Untitled Note
无题说明

Wed, Oct 23, 2024 6:01PM • 58:06
2024 年 10 月 23 日星期三 6:01PM - 58:06

SUMMARY KEYWORDS
摘要关键字

national treatment, non-discrimination, internal measures, external measures, MFN, Article Three, Article One, legal test, consistency, border measures, internal tax, internal regulation, likeness test, competitive relationship, protectionist measures
国民待遇、非歧视、内部措施、外部措施、最惠国待遇、第三条、第一条、法律检验、一致性、边境措施、内部税收、内部监管、相似性检验、竞争关系、保护主义措施

Okay, hi everyone. I thought about group. I was kind of scared that most of you are going to be at the employee reading the session today. So many of you here, how many of you stay super confused about the application of national treatment on drug free. Okay, all right, that's okay. A little bit is fine. We can work with that. So what are we going to do today? I have a confused burger acknowledging the political cohesion on this issue. So we are going to do a recap of the tests under Article Three that we discussed last time, just make sure that we're all on the same page. Obviously, we're going to continue working on this on Friday in our tutorial. So hopefully by the end of Friday's tutorial, we're all going to be 100% on the same page on national treatment. And so please don't panic. Everything's kind of like a tiny fist into the puzzle. And hopefully, by the end of the tutorial, things are going to be much clearer, and we're all then we're going to move on from Article Three to Article One, which is the end application. And this could essentially convey our analysis of the non discrimination coming up. So we're going to see non discrimination again, a different context. But if you already understand what's going on with that. It's going to be easier for you to apply the same principles in the context. So by the by the end of today's session, I want you to be able to describe the legal test for consistency in Article One, paragraph one, which is the end of 10 obligation. And we call, of course, the requirements for each step of the test on radical one, paragraph one, as well as explain the difference between Article Three, and, of course, the test and the main issue where we have also the formative exercise for five days tutorial explain how the document like products changes In these different provisions and different tests within the same provision. So we're going a little bit deeper today to non discrimination adding MFN on top of national treatment. Okay, so we both said that the main non discrimination provisions in the dot are NFN article work for everyone, and national treatment are for free. Can someone explain in general terms, what are the differences between these two obligations? Why do we have two different obligations? What is NFN and what is national treatment? Do? Three is internal measures. Can you elaborate external measures are applied at the border, so they would be our access to internal matters. This is not a director, but you're very close. Yes, is regarding the discrimination between the goods of two different countries, the discrimination regarding domestic Exactly. So this is the main difference. But we're going to come back to border internal measures in a bit. The main difference is that under NFL, what we are looking to ensure is that imported products from different countries have the same treatment. So I'm not discriminating amongst different foreign products. I'm not giving better treatment to one state compared to another state. Natural Treatment is about not giving better treatment to my older producers compared to foreign products. So the pair of comparison changes in natural treatment, we compare domestic foreign in MFN, we compare foreign amongst each other. So this is the main
