Menu

There are five questions with different marks so question with 15 marks have more word count even the answers should be suppo

0 Comment

The world trade organisation (WTO) is one such body which is a contract enforcing governments to maintain their trade policies within the agreed upon rules. The core objectives are to set and enforce rules for global trade, to offer a forum for negotiating and scrutinizing further trade liberalization and to settle trade disputes. In addition, WTO seeks to enhance transparency in decision making process, assist developing nations gain fully from global trading system and cooperate with other global economic organisations. These objectives are similar to those of GATT, but WTO pursues these goals more comprehensively.1 The new Australian government is taking severe steps in its bid to uphold the Absolute Protection for Wild Whales Act 2013. In addition, the government of Australia seeks to ban entirely the importation, distribution and sale of whale and whale products within its borders. The government gives reasons that Japan and other governments have been weak in upholding the laws stipulated in the international whaling commission. The international whaling commission was set to introduce zero catching limits for profitable whaling as well as keeping whale catch limits under scrutiny. All this was in a bid to enhance and foster the recovery of depleted whale populations. The ban applies to the vending of domestic products and products from foreign countries. This includes goods that Australian travellers bring into the country from abroad. Article I: 1 Article I: 1 of the GATT 1947 prohibits discrimination among like products coming from or destined for different countries. In the Canada-autos case, the measure at issue was Canada’s duty exemption for imports by certain manufacturers in partnership with Canadian value added. Automobile imports and imported automobiles materials were the product at issue. The appellate body/ key panel upheld that duty exemption was inconsistent to the article I:1 on the grounds that the article covers de jure and de facto unfairness. Moreover, the duty exemption at issue in verity was given only to imports from a smaller number of countries in which the exporter was associated with suitable Canadian manufacturers. Canada’s defence was abandoned on grounds that duty exemption was given to certain countries other than all manufacturers from all countries. In relation to Australian current issue, the country has not violated article I: 1 since the ban is not discriminatory in nature. The ban covers all aspects of whale products from foreign countries. Further, Australia is not discriminatory since it also bans whale products that Australian travellers bring into the country. One may argue that products brought by tourists do not constitute trade goods and thus this is discrimination. However, the country seals this loophole as people may exploit it to continue the usage and sale of whale products. Article III: 4 Article III: 4 were set in the case of Korea –various measures on beef. the appellate body established three components that have to be fulfilled for the violation to arise. One, the traded in and national products at issue are like products that the determination is the issue at law, directive, or obligation affecting their domestic sale, offering for sale, purchase, transport, delivery or sale. The final component is that imported goods are given less favourable dealing than that given to like domestic products. In relations to article