No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 February 2019
Since the late 1970's the Asian region has witnessed the paradox of socialist nations moving to market or “capitalist” economies. The experiment began with economic reforms in the People's Republic of China (PRC), spreading to the Soviet Union in 1985 with the adoption of perestroika, to Viet Nam under doi moi in 1986 and since then to the former republics of the Soviet Union after the ‘cold war’ in 1991. There are now nine countries in transition in the Asian region; the PRC, Viet Nam, Cambodia, Lao PDR, Mongolia, Myanmar, Kazakstan, Krygyz Republic and Uzbekistan.
1. 38 ILM 118 (1999).Google Scholar
2. Economies in Transition: the Asian Experience, ADB Theme Paper 4, reprinted from the ADB Annual Report 1995, at 4.Google Scholar
3. The “bad debt” problem is common to developing countries and centrally planned economies.Google Scholar
4. ADB Theme Paper, supra, n. 2, at 10.Google Scholar
5. See, for example, Viet Nam's Decree 57 of 31 July, 1998 permits all enterprises to engage in import/export activities within the scope of their registered business without first obtaining a licence. Subsequent implementing circulars from the Ministry of Trade and other departments, impose constraints on this liberalisation, requiring tax and customs code numbers. No enterprise has yet been successful in obtaining a customs code number; below, n. 8, at 42.Google Scholar
6. Vietnam's Legal framework for Economic Development, Discussion Paper No. 2 March, 1999.Google Scholar
7. ADB Theme paper, supra, n. 2, at 37.Google Scholar
8. Carol V. Rose, “The ‘New’ Law and Development Movement in the Post-Cold War Era: A Viet Nam Case Study,” 32(1) Law and Society Review (1998).Google Scholar
9. General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 19994, Article I “With respect to customs duties and charges of any kind imposed on or in connection with importation or exportation…any advantage, favour, privilege or immunity granted by any contracting party to any product originating in or destined for any other country shall be accorded immediately and unconditionally to the like product originating in or destined for the territories of all other contracting States.”Google Scholar
Article III “The Products of the territory of any contracting party imported into the territory of any other contracting party shall be accorded treatment no less favourable than that accorded to like products of national origin in respect of all law, regulations and requirements affecting their internal a sale, offering for sale, purchase etc…”Google Scholar
Article XI, No restriction on imports or exports are permitted other than taxes and other charges that are “tariff-visible,” non-discriminatory and subject to tariff rounds to reduce gradually.Google Scholar
10. Nov. 21, 1989, S.609 US Public Law 101–162.Google Scholar
11. Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora 1973 ('CITES'); since 1975 the Leatherback, Green, Hawksbill and Olive Ridley have been listed in Appendix 1 of CITES as endangered species. They are also protected by U.S. law under the Endangered Species Act 1973, 16 USC 1531.Google Scholar
12. Shaffer, , “International Decisions,” 93 American Journal of International Law, (1999) 507, at 508.Google Scholar
13. US- Reformulated Gasoline Case, 35 ILM 274 (1996).Google Scholar
14. Report 15 May, 1998; 37 International Legal Materials 832 (1998).Google Scholar
15. Ibid., at para. 131.Google Scholar
16. 30 ILM 1594 (1991); 33 ILM 839 (1994).Google Scholar
17. Shaffer, , supra, n. 13.Google Scholar
18. For an examination of these cases see S. Charnovitz, “The Moral Exception in Trade Policy” (1997-8) 38 Virginia J.I.L. 689.Google Scholar
19. Perkins, Nancy L., “World Trade Organisation: US-Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products,” 38 International Legal Materials 118 (1999), at 119.Google Scholar
20. Para. 133.Google Scholar
21. Perkins, , supra, n. 20, at 119.Google Scholar
22. For a discussion of jurisdiction at international law see Shearer, (ed) Starke's International Law (11th Ed.) 1994, Chapter 8.Google Scholar
23. Para. 158 and footnotes referring to B. Cheng, General Principles of International law as Applied by International Courts and Tribunals, 1953.Google Scholar
24. Note the recent application by Australia and New Zealand to the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, for an interim injunction against Japan for its “scientific” taking of whales.Google Scholar
25. Article 13 of the DSU.Google Scholar
26. Para. 86.Google Scholar
27. Para. 104.Google Scholar
28. Para. 110.Google Scholar
29. Inside US Trade, Nov. 13, 1998, at 7-8, quoted by Shaffer, supra n. 13.Google Scholar
30. Ibid. Google Scholar