好的，大家好。我想到了小组。我有点害怕，你们中的大多数人都将参加今天的员工读书会。在座这么多人，有多少人对无毒品国民待遇的应用感到超级困惑。好吧，好吧，没关系。一点点就好。我们可以解决这个问题。那我们今天要做什么？我有一个困惑的汉堡包，承认在这个问题上的政治凝聚力。因此，我们将对上次讨论过的第三条下的测试做一个回顾，以确保我们都在同一页上。显然，我们将在周五的教程中继续讨论这个问题。因此，希望在周五的教程结束时，我们都能在国民待遇问题上达成 100% 的共识。所以，请不要惊慌。一切就像拼图中的一个小拳头。希望到教程结束时，一切都会变得更加清晰，然后我们将从第三条进入第一条，也就是最终应用。这基本上可以传达我们对非歧视的分析。因此，我们将在不同的背景下再次看到非歧视。但是，如果你已经了解了这是怎么回事。你就能更容易地将相同的原则应用到语境中。因此，在今天的会议结束前，我希望你们能够描述第一条第一款中的一致性法律测试，也就是 10 项义务的结尾。 当然，我们在第一部分第一段中提到了测试的每个步骤的要求，并解释了第三条之间的区别，当然，测试和主要问题，我们也有五天的形成性练习，教程解释了在这些不同的条款和同一条款中的不同测试中，像产品这样的文件是如何变化的。因此，我们今天将更深入地讨论非歧视问题，在国民待遇的基础上增加最惠国待遇。好的，我们都说过，点中主要的非歧视条款是 NFN 条款为所有人服务，而国民待遇则是免费的。谁能笼统地解释一下，这两种义务之间有什么区别？为什么我们有两种不同的义务？什么是 NFN，什么是国民待遇？如何解释？三是内部措施。你能否详细说明外部措施适用于边境，因此它们将是我们对内部事务的准入。这不是一个主任，但你很接近。是的，是关于两个不同国家的货物之间的歧视，国内正是歧视。这就是主要区别。但我们稍后会再谈边境内部措施。主要区别在于，在 NFL 下，我们希望确保来自不同国家的进口产品享有同等待遇。因此，我不会歧视不同的外国产品。我不会给予一个国家比另一个国家更好的待遇。自然待遇 "是指与外国产品相比，我不会给予我的老生产商更好的待遇。因此，在自然待遇中，比较的对象发生了变化，我们在最惠国待遇中比较国内的外国产品，我们在外国产品之间进行比较。因此，这是主要的difference between the two provisions. Of course, today we're going to discuss more in depth, and we're going to see how the differences, but this is the main one. So if you read a case study or compliant about you with a possible problem, the first thing that you need to understand is whether the discrimination here is discrimination amongst different products from different in favor of the domestic industry, and this is going to lead you to either elephant or national treatment. Sometimes it might be both right. The same measure may afford an advantage to both the domestic history and to a foreign country. So in our last lecture, we decided to be the principle of national treatment. National Treatment is codified in Article Three of the gap. So when we see discrimination in favor of domestic abusers, we go to Article Three. Can someone give me an overview of the different tests that I find under this provision? How many different tests do we have? I Yes, regulations do to Yeah. So we have first two, internal taxation and internal regulation. But under internal taxation, we also have two separate sentences, so this creates two different sub tests for internal taxation. So overall, the tests are three. How do we go about applying them? The first thing that we need to distribute to determine is whether we're talking about an internal tax or a charge, or whether we are talking about an internal law of regulation or requirement. The first part in both of these cases is to tell you that a measure is internal, right? So the general methodology remains the same. The first question that we ask ourselves is whether the measure is a border or internal measure, natural treatment under Article Three only applies to internal measures. How do we determine whether something is an internal measure? What questions do we ask ourselves? Cool, but this is third country cool. Yes, so where and when the first thing is measured, then you repeat, who is subject to that matter is it does important products or domestic products are like and the last question, which is also very important is, why do we need to follow that network? Simply because the products are imported due to importation? Is it a condition for the importation of that product, or is it because of an internal event, like the offering per se, the purchasing, the transportation, the storage, or anything that happens internally for these products. So this is how we determine whether something is internal. So we already said where and when as a first indication, and then, most importantly, who is subjected to that measure and why. And if we can tell you that something is an internal measure, then if there's, of course, an indication of discrimination, it may be an internal measure that applies to everybody, not any kind of discrimination. If you remember that person, right, there