circumstances the sanctioning state has the right to use economic sanctions. The second is the sanctioning country to what extent the right to use economic sanctions. The former refers to the procedural provisions of international economic sanctions, the latter that is the substantive provisions of international economic sanctions.

The first international convention involving international economic sanctions was the Covenant of the League of Nations, signed at the end of the Paris Peace Conference in 1919. Article 16(1) of that Covenant provided that: For any Member of the League which engages in war in disregard of the provisions for the settlement of disputes by arbitration, ? shall be deemed to have committed an act of war against all the other Members of the League. The other Members shall immediately sever all commercial or financial relations with them and shall prohibit their people from having any part in the destruction of the war. relations with them, and to prohibit financial, commercial or personal intercourse between their peoples and the peoples of the countries which have violated the Covenant. That is to say, first, economic sanctions are directed against a specific act of war, which, once it occurs, automatically creates an obligation for other member states to impose sanctions; secondly, sanctions are comprehensive and thorough, and are ? Comprehensive economic sanctions? Thirdly, not only Member States but also non-Member States must participate in economic sanctions, thus making them? Thirdly, not only Member States but also non-Member States have to participate in economic sanctions, thus making them "global economic sanctions".

However, the legal provisions for such severe economic sanctions soon became the subject of a resolution of the General Assembly of the League of Nations on the subject of ? Economic Weapons? This resolution stated that it was up to each member state to decide whether or not an act of war violating the covenant existed, and that the Council of State could give an advisory opinion on the matter, but could not make a binding decision. This modification limited the power of the Executive Council of the League of Nations, strengthened the arbitrariness of the Member States, weakened the force of the 1935 economic sanctions against Italy, and, at the same time, left the groundwork for unilateral international economic sanctions thereafter.

Compared with the legal status of multilateral and global sanctions, the legal status of unilateral economic sanctions has not yet been clarified. On the one hand, according to the basic principles of international law, a country's decision to establish or sever economic and trade relations with another country is purely an internal affair of that country, which is a manifestation of its sovereignty, and the outside world may not intervene. Some Western scholars of international law have also sought to justify the legitimacy of unilateral economic sanctions by referring to the resolutions of the League of Nations mentioned earlier. They suggest that, due to the inability of the United Nations, the task of promoting and maintaining international peace has fallen on the individual member states, and the main tool of the countries is economic sanctions.

On the other hand, there is an international trend in favor of limiting international economic sanctions. For example, the 1970 Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the 1974 Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States (Article 32) stipulate that no State may use or encourage the use of economic, political or any other type of measures to coerce another State in order to obtain from it the subordination of the exercise of its sovereign rights and to secure from it advantages of any kind. benefit of any kind from that State. But what are? A sovereign act in which a foreign State may not intervene? But what is a sovereign act of non-intervention by a foreign State? What is a sovereign act which compels the subordination of the exercise of a sovereign right?

Current customary international law is that a country's economic sanctions against another country as long as it does not involve military action or armed blockade, as long as it does not involve its jurisdiction (in January 1984, U.S. President Reagan announced the expansion of the scope of the embargo on the Soviet Union's exports of oil and natural gas equipment, the United States has been with the United Kingdom, France, West Germany and other Western European countries on the jurisdiction of the issue of the dispute occurred), generally does not give rise to The United States has not been a party to the embargo on the export of oil and gas equipment to the Soviet Union.

References

[1] Modern Chinese Dictionary, Beijing, Commercial Press, 2002, p. 1492

[2] Oxford Dictionary of Contemporary Dictionaries, Guangzhou, World Book Publishing Company, 1997, p. 1644

[3] Efficiency and Externality Analysis of International Economic Sanctions, Wuhan University Journal, Vol. 58, No. 3 2005.3

[4] The Efficiency of International Economic Sanctions and the Analysis of Externality. III 2005.3

[4]HAASS, R. N. Sanctioning Madness [J]. ForEign Affairs, 1997, 76.

