Questions and Answers of Business Law Text and Cases

1. How is it that the globalisation serves as a double-edged sword by weakening but at the same time making international trade more resilient to crises?Provide arguments in favour of and against
2. What is the role of trade as a potential spreader of shocks? Describe the channels through which trade may propagate the adverse effect of shocks.
3. What are the main initiatives that have been pursued lately by some WTO Members at the plurilateral level, relating to risk prevention and reduction?
4. What are the provisions of the WTO agreements that may help preparing, coping with and recovering from shocks?
5. According to the OECD there are four areas where possible gaps as regards multilateral rules and disciplines that have to be addressed to ‘discipline’emergency support. What are those areas?
1. Explain the process whereby the current WTO Director-General, Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, was appointed. What is the role of the WTO Director-General and why does this role matter? What has
2. Why is the WTO regarded as a quasi-universal organization? Why is the process of accession to the WTO often lengthy? Give some examples of countries currently involved in the accession process to
3. Why is it typically difficult to achieve results in WTO negotiations? In what areas of WTO negotiations is progress currently being made? What is meant by ‘Joint Initiatives’ and why did they
4. In what way do WTO Councils and Committees play a key role in monitoring and facilitating the implementation of WTO agreements? Provide some examples from the current work of these organs. What
5. How does the WTO give effect to its mandate of outreach to other international organizations and to non-governmental organizations? Give some recent examples of WTO work in this area. Why is this
6. How does the WTO carry out its task of assisting developing country Members? Give some examples of the WTO’s technical assistance and capacity building activities. What role does the Committee
7. In light of the 2021 Annual Report, in your view, how well does the WTO perform each of its functions? Do you think it is correct to say that there is an‘institutional imbalance’ in the WTO?
1. What actions by the US have led to the current paralysis of the WTO Appellate Body and why have these led to a crisis for WTO dispute settlement?
2. How does the US justify its actions to paralyse the WTO Appellate Body? To what extent are the US concerns valid, in your view?
3. What are the key reforms proposed in the Walker Principles? To what extent do they add to the existing rules and practices regarding appellate review procedures in the WTO?
4. How has the US responded to the Walker Principles? Has the US made its own proposals for reform of WTO appellate review procedures?
5. What is the MPIA, and why was it established? Does the MPIA fully fill the gap left by the paralysis of the WTO Appellate Body? What similarities and differences exist between the MPIA and the WTO
6. In your view, what reforms are needed to the WTO dispute settlement system to address the current crisis?
1. What were the issues raised on appeal by Argentina and Panama in Argentina– Financial Services (DS453)? Did the Appellate Body uphold, reverse or modify the findings of the Panel?
2. Discuss the findings of the panel and the arguments advanced by the Argentina and Panama to challenge or support the Panel’s findings on whether services and service suppliers of countries
3. In what way does what is being compared for likeness in the context of the nondiscrimination obligations for trade in goods differ from what is being compared for likeness in the context of trade
4. What, according to the Appellate Body, is the fundamental purpose of the likeness analysis under the GATS, and what factors may be considered in carrying out this analysis?
5. What was the Panel’s rationale for taking relevant regulatory aspects regarding the service suppliers into account when determining whether there was‘treatment no less favourable’ under
6. In your view, should the regulatory objectives of Members be considered in the assessment of ‘likeness’ or of ‘treatment no less favourable’ for purposes of the non-discrimination
1. What were the issues raised on appeal by Japan and the United States in Japan – Alcoholic Beverages II (DS8, DS10, DS11)? What did the Appellate Body decide on each of these issues? Did the
2. Regarding the role of Article III:1 in the interpretation of Article III:2, discuss the findings of the Panel and the arguments advanced by Japan and the United States to respectively challenge or
3. What position did the Appellate Body take on the role of Article III:1 in interpreting the obligations in Article III:2, first sentence and second sentence of the GATT 1994? Does the approach of
4. What did the Appellate Body mean by the term ‘the accordion of likeness’?Was likeness found to be a broad or narrow concept in Article III:2, 1st sentence, and why? How does this compare to
5. When are products ‘taxed in excess’ under Article III:2, 1st sentence? How does this differ from the term ‘not similarly taxed’ in the Ad Article to Article III:2, 2nd sentence?
