Suchergebnisse

Mimeographed ; Paged continuously ; "Cases on trade regulation. Annotations to part III, copyright 1935" (7 l., 880-957 numb. l.) has special t.-p.; issued also separately ; Includes bibliographies ; Mode of access: Internet.

In two cases, McKesson & Robbins v. Government Employees Department Store, Inc.,' and its companion, Plough, Inc. v. Hogue & Knott Super Market, the challenge to resale price maintenance, already successful in twenty-three other states, was brought to the Tennessee Supreme Court by appeals from two opinions holding the Tennessee Fair Trade Law unconstitutional. The historical background of fair trade legislation and the national controversy surrounding it since 1951 provide essential elements of perspective for consideration of these two cases.

The antitrust laws are a minefield for the uninitiated. Indicative of this reality is the fact that there were no successful civil lawsuits alleging a violation of the antitrust laws brought in Virginia over the past year. A number of conspiracy, monopolization and price discrimination cases were attempted, but they all failed for a variety of reasons outlined in greater detail below. In contrast to the national trend, no antitrust cases with regard to health care were decided in Virginia during the past year. The absence of such cases represents a dramatic change from previous experience, which perhaps reflects the reality that-staff privilege and exclusive dealing cases involving hospitals or physicians are rarely successful under the antitrust laws.

This field of law, not previously treated independently in the annual survey, is designated as Trade Regulation or alternatively as Government or Public Control of Business. In the limit, this body of doctrine is an amalgam of tort and contract principles bearing the impress of the equity practice. These distinct principles are now embodied in both state and federal statutes as the foundations of legal control over competitive commercial conduct. Their scope extends, with different emphasis, from public utility rate regulation to a variety of aspects of market structure and conduct in the unregulated sector of the economy. The principal stuff of which its lawsuits are made includes pricing practices (price-fixing or discriminatory pricing) and other forms of collusive behavior, exclusive dealing arrangements, tying arrangements, mergers, trademark protection,and unfair competition. The decided cases within the period of this survey touch only a few of these topics.

This study provides an overview of some, not all initiatives to improve working conditions throughout global production networks. On the basis of secondary sources it assesses the contribution of the instruments favored by these initiatives. It starts with an economic justification of international workers' rights. The debate about international workers' rights revolves primarily around enforcing standards in developing countries. Opponents of internationally enforced workers' rights see them as an obstacle to closing the industrial gap. They argue that better living and working conditions cannot be legislated but would be the natural outcome of industrialization.

This report reviews and recommends strategies to regulate the trade of wildlife through Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia. Ulaanbaatar is an ideal site to launch an effort to support improved enforcement of wildlife trade regulations. The city is the seat of Mongolia's government, media markets, and civil society, as well as the center of the wildlife trade. Some of the country's largest raw materials markets are located to the east and west of the city. Ulaanbaatar's many road inspection points, its train station, and its airport are all strategic sites for enforcing trade regulation. Responsibility for enforcement of wildlife trade regulations is distributed among half a dozen different agencies. This report focuses specifically on Mongolia's existing legal framework for controlling the wildlife trade, and on strategies for improving enforcement, particularly in Ulaanbaatar. Before turning to those subjects, the next section provides a brief overview of the Mongolian wildlife trade.

Trade negotiations between the European Union, on the one hand, and the United States and Canada, on the other, have raised concerns of European consumers fearing food safety issues. Trade dispute settlements between these countries on food imports to the EU and remedies against the European Communities are other substantial factors governing the bilateral and multilateral trade policies between these countries. This study sheds light on various aspects of the particular issue of poultry imports to the EU during the period 1996-2014. First, we analyse the mechanisms of EU market protection through the evolution of tariffs and non-tariff measures (NTMs), both descriptively and econometrically. Second, we provide bilateral ad valorem equivalents (AVEs) of NTMs imposed on the imports of poultry to the EU. These AVEs, which are equivalent to tariffs, hint towards the diverse impact of NTMs on various exporters based on their production compatibilities with EU standards. Third, we analyse the quality impact of NTMs, which are also differentiated by the exporting countries. Overall, this detailed study may assist dispute settlement bodies of the World Trade Organisation in analysing cases related to regulatory NTMs for which there is lack of scientific evidence.