Thesis Reference Paper on International Economic Law Part 2

An Analysis of Sovereign Funds in the Perspective of International Economic Law

[Abstract] Sovereign fund is a new specialized, market-oriented active investment model. From the perspective of international economic law vision. Sovereign fund plays an important role for the establishment of modern international economic new order. Sovereign fund is the full embodiment of the principle of national economic sovereignty and the principle of international cooperation and development in international economic law, which makes the global capital market more secure and stable. From the perspective of ownership, the rise of sovereign funds will also shift the center of gravity of the world economy from the private sector to the state-owned sector. Therefore, the sound operation and healthy development of sovereign funds need to create a fair and mutually beneficial environment of the rule of law in the world.

[Keywords]Sovereign Funds International Economic Law Rule of Law Environment

In the April 2009 G20 Summit in London. Western countries have repeatedly emphasized that China should assume the responsibility of a great power in the field of sovereign funds. on April 18, 2009, Lou Jiwei, Chairman of the China Investment Corporation (CIC), spoke at the Boao Forum? International Financial System Reform: The Role of Emerging Economies? In his speech at the sub-forum, he said that sovereign wealth funds are an inevitable product of the existing irrational monetary system. From the history of 50 years, sovereign wealth funds have no bad record in the market and are a stabilizing force in the modern market economy.

Sovereign Fund (Sovereign Fund), also known as the sovereign wealth fund, refers to the hands of a country's government for foreign market-oriented investment funds, mainly from the national fiscal surplus, foreign exchange reserve surplus, natural resource export surplus, etc., by the government to set up a specialized investment agency management. Sovereign fund is a new specialized, market-oriented active investment model, its investment direction not only includes stocks and other risky assets, including the global diversified asset portfolio, but also expanded to foreign real estate, private equity, commodity futures, hedge funds and other non-traditional categories of investment categories.

The rise of sovereign funds is closely related to economic globalization. Into the 21st century, China, Singapore, India and other representatives of the newly industrialized countries have achieved a large current account surplus normalization, and these countries do not want the exchange rate rose too quickly, so the foreign exchange reserves expanded rapidly; In addition, Russia and the Gulf States as the representative of another group of emerging countries are directly benefiting from globalization brought about by a surge in demand for energy in the price of oil, mineral prices The background of high oil prices, mineral prices, by virtue of the country's ownership of the power of resource development. They have also accumulated a great deal of national wealth. These countries have a government-led tradition, the market operation of financial management tools and imperfect, so a large number of wealth concentrated in the hands of sovereign funds. At present, sovereign funds have become an increasingly active participant in the international financial market, and the scale of their capital has exceeded that of hedge funds and private equity funds, and their influence on the market is increasing. According to statistics, in 1990, the size of the global sovereign fund was only about 500 million dollars; and in 2007, 36 countries and regions around the world have set up sovereign funds, capital size of about 2.8 trillion dollars. Among them, the largest UAE Abu Dhabi fund size up to 900 billion dollars; China and Russia have sovereign fund size also reached 200 billion and 128 billion dollars respectively. From the perspective of win-win situation between developed countries and emerging market countries, the existence of sovereign wealth funds should not be regarded as a threat, as long as countries try to regulate their behavior and improve their transparency and credibility, sovereign wealth funds should make a positive contribution to the stability of the world's financial markets.

From the perspective of international economic law, sovereign funds play an important role in the establishment of a new modern international economic order.

First of all, the sovereign fund is the direct embodiment of the principle of national economic sovereignty in international economic law. This principle stipulates that each country enjoys permanent sovereignty over all its wealth, natural resources and economic activities without any foreign interference. The sovereign fund itself is an extension of a country's right to make its own decisions on economic activities and its ownership of natural resources, and it belongs to the category of national interests, with the government of a country enjoying full possession, management and domination over its sovereign fund. Sovereign fund mainly comes from the financial surplus belonging to the state-owned assets, foreign exchange reserves and natural resources export surplus, is the national sovereign wealth in modern international economic and legal relations in an important form of expression. Especially for the majority of developing countries. Sovereign fund is not only a symbol of national economic sovereignty. It is also a powerful weapon to guarantee its equal participation and decision-making rights in international economic activities and to realize the diversification of the international economic pattern. According to the U.S. Sovereign Wealth Fund Institute (Sovereign Wealth Fund Insti-tute) data released in April 2009, as of 2008, China's Foreign Exchange Reserve Administration under the Huaan Investment Management Company management assets of about 347.1 billion U.S. dollars, ranked the world's third; China's other sovereign wealth funds --China Investment Corporation ranked eighth with $190 billion in assets.In 2004, Lenovo Group, with a sovereign fund background, successfully acquired IBM's global Pc business for $1.75 billion, reversing China's relatively weaker position in the high-tech trade between the U.S. and China to a certain extent and enabling China to gain a greater voice in international economic activities. In June 2008, at the fourth? U.S.-China Strategic Economic Dialogue? announced the official launch of the Sino-US Bilateral Investment Protection Agreement (BIT) negotiations, the US side also made a clear statement: sovereign funds from China are welcome and the Chinese position will be taken into serious consideration when amending the investment law.