was actually no distinction in that law. There was no element of discrimination. So in that case, if you claim measure possibly defined states are frequent, as long as it's non discriminate. So we go vertical three, when there is some kind of treatment. And then what do we need to determine if it is an internal touch or whether it is an internal law, regulation or requirement. If it touch or charge, then we go to part of three, part of two, it's a low COVID issue. Go to Article Three, five or four. If we decided that this was a border measure, then in that case, we did not apply Article Three. Article Three does not apply to border measures. Can anyone tell you why? Why do we not apply national treatment to border measures? Yes, precisely so the products are made within a country. They don't go to the border. So de facto, by definition, any border measure applies all important products, right? Remember, we talked about Paris. We said that this is the only acceptable form of discrimination. It is okay for states to charge customs duties for imported products. Is the only way in which they can kind of protect their domestic industry. It is fine to charge a sex but they imported wealth. But anything else that's a problem, right? So all the taxes are gay. So when it comes in general charges, what we're trying to do is make sure that states are not using their internal taxes in order to manipulate their border measures. Because then you can say, Oh, I made a concession to reduce my tax to 2% but then all of a sudden, internal tax, right? So what we're trying to do here is hard number two, we want to make sure that sure
这两条规定之间的区别。当然，今天我们将进行更深入的讨论，看看它们之间有哪些区别，但这是最主要的区别。因此，如果你读到一个案例研究或符合你可能遇到的问题，你需要了解的第一件事是，这里的歧视是否是不同产品之间的歧视，是否有利于国内产业，这将导致你要么享受大象待遇，要么享受国民待遇。有时可能两者都对。同一项措施可能既对本国历史有利，也对外国有利。因此，在上一讲中，我们决定采用国民待遇原则。国民待遇被编入了《公约》第三条。因此，当我们看到有利于国内侵权者的歧视时，我们就会去看第三条。有人能给我概述一下在该条款下的不同测试吗？我们有多少种不同的测试？是的，有规定。所以我们有前两个，内部征税和内部监管。但在内部征税下，我们也有两个单独的句子，所以这就为内部征税创造了两个不同的子测试。所以总的来说，测试有三个。我们该如何应用它们呢？首先，我们需要分配确定的是，我们谈论的是内部税收还是收费，或者我们谈论的是内部法规或要求。在这两种情况下，第一部分都是告诉你一项措施是内部的，对吗？因此，一般方法是相同的。我们问自己的第一个问题是，该措施是边境措施还是国内措施，第三条规定的自然待遇只适用于国内措施。 我们如何确定某件事是否属于内部衡量标准？我们要问自己哪些问题？酷，但这是第三国的酷。是的，所以第一件事是在何时何地进行衡量，然后你重复一遍，谁是这件事的主体，是重要产品还是国内产品，最后一个问题，也是非常重要的问题是，为什么我们需要遵循该网络？仅仅是因为产品是因进口而进口的吗？是该产品进口的一个条件，还是因为内部事件，比如发售本身、采购、运输、储存，或者这些产品内部发生的任何事情。因此，这就是我们如何确定某件事是否属于内部事件的方法。因此，我们已经说过，首先要说明时间和地点，然后，最重要的是，谁会受到这种措施的影响，以及为什么。如果我们能告诉你某项措施是内部措施，那么，当然，如果有歧视的迹象，这可能是一项适用于所有人的内部措施，而不是任何形式的歧视。如果你还记得那个人，对吧，那部法律中其实没有任何区别。没有任何歧视因素。因此，在这种情况下，如果你声称措施可能定义的状态是频繁的，只要它是非歧视性的。因此，当存在某种待遇时，我们要纵向三。然后，我们需要确定它是内部接触还是内部法律、法规或要求。如果是接触或收费，那么我们就去第三部分，第二部分，这是一个低 COVID 问题。转到第三条、第五条或第四条。如果我们认定这是一项边境措施，那么在这种情况下，我们就不适用第 3 条。第三条不适用于边境措施。有人能告诉你为什么吗？ 为什么我们不对边境措施实行国民待遇？是的，正是因为产品是在一国境内生产的。它们不进入边境。因此，事实上，根据定义，任何边境措施都适用于所有重要产品，对吗？请记住，我们谈到了巴黎。我们说过，这是唯一可以接受的歧视形式。各国可以对进口产品征收关税。这是他们保护国内产业的唯一方式。对进口商品征收关税是可以的。但其他任何东西都有问题，对吧？所以，所有的税都是同性恋。因此，当涉及到一般收费时，我们要做的是确保各州不会利用国内税收来操纵边境措施。因为这样一来，你就可以说，哦，我做出了让步，把我的税率降到了 2%，但突然之间，又要征收国内税了，对吧？因此，我们在这里要做的是第二件难事，我们希望确保there's a transparent charge on the border absolutely in accordance with the process made. But then once that product actually enters into the jurisdiction of that estate, charges that do not equal to those. So these are two complementary population to all also avoid discriminating the jurisdiction of the state. So Article Three, national treatment only applies to internal measures, internal taxes or charges, and internal laws and regulations, we determine which one on the basis of what from a regulation, money, right? One is monetary, it's a charge. The other one is measure. It determines the condition under which particular product is sold, offers for, say, versus transported, distributed or used, yes, whereas charge if you need to pay some kind of sum for