International audience ; This article explores the effect of European Union (EU)'s food safety regulations on the trade of baby food products. A large number of medical studies have shown that pesticides and contaminants contribute to various health problems including cancer, lung disease or reproductive, endocrinal and immune system disorders. They also agree that children are more vulnerable to the dangers of pesticides and contaminants because as soon as they start eating solid foods, they eat a limited number of food items most of which are fruits and vegetables. In order to protect the health of the most vulnerable part of the population, the EU's regulations establish that no more than 0.01 mg/kg of any single pesticide residue is permitted in baby food products. In this respect, the EU differs from most of its trading partners, the majority of which do not differentiate food safety regulations according to the consumer population age. The purposes of this paper is to compare the EU regulations on Maximum Residual Level of pesticides to those of its major trading partners through a severity index and quantify the impact of the specific European regulations on the trade of baby food products. Results show that the specific EU regulations may be considered as a tool protecting vulnerable population. ; Cet article explore l'effet des réglementations de l'Union européenne (UE) sur la sécurité des aliments sur le commerce d'aliments pour bébé. Un grand nombre d'études médicales ont montré que les pesticides et les contaminants contribuent à divers problèmes de santé comme cancers, maladies pulmonaires ou des désordres du système immunitaire, endocrine ou reproducteur. Ces études s'accordent aussi sur le fait que les enfants sont plus vulnérables aux dangers des pesticides et contaminants car dès qu'ils commencent à manger des aliments solides, ils mangent un nombre limité de produits dont la plupart sont des fruits et légumes. Pour protéger la santé de la partie la plus vulnérable de sa population, l'UE a mis ...

International audience ; This article explores the effect of European Union (EU)'s food safety regulations on the trade of baby food products. A large number of medical studies have shown that pesticides and contaminants contribute to various health problems including cancer, lung disease or reproductive, endocrinal and immune system disorders. They also agree that children are more vulnerable to the dangers of pesticides and contaminants because as soon as they start eating solid foods, they eat a limited number of food items most of which are fruits and vegetables. In order to protect the health of the most vulnerable part of the population, the EU's regulations establish that no more than 0.01 mg/kg of any single pesticide residue is permitted in baby food products. In this respect, the EU differs from most of its trading partners, the majority of which do not differentiate food safety regulations according to the consumer population age. The purposes of this paper is to compare the EU regulations on Maximum Residual Level of pesticides to those of its major trading partners through a severity index and quantify the impact of the specific European regulations on the trade of baby food products. Results show that the specific EU regulations may be considered as a tool protecting vulnerable population. ; Cet article explore l'effet des réglementations de l'Union européenne (UE) sur la sécurité des aliments sur le commerce d'aliments pour bébé. Un grand nombre d'études médicales ont montré que les pesticides et les contaminants contribuent à divers problèmes de santé comme cancers, maladies pulmonaires ou des désordres du système immunitaire, endocrine ou reproducteur. Ces études s'accordent aussi sur le fait que les enfants sont plus vulnérables aux dangers des pesticides et contaminants car dès qu'ils commencent à manger des aliments solides, ils mangent un nombre limité de produits dont la plupart sont des fruits et légumes. Pour protéger la santé de la partie la plus vulnérable de sa population, l'UE a mis en place une réglementation qui établit que la limite maximale de résidus (LMR) pour n'importe quel pesticide ne doit pas excéder 0.01 mg/kg dans les aliments pour bébé. A ce niveau, la réglementation européenne est très différente de celle de la plupart de ses partenaires commerciaux qui ne différencient pas les réglementations en fonction de l'âge. L'objectif de cet article est de comparer la réglementation de l'UE sur les LMR de pesticides par rapport à celle de ses partenaires commerciaux grâce à un indicateur de sévérité et de quantifier l'impact de de cette réglementation européenne spécifique sur le commerce des produits pour bébé. Les résultats montrent que la réglementation de l'UE représente une barrière à l'entrée sur ses marchés, mais qu'elle a aussi un effet positif sur le volume du commerce.

