Assignment First

美国医学论文怎么写:欧洲共同体

欧洲共同体(欧共体)在很大程度上,除了对《科托努协定》的承诺之外,没有任何强有力的防御。欧共体认为,遵守《科托努协定》是他们的道义责任,无论如何,这都是正当的,使他们能够以两个实体商定的价格从ACP国家进口金枪鱼产品。这一点是相当清楚的,在特惠关税因素出现之前是无可争辩的。欧委会对来自泰国的所有金枪鱼产品征收24%的进口关税,但没有对ACP国家征收。这无疑是有争议的,而且是歧视性的。公平对待是一个实体,在没有正当理由拒绝其低标准的产品时是不公平的。

美国医学论文怎么写:欧洲共同体
然而,欧共体确实承认泰国和菲律宾所表达的关切,但他们在为其发言辩护和回答泰国有关歧视性行为的指控时,却犹豫不决。欧共体有义务遵守《科托努协定》中规定的规则和关税规定。值得注意的是,欧共体代表了许多不同的要求和不同的财政状况的国家,这些国家最终形成了一种混乱的关税征收状态。然而,由于ACP国家出售廉价的金枪鱼,而且出口成本较泰国低,欧盟采取了对从泰国进口的金枪鱼征收关税。欧共体有权降低其贸易成本,因为它有理由同意其合作伙伴,在这方面,泰国无权干涉。有一个歧视的问题,使欧共体的情况有点弱。

美国医学论文怎么写:欧洲共同体

The European Community (EC), at large, did not have any strong defence apart from their commitment to the Cotonou Agreement. EC argued that it was their moral duty to honour the Cotonou Agreement and it was, by all means, justifiable for them to import tuna products from ACP countries at a price that agreed upon by the two entities. This was fairly clear and was indisputable until the preferential tariff element comes into picture. The EC imposed 24% import tariff on all tuna products coming from Thailand, but not on the ACP countries. This was clearly and undoubtedly disputable and discriminatory. Fair treatment is with one entity and unfair with other when there is no legitimate reason for rejection of products for their low standards.

美国医学论文怎么写:欧洲共同体
The EC did, however, acknowledge the concerns expressed by Thailand and the Philippines but they were hesitant to come to the table for defending their statement and answering Thailand’s allegation of discriminatory behaviour. The EC was under obligation to adhere to the rules and tariff regulations laid out in the Cotonou Agreement. It is to be noted that the EC represents many countries who have different requirements and different financial health, which culminates into a confused state of tariff imposition. However, since the ACP nations sold cheap tuna and the cost of export was low than coming from Thailand, the EC resorted to imposing tariff on tuna imported from Thailand. EC has the right to reduce its cost of trade as it justifiably agrees with its partners, in which Thailand has no right of interference. There is a discrimination question which makes the EC’s case a little weaker.