any reason. So let's assume now that we have determined that something is an internal tax or charge. So we go to Article Three, paragraph two. We start with the first sentence of that provision. And the first sentence says, the products of the territory of any member imported into the territory of any other member shall not be subject directly or indirectly to internal taxes or other internal charges of any kind in excess of those applied directly or indirectly to like domestic products. How many steps do we find in this test? The test of Article Three, paragraph, two per second. What do you need to prove to show that discrimination exists. And there are three, paragraph two, first sentence for charge, it's a threshold issue which you have already reflected or in order to go through that provision. Then what is the second? Yes, the likeness of the products, right? We need to find a pair of comparison between the two products which are allegedly afforded different treatment. So we need to establish our pair of comparison, and then we need to determine whether these two products are actually like products under this particular provision. Remember, likeness is an accordion. It stretches and squeezes in different provisions. So simply saying the products must be in like products is not sufficient. We need to explain what is the threshold of similarity, the threshold of likeness that applies in this particular context, what are the criteria that we use in terms of likeness? What kind of things are we looking for? So before, exactly so the first three things that we usually look for are the physical characteristics and properties of the product. That makes sense, right? The first thing that we look at is, how does it look like? What is it made of? How does it smell, how does it taste, the color, the texture, so the things that are physically discernible from a product, and it is easy to compare. The second thing is, of course, the end users, what is the product used for? Can it be used for the same purposes? And the third one that is super important, is. is consumer takes some habits. Do consumers consider these products adequately similar to the purpose of each provision? But of course, this is not an exhaustive list. These are just ways of categorizing assessing evidence. So we need to take into consideration more broadly, anything that gives us a hint on the competitive relationship between these products. Now, in the context of radical play, paragraph two, first sentence, we said that the likeness test is a narrow likeness test. The accordion squeezes in that provision. So what do we need to show that the products are close to being perfectly substituted so it is a high degree of familiarity when you're going to read the relevant reports in preparation for the tutorial and for your assessments, you will understand that naturally, when we're looking for such a close competitive relationship already, the very first criterion, which is the physical properties and characteristics of The product, becomes quite important, because if there are significant differences in the fiscal criteria, it would be really hard to show that these two products are close to being always understandably The first criterion, the most obvious criterion, is already quite important in the overall determination. So if likeness under Article Three, paragraph two, first sentence, you need to say, first of all, it requires that products are like products. Likeness changes in the different provisions. It's an accordion that stretches and squeezes the particular provision requires a high degree of likeness, a narrow likeness test, where the competitive relationship between the two products must be close to being perfectly substitutable.
