法搜网--中国法律信息搜索网
法律信息 | 法律新闻 | 案例 | 精品文章 | 刑事法律 | 民事法律 | 经济法律 | 行政法律 | 诉讼法律 | 合  同 | 案例精选 | 法律文书 | 合同范本 | 法律常识 | 司考题库 | 
法律图书 | 诉讼指南 | 常用法规 | 法律实务 | 法律释义 | 法律问答 | 法规解读 | 裁判文书 | 宪法类 | 民商法类 | 行政法类 | 经济法类 | 刑法类 | 社会法类 | 案例趋势 |     
Will China Behave in the WTO Dispute Settlement Me

  b. China-EU dispute on interpretation of trade agreement
  This is a case where the dispute ended in an agreed solution based on China’s concession.
  The Agreement on Trade and Economic Co-operation between the European Economic Community and the People’s Republic of China (1985) is the guiding agreement on trade relationship between China and the EU. However, the Agreement does not contain a provision for resolution of disputes and therefore, no reference can be made to this Agreement to solve the trade disputes between the two parties.
  Administrative production is a system that China introduced in mid 1980s to grant market exclusivity in China for phamaceuticals and agrochemical product patented in other countries. In 1994, China and the EU reached the agreement on administrative production for phamaceuticals and agrochemical product inventions. At the concluding of the agreement, the EU consisted of 12 Member States. When later other three states, i.e. Austria, Finland and Sweden, acceded to the EU, the Chinese authorities have always previously given a restrictive interpretation and application of the Agreement, and have denied administrative protection to applicants from these new EU Member States. Since then EU raised the issue of equal treatment to these Member States on several occasions. In June 2000, EU Commission Pascal Larmy requested urgent action for equal treatment for all EU Member States from China’s Trade Minister Shi Guangsheng. At the subsequent EU-China Joint Committee in October 2000, Minister Shi agreed in principle to an extension. The EU Delegation in Beijing and the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Trade and Economic Co-operation in February 2001 finally reached a new agreement. The new agreement confirms that administrative protection for phamaceuticals and agrochemical products in China will extent to applicants from Austria, Finland and Sweden.
  c. China-Korea dispute of garlic export
  This is another case where China and the other disputant agreed on a solution, with the other disputant making more concessions.


第 [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] 页 共[6]页
上面法规内容为部分内容,如果要查看全文请点击此处:查看全文
【发表评论】 【互动社区】
 
相关文章




法律信息 | 法律新闻 | 案例 | 精品文章 | 刑事法律 | 民事法律 | 经济法律 | 行政法律 | 诉讼法律 | 合同 | 案例精选 | 法律文书 | 合同范本 | 法律常识 | 
法律图书 | 诉讼指南 | 常用法规 | 法律实务 | 法律释义 | 法律问答 | 法规解读 | 裁判文书 | 宪法类 | 民商法类 | 行政法类 | 经济法类 | 刑法类 | 社会法类 |