6. What, according to the Appellate Body, is the role of adopted GATT panel reports, if any, in interpreting WTO agreements in subsequent cases? Where can one find the ‘customary rules of
7. In your view, should considerations relating to the regulatory objective of a measure be taken into account in determining whether products are ‘like’ for purposes of the GATT
1. What were the issues raised on appeal by the European Communities, Brazil and Thailand in EC – Chicken Cuts (DS269, DS286)? Did the Appellate Body uphold, reverse or modify the findings of the
2. Regarding the issue of customs classification discuss the findings of the Panel and the arguments advanced by the European Communities, Brazil and Thailand to challenge or support the Panel’s
3. According to the Appellate Body what rules of interpretation govern the interpretation of Members’ Goods Schedules, and how did the Appellate Body apply these rules in this case to determine the
4. Did the Appellate Body regard the EC’s unilateral object and purpose when it concluded its Schedule as relevant in interpreting the concession at issue? In what way was the Harmonized System
5. In your view, how should Members’ Scheduled be interpreted?
1. In Argentina - Import Measures (DS438, DS444, DS445), what were the findings of the panel on the GATT-consistency of Argentina’s Advanced Sworn Import Declaration (Declaración Jurada Anticipada
2. Why did the Appellate Body find Argentina’s DJAI procedure to be a‘quantitative restriction’ under Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994? How broad is this concept? Is it necessary to quantify the
3. In US - Gambling (DS285) what were the findings of the panel on whether the United States’ prohibition on cross border gambling services was a violation of its market access commitments? What
4. According to the Appellate Body in US-Gambling, how should the Services Schedules of Members be interpreted, and what, if any, relevance do the Secretariat’s Services Sectoral Classification
5. Did the Appellate Body in US-Gambling (2005) find that only restrictions that take the form of a numerical limitation on market access, or also those that‘amount to’ a zero quota, are caught
6. In your view, should Article XVI:2 of the GATS be interpretated as broadly as Article XI:1 of the GATS, so that also measures that have the effect of limiting the quantity of services or service
1. What was the measure at issue in US – Shrimp (DS58)? According to the Appellate Body, can measures such as this one that require exporting countries to comply with policies prescribed by an
2. What is the sequence of steps in analysing whether a measure can be justified under Article XX of the GATT 1994, as emphasized by the Appellate Body in US-Shrimp (DS58)? Why is this sequence
3. Does the term ‘exhaustible natural resources’ in Article XX(g) of the GATT 1994 cover only non-living or also living resources, according to the Appellate Body in US – Shrimp (DS58)? Why did
4. What is the purpose of the chapeau of Article XX of the GATT 1994, as identified by the Appellate Body in US – Shrimp (DS58)? Why was the US measure found to be applied in a manner which
5. How did the Panel in Russia – Traffic in Transit (DS512) respond to Russia’s argument that it lacked jurisdiction to review Russia's invocation of the national security exception in Article
6. Which aspects of Article XXI(b) are subject to objective review by a panel? What is meant by an ‘emergency in international relations’ in Article XXI(b)(iii)? Was such a situation found to be
7. In your view, should panels have jurisdiction to review national security defences under Article XXI of the GATT, and if so, how far reaching should this review be?