在边境上，完全按照所制定的程序收取透明的费用。但一旦该产品实际进入该房地产的管辖范围，收费不等于这些。因此，这是两个互补的人群，同时也避免了对国家管辖权的歧视。所以第三条，国民待遇只适用于国内措施，国内税收或收费，以及国内法律法规，我们根据什么来确定哪一个从法规，货币，对不对？一个是货币，是收费。另一种是措施。它决定了特定产品的销售、提供、运输、分销或使用的条件。因此，让我们假设现在我们已经确定了某项东西是国内税或费用。因此，我们来看第 3 条第 2 款。我们从该条款的第一句开始。第一句说，任何成员领土上的产品进口到任何其他成员领土上，不得直接或间接征收任何种类的国内税或其他国内费用，不得超过直接或间接适用于类似国内产品的国内税或其他国内费用。我们发现这一检验有几个步骤？第 3 条第 2 款的检验标准。你需要证明什么才能证明存在歧视。有三个，第二段，第一句是指控，这是一个门槛问题，你已经反映出来了，或者说为了通过这条规定。那么第二句是什么呢？是的，产品的相似性，对吗？我们需要在据称受到不同待遇的两种产品之间找到一对对比。 因此，我们需要建立一对比较，然后确定这两种产品是否确实是这一特定条款下的同类产品。记住，相似性是一个手风琴。它可以在不同的条款中拉伸和挤压。因此，仅仅说产品必须是同类产品是不够的。我们需要解释相似性的门槛是什么，在这种特定情况下适用的相似性门槛是什么，我们在相似性方面使用的标准是什么？我们在寻找什么样的东西？所以，在此之前，我们通常要看的前三样东西是产品的物理特征和属性。这很有道理，对吧？我们首先要看的是，它看起来怎么样？它是由什么制成的？气味如何、味道如何、颜色如何、质地如何，这些都是产品的物理特征，很容易比较。第二点当然是最终用户，产品的用途是什么？能否用于相同的目的？第三点非常重要，那就是消费者的一些习惯。消费者是否认为这些产品与每项规定的目的足够相似？当然，这并不是一个详尽的清单。这些只是评估证据的分类方法。因此，我们需要更广泛地考虑，任何能给我们提示这些产品之间竞争关系的东西。现在，在激剧的背景下，第二段第一句，我们说相似性测试是一个狭义的相似性测试。手风琴挤进了这一条款。 那么，我们需要什么来证明产品接近于完全替代呢？因此，当您在准备教程和评估的过程中阅读相关报告时，您会明白，当我们已经在寻找如此密切的竞争关系时，第一条标准自然是高度熟悉的、第一条标准，即最明显的标准，在整体判定中已经相当重要。因此，如果根据第三条第二款第一句的相似性，你需要说，首先，它要求产品是相似的产品。相似性在不同的条款中有所变化。这是一个拉伸和挤压的手风琴，特定的条款要求高度的相似性，狭义的相似性测试，两种产品之间的竞争关系必须接近完全可替代。The criteria that we're going to take into consideration to decide whether they are close to the typical are the ones outlined in the border tax assessment report, which are the ones that we have discussed, as well as any other evidence of the competitive relationship. And then you will need to go further down into the analysis by using all the evidence in the competitive relationship of the product that has been provided in the case study. So and as an advanced warning, if you see a very long case study, don't get scared, because the longer the case study, the more information it provides for you to do this test, right? It doesn't mean that it requires you to do more stuff. It just means that it gives you a lot of information to decide the lawyer and whether all the requirements of the law. So don't get scared by a lot of information. A lot of information is good for waiters. It's much better than someone required to judge. So first we decide that it's an internal action charge. Then we are sure we are making arguments as to whether the products are like and then we have a third step, which is that the tax must be each of the tax charged to the domestic product, and this in excess, that's very easy to show, because there's no limit threshold, any amount in excess, even 0.001 would be sufficient. Why? Because when products are alive in a narrow sense, they are in such a strong competitive relationship. Any kind of different differentiation would be dependent in corporate competitive relationship. So even the smallest in excess would influence various decisions. If you go to the supermarket and there are two different types of decrease which have exactly the same characteristics, and then one of them is 0.5 like 50 cents cheaper. Right? You will still buy the one that is even a little bit cheaper. So it makes sense here that anything excess is considered discriminatory because it works so closely competitive that we cannot tolerate any kind of difference in the treatment. Now you are lawyers, right? So you go through that process, and you may advise your client that the product side is and that it is in excess, and therefore this provision, because you are lawyers, you do not want to take chances. So regardless of what will be the conclusion under the first sentence, you will always proceed to the second sentence. In the alternative, if