This article explores the effect of European Union (EU)'s food safety regulations on the trade of baby food products. A large number of medical studies have shown that pesticides and contaminants contribute to various health problems including cancer, lung disease or reproductive, endocrinal and immune system disorders. They also agree that children are more vulnerable to the dangers of pesticides and contaminants because as soon as they start eating solid foods, they eat a limited number of food items most of which are fruits and vegetables. In order to protect the health of the most vulnerable part of the population, the EU's regulations establish that no more than 0.01 mg/kg of any single pesticide residue is permitted in baby food products. In this respect, the EU differs from most of its trading partners, the majority of which do not differentiate food safety regulations according to the consumer population age. The purposes of this paper is to compare the EU regulations on Maximum Residual Level of pesticides to those of its major trading partners through a severity index and quantify the impact of the specific European regulations on the trade of baby food products. Results show that the specific EU regulations may be considered as a tool protecting vulnerable population. ; Cet article explore l'effet des réglementations de l'Union européenne (UE) sur la sécurité des aliments sur le commerce d'aliments pour bébé. Un grand nombre d'études médicales ont montré que les pesticides et les contaminants contribuent à divers problèmes de santé comme cancers, maladies pulmonaires ou des désordres du système immunitaire, endocrine ou reproducteur. Ces études s'accordent aussi sur le fait que les enfants sont plus vulnérables aux dangers des pesticides et contaminants car dès qu'ils commencent à manger des aliments solides, ils mangent un nombre limité de produits dont la plupart sont des fruits et légumes. Pour protéger la santé de la partie la plus vulnérable de sa population, l'UE a mis en place une réglementation qui établit que la limite maximale de résidus (LMR) pour n'importe quel pesticide ne doit pas excéder 0.01 mg/kg dans les aliments pour bébé. A ce niveau, la réglementation européenne est très différente de celle de la plupart de ses partenaires commerciaux qui ne différencient pas les réglementations en fonction de l'âge. L'objectif de cet article est de comparer la réglementation de l'UE sur les LMR de pesticides par rapport à celle de ses partenaires commerciaux grâce à un indicateur de sévérité et de quantifier l'impact de de cette réglementation européenne spécifique sur le commerce des produits pour bébé. Les résultats montrent que la réglementation de l'UE représente une barrière à l'entrée sur ses marchés, mais qu'elle a aussi un effet positif sur le volume du commerce.

During the past year, the United States Supreme Court, in two decisions of significance, refused to summarily censure conduct having legitimate, procompetitive benefits. In similar fashion, the United States Court ofAppeals for the Fourth Circuit continued to scrutinize antitrust claims, rejecting those failing to measure up to pleading and proof requirements, while also reaffirming the vitality of the state action immunity doctrine as a bar to those that did. Meanwhile, Virginia's federal district courts grappled with time worn conspiracy challenges to medical staff privileging decisions, while simultaneously forging new ground in one of the first cases to consider market definition in the realm of electronic commerce over the Internet.