1. What were the findings of the panel in Indonesia – Iron or Steel Products(DS490, DS496) regarding whether the measure at issue was a safeguard measure? What arguments were advanced on appeal by
2. Did the Appellate Body in Indonesia – Iron or Steel Products (DS490, DS496)uphold, modify or reverse the panel’s findings regarding the existence of a safeguard measure? Did the Appellate Body
3. What were the issues raised on appeal by the United States in US – Steel Safeguards (DS248, DS249, DS251-DS254, DS258, DS259)? What did the Appellate Body decide on each of these issues? Did the
4. What does the ‘unforeseen developments’ requirement in Article XIX of the GATT 1994 entail, and does this requirement still apply? In US – Steel Safeguards, had the US investigating
5. Is it enough to show any increase in imports for the requirement of ‘increased imports’ to be met? How is the fact that safeguards are emergency measures of an extraordinary nature relevant to
6. How is the requirement of a causal link between increased imports and serious injury to be established, and what is meant by the ‘non-attribution’ analysis?According to the Appellate Body in
7. In your view, should the requirements to impose a safeguard measure be interpreted less strictly to give Members more leeway to react to economic emergencies?
1. What were the issues raised on appeal by Tukey in Turkey – Textiles (DS350)?What did the Appellate Body decide on each of these issues? Did the Appellate Body uphold, reverse or modify the
2. What is the requirement set by the chapeau of Article XXIV of the GATT 1994 for a measure to fall within this exception, and was this requirement found to be met in Turkey-Textiles (DS34)
3. According to the Appellate Body in Turkey-Textiles (DS34), for an arrangement to be a ‘customs union’ under Article XXIV:8(a), how much flexibility is available for constituent members to a
4. What requirement does Article XXIV:5(a) set with regard to the effect of a customs union on non-members? How does this requirement relate to the purpose of a customs union, as identified by the
5. According to the Appellate Body in EC-Tariff Preferences (DS246), is the Enabling Clause an exemption from or an exception to the most-favourednation treatment obligation in Article I:1 of the
6. What were the panel’s findings in EC-Tariff Preferences (DS246) on the consistency with the Enabling Clause of the special arrangements to combat drug trafficking in the EC’s GSP scheme?
7. In your view, should the the term ‘non-discriminatory’ in footnote 3 to paragraph 2(a) of the Enabling Clause require that identical tariff preferences be granted to all GSP beneficiaries?
1. What were the issues raised on appeal by the European Communities in US –Continued Zeroing (DS350)? What did the Appellate Body decide on each of these issues? Did the Appellate Body uphold,
2. Regarding the WTO-consistency of ‘zeroing’, please explain, first, in general terms, what ‘zeroing’ is and then, more specifically, what ‘simple zeroing in period reviews’ is, i.e.,
3. Discuss the findings of the panel and the arguments advanced by the European Communities and the United States to respectively challenge or support the Panel’s findings on the WTO-consistency of
4. No less than 10 WTO Members participated in the Appellate Body proceedings as third participants. On the WTO-consistency of ‘zeroing’, what was the position taken by China, Chinese Taipei,
5. Why is according to the Appellate Body ‘zeroing’ in general and ‘simple zeroing in period reviews’ in particular inconsistent with the provisions of the Anti-Dumping Agreement? How did it
6. Why is the case law of the Appellate Body on the WTO-consistency of ‘zeroing’so controversial? Note that the United States considers this case law to be one of the most problematic instances
7. Was this the first report in which the Appellate Body addressed the issue of the WTO-consistency of ‘zeroing’? Discuss in this respect the concurring opinion of one of the Appellate Body
1. What were the issues raised on appeal by China in US – Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duties (China) (DS379)? Did the Appellate Body uphold, reverse or modify the findings of the Panel appealed
2. Regarding the meaning of the term ‘public body’, discuss the findings of the Panel and the arguments advanced by China and the United States to respectively challenge or support the Panel’s
3. No less than 11 WTO Members participated in these appellate review proceedings as third participants. On the meaning of the term ‘public body’, what was the position taken by Brazil, Canada,
4. What is according to the Appellate Body the meaning of the term ‘public body’?How did it come to this interpretation of the term ‘public body’? Is this interpretation a correct application
5. Why was and is the meaning of the term ‘public body’ such a controversial issue?Note that the United States considers this to be one of the most problematic instances of judicial overreach by