your conclusion The first sentence is that the two products are not like so they are not competitive relationship, you will need to go to the second sentence anyway to see the second sentence of Article Two is rich. But even if it like you will still go to the second sentence. That's what we say. The only thing that changes here is your warning your lawyer. So if the computer the first one is that they are not the Ike, then you will say you need to proceed with the second sentence to see if the second sentence is actually violated through that method. If your conclusion is that the color like when you move to the second sentence, you need to say, in the alternative, in the remote case, that the pilot finds that they are not the light, which is absolutely agreeable, they are certainly electrodes. But still, let's see. And then you move on to the second sentence, understood. Okay, what does the second sentence say? Now, so we said the first sentence talked about the icon that our tax mixes. But then you have the second sentence, which is quite cryptic, and says, Moreover, no members are otherwise applying internal taxes or other internal charges to imported or domestic products. In another, contrary to the principle sets forth in paragraph one. Paragraph one does not have any autonomous test. The only thing that is saying this is the overall objective of this protection, which is why to prevent protection in the domestic industry, to prevent states from adopting ventures so that protects. Adopting measures that are protections that are adopted. So, of course, so now in the second sentence, we have a direct reference to this general objective of protectionism. Of course, it does not provide a lot of information. So in when we were negotiating the transition from the gut to the WTO, they decided to give us some more critical information about how the second sentence applies, and they gave us this note add to Article Three. What does it say? It says, Well, if that's confirmed on the first sentence, so we may nonetheless, you look at the second paragraph, at the second sentence, and then the second
我们要考虑的标准是边境税评估报告中列出的标准，也就是我们已经讨论过的标准，以及竞争关系的任何其他证据，以决定它们是否接近典型。然后，您需要利用案例研究中提供的产品竞争关系中的所有证据，进一步深入分析。因此，作为一个预先警告，如果你看到一个很长的案例研究，不要害怕，因为案例研究越长，为你做这个测试提供的信息就越多，对吗？这并不意味着需要你做更多的事情。这只是意味着它为你提供了大量信息，让你决定律师是否符合法律的所有要求。所以，不要被大量信息吓到。很多信息对服务员来说是好事。这比要求某人去判断要好得多。因此，我们首先要确定这是一项内部行动指控。然后，我们确定我们正在对产品是否相似进行论证，然后我们还有第三步，那就是税款必须是国内产品所征收税款的每一个部分，这个超出部分，很容易显示出来，因为没有限制门槛，任何超出部分，甚至 0.001 都足够了。为什么呢？因为从狭义上讲，产品是有生命的，它们之间存在着强烈的竞争关系。在企业竞争关系中，任何一种不同的差异都会产生依赖性。因此，即使是最小的过量也会影响各种决策。如果你去超市，有两种不同类型的减少，它们具有完全相同的特性，而其中一种便宜 0.5 美分。对不对？ 你还是会买哪怕便宜一点点的。因此，在这里，任何多余的东西都被认为是歧视性的，这是有道理的，因为竞争如此激烈，我们不能容忍待遇上的任何差别。你们是律师，对吧？所以，你们要经历这个过程，你们可能会建议你们的客户，产品方面是过剩的，因此这条规定，因为你们是律师，你们不想冒险。因此，无论第一句的结论是什么，你们都将继续执行第二句。反之，如果你们的结论是，第一句话认为这两种产品不相似，因此它们不存在竞争关系，那么无论如何你们都需要进入第二句话，看看第二条的第二句话是否丰富。但即使它像，你还是会去看第二句。我们就是这么说的。这里唯一改变的是你的警告你的律师。所以，如果电脑的第一个是，他们是不是艾克，那么你会说，你需要进行的第二句，看看第二句是否通过这种方法实际违反。如果你的结论是，颜色一样，当你移动到第二句，你需要说，在另一种情况下，在远程情况下，飞行员发现，他们不是光，这是绝对同意，他们肯定是电极。不过，还是让我们看看吧。然后转到第二句，明白了。好吧，第二句话怎么说？现在，我们说第一句谈到了我们的税收混合的图标。 然而，第二句话却相当隐晦，它说：此外，任何成员不得以其他方式对进口或国内产品征收国内税或其他国内费用。换句话说，与第一段规定的原则相反。第一段没有任何自主测试。唯一说的是这种保护的总体目标，也就是为什么要防止国内产业受到保护，防止各国采取企业保护措施。采取的保护措施。因此，当然，现在在第二句中，我们直接提到了保护主义的这一总体目标。当然，它并没有提供很多信息。因此，当我们就从肠道到世贸组织的过渡进行谈判时，他们决定给我们提供一些关于第二句如何适用的更重要的信息，他们给我们在第三条中增加了这一说明。它是怎么说的呢？它说："好吧，如果第一句得到确认，那么尽管如此，我们还是可以看看第二段，看看第二句，然后再看看第二句。