Defence date: 1 December 2014 ; Examining Board: Professor Ernst Ulrich Petersmann, EUI (Supervisor); Professor Petros C. Mavroidis, Columbia Law School and EUI (Internal Advisor); Professor Adriana Dreyzin de Klor, University of Cordoba (External Supervisor); Professor Thomas Cottier, World Trade Institute and University of Bern. ; As indicated in the title, this thesis examines access to justice in multilevel trade regulation with a focus on Brazil, the "Common Market of the South" (MERCOSUR) and the World Trade Organization (WTO). Given that there is a direct link between the MERCOSUR and the European Union (EU), because the former is in several aspects comparable to the European Economic Community (EEC) and even the European Communities (EC), the research comprises a comparative legal analysis among four legal systems: (1) the Brazilian, (2) the MERCOSUR, (3) the EU and (4) the WTO. In order to achieve this goal, it employs legal texts, case law and scholarship in different languages (i.e., English, German, Portuguese and Spanish) and from different jurisdictions. While on the one hand it endeavours to explain the problems of access to justice in multilevel trade regulation and how they may be managed, on the other hand it intends to identify what access to justice and rule of law mean in the context of conflicts between the Brazilian, MERCOSUR and WTO jurisdictions. The thesis is structured into six main chapters, as follows: (I) the Constitutional Dimension of Access to Justice, (II) the Legislative Dimension of Access to Justice, (III) the Brazilian Dimension of Access to Justice, (IV) the MERCOSUR Dimension of Access to Justice, (V) the WTO Dimension of Access to Justice and (VI) the Final Conclusions. It begins by clarifying the author's personal understanding of what access to justice is. Then, it argues that the background of multilevel judicial protection is essentially formed by the proliferation of international courts and tribunals in general and, specifically to trade, the proliferation of regional trade agreements and free trade agreements, which very often include some form of dispute settlement system. Accordingly, divergent or even conflicting rulings regarding the same dispute and/or the same or similar legal issue are possible. The research undertaken extends, therefore, Mauro Cappelletti's world famous comparative legal research on access to justice. Furthermore, by expanding the work of the Italian jurist into the field of international economic law and establishing links to EU law, human rights, constitutional law, constitutionalism and rule of law, among others, this thesis also argues that constitutionalism is an effective mechanism for limiting abuses of power and protecting human rights, and is a way of connecting diverse regimes.

This year witnessed the advance of a wide variety of antitrust and trade regulation theories, most of which met with little success. Of the antitrust cases, Continental Airlines waged a successful battle to eliminate carry-on baggage restrictions at Dulles Airport. Additionally, Maryland's price-setting scheme for liquor was not accorded state action immunity. On the other side of the ledger, another antitrust litigant failed to overcome the requirement that efforts to petition the government must be objectively baseless in order to meet the sham exception to the Noerr-Pennington doctrine. Difficulties in proving an antitrust injury and the intent element of a section conspiracy to monopolize claim ended another long-pitched battle over limited vermiculite resources. The Fourth Circuit treated an exclusive supply case with the same sort of back-of-the-hand treatment accorded most vertical restraint cases over the past ten years. Likewise, regardless of the statutory or regulatory scheme, dealership and franchise termination cases met with little success. Finally, while the malice requirement in the Virginia Business Conspiracy Act (the "Act") has become ingrained in Virginia jurisprudence as the legal malice standard, courts are finding other ways to dispose of these claims. In doing so, courts have enunciated a clear and convincing evidence standard for cases under the Act.

The European Union (EU) is a major importer of forest risk commodities (FRCs) and thereby bears significant responsibility for the dangerous trend of global deforestation and forest degradation. This article analyses EU action to reduce its global deforestation footprint, including current initiatives to regulate the placing on the EU market of illegally sourced timber and the European Parliament (EP)'s recent push for more ambitious legislation with respect to forest and ecosystem-risk commodities. The article sets out several justifications for stepping up EU action to regulate trade in FCRs, arguing among other things that the EU has a moral imperative to avoid being complicit in global deforestation. The article also argues that measures to reduce the EU's global deforestation footprint can, if carefully designed and applied, be compatible with the law of the World Trade Organization (WTO). The openness of the EU to cooperate with affected exporting countries can make an important contribution in this respect. The paper addresses these issues with reference to the recommendations put forward by the EP for an EU legal framework to halt and reverse EU-driven deforestation. As the European Commission moves forward with its own legislative proposal on this topic, it is important that the EP's ambitious recommendations are not overlooked.