Export Restrictions of Indonesian Nickel Ore Based on the Perspective of Quantitative Restriction Principles in General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade

This study aims to determine whether Indonesia’s nickel ore export restriction policy is in accordance with the principles of international economic law. It is because Indonesia’s actions in implementing quantitative restrictions on the export of nickel ore are deemed to have violated one of the principles in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, namely the principle of prohibiting quantitative restrictions. This principle is contained in Article XI: 1 GATT. Data was collected through library research techniques. Namely by collecting and analyzing writings and literatures that are closely related to the problems that are being researched by the author, and analyzing data with descriptive analytical techniques, so that Indonesia can analyze their export restriction policies with juridical provisions in international trade law. The results shows that Indonesia’s action is in accordance with Article XI: 2 (a), which regulates the exception to Article XI: 1, with certain conditions which is a dispensation from the principle of quantitative restriction. Indonesia’s nickel ore export restrictions were also implemented to protect the environment in order to prevent scarcity and to encourage the battery industry in Indonesia to improve the economy. So that Indonesian policy is valid and can be justified by international law.

Observing European Union Rejection of Indonesia's Crude Palm Oil Exports from the Most Favored Nation and Quantitative Restriction Principles

Crude palm oil is one of the main commodities exported by Indonesia to several countries, including European Union. The European Union has pushed through several laws regarding climate change, including the Renewable Energy Directive II. The regulation supplementing the Renewable Energy Directive II has also been adopted by the European Commission, making the criteria for determining the high indirect land-use change-risk feedstock in Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/807. The objective of this paper is to observe if the measure taken by European Union on determining the indirect land-use change-risk feedstock has satisfied the existing WTO trade principles, the principle of most favored nation and the principle of quantitative restriction. The determining criteria in Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/807 is trade restrictive and discriminating to the export of crude palm oil, as crude palm oil is the only feedstock that falls under the criteria of high indirect land-use change-risk feedstock. The regulation has impact for the consumption of crude palm oil in Member states of European Union should be gradually reduced 0% by 2030 at the latest. As the provision on General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade embodies the principle of non-discrimination, the result of the study shows the Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/807 has violated the international trade principles. Furthermore, the general exceptions of GATT 1994 contained in Article XX (b) also doesn’t justify the measure.

Introduction

The introduction looks at the broader efforts of many Americans, animated by nativism and xenophobia, to cast so called “new immigrants” from Asia and Europe as undesirable. At the end of the nineteenth century, immigration laws emerged as a tool of social engineering and nation building. At first, legislators passed immigration laws that focused heavily on qualitative restriction to determine who could enter the country. Later they moved on to quantitative restriction, imposing numbers on how many immigrants could arrive. The only issues on which restrictionist legislators and Italian and Jewish anti-restrictionists could find common ground when it came to immigration reform were family reunification and skill-based immigration, which opened up opportunities for some immigrants but heavily penalized others thus contributing to create the uneven and unfair immigration system still in existence today.

A Critical Assessment of the Zimbabwe-South Africa Import Licensing Dispute

The gravamen of the dispute between Zimbabwe and South Africa is the introduction by Zimbabwe of an import-licensing regime for various goods through Statutory Instrument 64 of 2016 (‘the Instrument’). Zimbabwe alleges that the Instrument is primarily aimed at protecting local industries and alleviating balance of payment challenges. Consequently, this article assesses the legality of the Zimbabwe import-licensing regime implemented primarily against goods from South Africa by examining the grounds of justification proffered by Zimbabwe. The article contends, first, that the Instrument is a quantitative restriction that violates Articles XI.1 and XIII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). Secondly, the article argues that the Instrument falls foul of the WTO Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures in that the administration of the measure is unduly burdensome and goes beyond the extent necessary. Thirdly, the article contends that the Instrument fails to fulfil the requirements for a valid ‘safeguard measure’ in the manner contemplated by Article XIX of GATT and the Agreement on Safeguards. In the alternative, the article argues that the urgency of the situation in Zimbabwe is such that any delay would cause irreparable damage and therefore entitles Zimbabwe to exercise the right to implement safeguard measures. Lastly, the article contends that the Instrument is substantially in line with the ‘balance of payments’ exception as postulated by the Understanding on the Balance of Payments Provisions of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 and GATT.

Ustalone w Niemczech jednolite ceny dla wydawanych na receptę produktów leczniczych są sprzeczne z prawem Unii.Glosa do wyroku Trybunału Sprawiedliwości z dnia 19 października 2016 r. w sprawie C-148/15: Deutsche Parkinson Vereinigung eVprzeciwko Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs eV

System of fi xed prices for the sale of prescription-only medicinal products for human use by pharmacies as a measure having equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction on imports. Case comment to the Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 19 October 2016 in case C-148/15: Deutsche Parkinson Vereinigung eV v. Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs eV