sentence, the letter would be consistent with the second sentence only if we have competition between direct and competitive versus Q double products, and they are tasked This severely they are not severely tasked. So the second sentence broadens the scope of protection from the other products to directly competitive versus computable products. So it creates this larger pool of products that are competitive relationship, but not such a close competitive relationship, because this COVID relationship is a little bit looser. The criteria are not that strict. It's not just any amount in excess, but it's rather if there is a significant difference between these two, and also have the initial requirement of showing that the measure is applied in a way that gives protections that looks like it is applied to a four protection. So for the second sentence, the test has four elements. The first element is the same. The threshold issue showing that somebody is an internal tax or charge. The second issue is whether the drawbacks in question that their comparison are directly compared to both substitutable products. This is a broader category of products that are competitive relationship the high products are a subcategory of direct competitive for directly competitive or substitutable products. We are looking for products that are interchangeable, but they can be used in order to serve the same thing from either but they are not perfectly substitutable, so would be considered alternative. The third thing that we need to show is that the two dynamical products are not similarly fast. This is not just any modeling set. We need to show a significant difference, a difference to prevent the same expectation of something that much. Okay, so there's no real threshold here. If it's 10% 5% more or whatever, you need to look at this particular case study and make arguments to whether it's actually a significant difference. It's just a matter of a significant difference. It's just a matter of interpretation guidance on this issue, so we already know, and then the last issue is to also show on both that but in the way that the measure is applied, we can see the color protection fabrication. This is a bit tricky, because it sounds like we're looking for the intent of the measure, the intent of the measure, and understanding its structure and architecture and the way that it's applied, to see whether proof indications that You have it looks like it affords protectionist treatment. So for this issue, we use a matter of design, architecture, everything, structure. So you use all the evidence that you have to see in the way that the metric is designed and applied. It actually amounts to protectionist treatment. You don't need to do this extra thing for the purpose of the first sentence, the first sentence, anything in excess is considered by default protections because of the cross domain relationship. You need to look at all the evidence to see if you have any suggestions that this is applied in a way that protects the domestic and this would fulfill your analysis for something that is then attached or charged. Now, if you have decided that this is actually a law or radiation, then you will do Article Three, paragraph four, instead of three, part of two. Article Three, paragraph says the products of the table of any member, important treatment no less favorable than afforded through large products of a national origin with respect to all laws, regulations and requirements affecting their internal sale, offering for sale versus transportation, distribution or use. The first step in this test is to show