Secondly, the positive development of sovereign funds is a full embodiment of the principle of international cooperation and development in international economic law, making the global capital market more secure and stable. Because sovereign funds have relative stability and low risk, when the capital market is facing a collapse crisis, investors do not have to worry that sovereign funds will be caught in panic selling, and most sovereign funds do not need to pay dividends on a regular basis as pension funds do, thus avoiding frequent cashing out in the securities market. Hence. Sovereign funds can become a long-term strategic investor in regional economic cooperation among countries around the world, which will help stabilize international stock and bond markets. In addition, the rise of sovereign funds makes the emerging market countries from the developed countries' creditors into asset owners, so that the center of gravity of power in the international financial market has undergone a fundamental shift, the global financial market pattern will change from the U.S. monolithic domination pattern to the Eurasian countries and energy exporting countries *** with the participation of the pluralistic system, developing countries are gradually becoming a strong force of the international financial investment, which are fully embodies These all fully reflect the principle of international cooperation and development in international economic law. According to the U.S. Department of the Treasury, in 2006 alone, transnational investment, mainly in sovereign funds, led to a net increase in U.S. assets of 1.9 trillion U.S. dollars, providing 10 million jobs for the community and contributing 13% to research and development expenditures.

Finally, from an ownership perspective, the rise of sovereign funds will also shift the center of gravity of the world economy from the private sector to the state sector. The U.S. Treasury Department estimates that financial capital (foreign exchange plus sovereign funds) currently controlled by governments is about $7.6 trillion, equivalent to 15 percent of total global output. Long dominant transnational corporations will face stronger, government-invested sovereign funds competition, the state-owned assets through optimization and integration will be more flexible posture into the international capital market, which will make the traditional transnational corporations as the main body of the international investment law system is facing a major challenge. This will promote the theoretical study of international economic law and institutional innovation, the United States recently conceived a revision of the investment law is a clear example.

Although the emergence of sovereign funds on the international economic law has had a very positive impact, at this stage to achieve the legalization of sovereign funds are still facing various difficulties. First of all, due to the hundreds of billions of dollars of sovereign funds is very large, far more than ordinary international investment, in the bond outside the market is often due to the lack of liquidity and trading volume and difficult to fully absorb it, so that the existing investment legal system of each country can not be effectively regulated. Second, due to the current lack of regulations on information disclosure of sovereign funds in most national legislations, the operation of sovereign funds lacks transparency, and neither accurately discloses by whom these huge capitals are controlled. Neither do they disclose accurately who controls these huge capitals, nor do they publish reliable information such as investment strategies and asset statements on a regular basis, and relevant international organizations have not formulated strict information disclosure standards, which makes the legal regulation of information disclosure of sovereign funds de facto absent. Finally, based on non-commercial factors such as political and national security considerations, some developed countries are very cautious about the national background behind sovereign funds, resulting in the lack of sufficient commerciality and operational independence of sovereign funds, which is prone to investment protectionism and the formation of investment barriers. In recent years, the U.S. Congress has cut off the acquisition of U.S. ports by Dubai Ports. CNOOC's unsuccessful acquisition of Unocal and Huawei's acquisition of 3Com by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. (CHIUS) veto, all with obvious investment protectionism.