6. How would you define the term of ‘public body’?
1. What were the issues raised on appeal by the United States in US – Clove Cigarettes (DS406)? What did the Appellate Body decide on each of these issues? Did the Appellate Body uphold, reverse or
2. What are the similarities and the differences between the national treatment obligation in Article III:4 of the GATT 1994 and that in Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement, as clarified by the
3. Why did the Appellate Body find the US measure in US – Clove Cigarettes(DS406) to violate Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement? Is the consequence of this ruling that Members cannot adopt measures
4. What were the findings of the panel on the question whether the United States had complied with the obligation to allow a ‘reasonable interval’ between the publication and the entry into force
5. In your view, was the Appellate Body correct in interpreting Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement to allow consideration of the legitimate regulatory objective of a measure? Does this interpretation
1. What were the issues raised on appeal by the European Communities in EC Hormones (DS26 and DS48)? What did the Appellate Body decide on each of these issues? Did the Appellate Body uphold, reverse
2. According to the Appellate Body, does the SPS Agreement oblige Members to harmonise their SPS measures by conforming to existing international standards? How did the Appellate Body clarify the
3. Why was the EC’s measure found not to be based on a risk assessment, under Article 5.1 of the SPS Agreement? According to the Appellate Body, does a ‘risk assessment’ as defined in Annex A.4
4. Discuss the findings of the panel and the arguments advanced by the European Communities and by the United States and Canada to challenge or support the Panel’s findings on the role of the
5. Why was the different treatment accorded by the EC to growth-promoting hormones in beef and to the anti-microbial agents carbadox and olaquindox in piglets found to violate the prohibition on
6. In your view, is the standard of review that the Appellate Body held must be applied by panels when reviewing Members’ risk assessments, appropriate for disputes under the SPS Agreement?
1. Discuss the merits of the proposed waiver from certain obligations of the TRIPS Agreement, in response to the urgent need to diversify and scale-up production of health products and technologies
2. Note that patent waivers are just a small part of the issue, which must be framed against the background of the following:3. patents only become pubic 18 months from filing and many new
4. the patent bargain requires disclosure of the invention, but the patent disclosure does not include clinical trial test data or any other confidential information related to the production
5. whereas voluntary patent licenses are typically accompanied by a contractual transfer of know-how covered by a non-disclosure agreement (NDA), compulsory licensing is not well-defined. Compulsory
7. In addition to patent waivers, should copyright also be subject to a waiver from TRIPS obligations, namely for the purpose of access to scientific works related to battling COVID-19? Further,
8. Note that someone has to pay for the research and development (R&D), the clinical testing, and the production and distribution of vaccines and drugs.Moderna (a start-up company without a broader
9. What is the role of government R&D funding (push) and advance purchase agreements (market pull) for the position of pharma companies and ‘reach through’ rights of government?
10. Governmental agencies now often control databases containing COVIDrelated patient information (number of infections, testing kit information (alpha, delta, or other variants) that pharma
Vern Shoepke bought a two-story home in Roche, Maine. The warranty deed did not specify what covenants would be included in the conveyance. The property was adjacent to a public park that included a
In June 2018, Bernard Ramish set up a $48,000 trust fund through West Plains Credit Union to provide tuition for his nephew, Nathan Covacek, to attend Tri-State Polytechnic Institute. The trust was
When Ralph dies, he has not made a will and is survived by many relatives—a spouse, children, adopted children, sisters, brothers, uncles, aunts, cousins, nephews, and nieces. What determines who
Louise Kane executed a will that left her entire estate to her grandson. When her grandson died, Louise executed a new will that named her great-grandson as her sole beneficiary and specifically
Assume that you want to read the entire court opinion in the case of Friends of Buckingham v. State Air Pollution Control Board, 947 F.3d 68 (4th Cir. 2020).Refer to the appendix to this chapter, and

Showing 1 - 100 of 385