The sound operation and healthy development of sovereign funds requires the creation of a fair and mutually beneficial rule of law environment around the world. At present, countries have begun to pay attention to the use of legal means to manage and regulate the sovereign fund, through legislation to clarify the sovereign fund management system, specific operation and investment review, to enhance the transparency of the operation of the sovereign fund. 2007 U.S. Foreign Investment and National Security Act provides that: when it comes to the investment of the sovereign fund, the authorization of the CFlUS to carry out a period of 90 days of investigation. Until it is determined that the investment will not jeopardize U.S. national security; in February 2008, in the context of Chinalco's acquisition of Rio Tinto, the Australian government also released six legal principles, announcing that it will increase scrutiny of government-controlled foreign investors. The above legislation attempts to regulate the operation of sovereign funds through increased scrutiny of sovereign funds, both as a model of corporate governance and as a result of its willingness to protect strategic assets. In contrast, the EU has adopted a more positive and open attitude towards sovereign funds. To achieve the goal of investment liberalization, in February 2008, the EU announced that it would introduce a code of conduct for sovereign funds in an attempt to remove legal restrictions on the free movement of sovereign funds around the world through the development of a global, self-regulatory code. EU Trade Commissioner Mandelson suggested that in order to protect strategically important EU companies from being acquired by sovereign funds, the EU should consider implementing ? Golden Shares? system (i.e., the government holds shares with specific rights. This share share is very small, usually one share, but on the company's major strategic decisions have the right to speak and veto), so that the government has the right to veto some of the important and sensitive industries involved in foreign investment. While the EU is preparing to introduce self-regulatory guidelines for sovereign funds, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) is also working on guidelines aimed at regulating the behavior of sovereign funds. The organization has explicitly asked Singapore, Norway and the United Arab Emirates and other countries to develop detailed disclosure standards for their sovereign funds, and began to promote the Norwegian legislation on the mandatory disclosure of information on sovereign funds, that the disclosure of information through the legislation can lead to the standardization of the operation of sovereign funds to avoid investment protectionism.

Sovereign funds are essentially specialized commercial institutions, not government administrative organs. Adopting the administrative model is bound to suppress professionalism and business culture, leading to rigidity similar to bureaucratic organizations, which is obviously not conducive to their efficient operation. Therefore, administrative intervention in sovereign funds should be avoided as much as possible to ensure the freedom of sovereign funds to operate in the market. For example, in order to maximize the core objective of achieving a good rate of return on investment, the sovereign wealth funds of the United Arab Emirates and Singapore have very few civil servants in their workforce, but instead make every effort to attract and recruit first-class financial talents in the international financial market, and most fund managers, including the chief investment officer, are external professionals.

In addition, in order for sovereign funds to become a member of the international financial market, it is also necessary to clarify the commerciality, professionalism, and independence of sovereign funds through legislation, and to dispel the political doubts and obstacles of investee countries. In the investment law, it should be made clear that the main investment should be handed over to an external fund and managed by a third party, so as to dilute the political color, establish a multi-strategy and multi-channel investment portfolio, and strengthen the competition among funds. Compensate for the sovereign fund itself in the resources, talents, internal monitoring on the shortcomings.

[References]

[1]Wu Jinyong. Huang Jixin, London G2O Summit of ? Church? Value [N], Business Week, 2009-04-20.

[2]Wang Zhigang, Research on the Legal Problems of Sovereign Wealth Funds [J], Law and Practice. 2008.(4).

[3]Yang Yan, the impact of sovereign wealth funds on the world economy [J], Zhong*** Shijiazhuang Municipal Party School Journal, 2009, (1).

[4]IFSL: Softball Sovereign Wealth Fund Increased to 3.9 Trillion U.S. Dollars [N], Economic Reference News, 2009-03-04.

[5]Liu Tingting, Saudi Arabia Pre-Built the World's Largest Sovereign Fund [N], China Business Times, 2007-12-25.

Guess what you like:

1. International Economic Law Essay Topic Reference Catalog

2. International Economic Law Dissertation Topic Reference

3. International Economic Law Dissertation Free Sample Essay

4. International Economic Law Thesis

5. International Economic Law Related Dissertation Sample Essay