that what you have at hand is a law regulation, law requirement affecting the internal sale, offering for sale, purchase or transportation. And this is quite easy because it has a very broad scope affecting here needs have an effect on so anything that has an effect on general, say, offer, say, purchase, use, etc, developed would be considered an radiation. So, regulation. It is important here to note that for something to be considered a law regulation requirement that affects these things, it does not necessarily mean that the law itself has to be precisely about that. So a law that is about public health or treatment of animals, which nonetheless has a requirement about specifically how things are used, versus author for sale, it will still affect the internal sale offered for sale or use offset products. So we don't really care about the title of the law or the subject of the law or the official justification for the
因此，只有当我们的直接竞争产品和可竞争产品与 Q 双产品之间存在竞争，而它们的任务又非常繁重时，这封信才会与第二句话保持一致。因此，第二句将保护范围从其他产品扩大到直接竞争产品与可计算产品。因此，这就产生了更多的具有竞争关系的产品，但竞争关系并不那么密切，因为这种 COVID 关系有点松散。标准不是那么严格。它不只是任何超出的金额，而是这两者之间是否存在显著差异，同时也有一个初步要求，即表明该措施的应用方式提供的保护看起来像是应用于四种保护。因此，对于第二句话，测试有四个要素。第一个要素是相同的。门槛问题是显示某人是内部税收或费用。第二个问题是，与可替代产品直接比较的缺点。这是一个更广泛的产品类别，是竞争关系高的产品是直接竞争的直接竞争或可替代产品的子类。我们要寻找的是可以互换的产品，但它们可以用来为其中任何一种产品提供相同的服务，但它们又不能完全替代，因此会被视为替代产品。我们需要证明的第三件事是，这两种动态产品的速度并不相似。这不是普通的建模。我们需要证明两者之间存在着明显的差异，这种差异能够阻止我们对某些东西的相同预期。好吧，这里没有真正的阈值。 如果多出 10%、5% 或更多，你就需要看一下这个特定的案例研究，并对它是否真的有显著差异进行论证。这只是一个重大差异的问题。在这个问题上，这只是一个解释指导的问题，所以我们已经知道了，然后最后一个问题是在这两个问题上也要表明，但在措施的应用方式上，我们可以看到颜色保护织物。这有点棘手，因为听起来我们是在寻找措施的意图，措施的意图，了解其结构和架构以及应用的方式，看看你所拥有的证据表明它是否看起来提供了保护主义待遇。因此，在这个问题上，我们使用的是设计、架构、一切、结构。因此，您必须使用所有证据来查看度量标准的设计和应用方式。这实际上相当于保护主义待遇。你不需要为了第一句话的目的而做这些额外的事情，第一句话，由于跨领域的关系，任何多余的东西都被认为是默认的保护。你需要查看所有证据，看看是否有任何证据表明，这是以一种保护国内的方式应用的，这将满足你对随后附加或收取的东西的分析。现在，如果您已决定这实际上是一项法律或辐射，那么您将执行第三条第四款，而不是第三条第二部分。 第 3 条第 1 款规定，任何成员表的产品，在影响其国内销售、供销、运输、分销或使用的所有法律、法规和要求方面，所享受的重要待遇不得低于通过原产于某国的大型产品所享受的待遇。测试的第一步是证明你手头的是影响内部销售、供销、购买或运输的法律法规和法律要求。这很容易，因为它的影响范围很广，需要对其产生影响，因此，任何对一般发售、购买、使用等产生影响的行为都会被视为辐射。因此，监管。这里需要注意的是，对于影响到这些事情的法律法规要求，并不一定意味着法律本身必须是关于这些事情的。因此，一项关于公共卫生或动物待遇的法律，尽管有一项关于如何具体使用和销售的要求，但它仍然会影响内部销售或抵消产品的使用。因此，我们并不关心法律的名称、法律的主体或官方的理由。law. We care about the result, if it has an effect on the way that this project is offered for sale, use, purchase, etc. Secondly, again, better comparison, what are the two products that are given different treatment, and are they like products? In this case, because it's only one sentence and not two sentences as an article, we don't need to make a distinction. Like products includes all of these. So likeness on the Article Three, paragraph four is a broad likeness test, the likeness of products is stretched, both directly competitive, attributable products and like products fit essentially would qualify as like products under Article Three, paragraph four, because we need overall the scope of Article Three, paragraph two and four to mirror each other. It's just under Article Three paragraph two, not two separate tests, but overall, the same coverage exists for all types of competitive relationships, both in terms of internal taxation and in terms of internal regulation. And the answer you need to show that between these two AI products, one of them, the important one is treated less favorably. How do we prove that that the regulation modifies the condition of competition in the relevant so it kind of upsets the competitive relationship of the two products. It affects the way in which they compete with each other. So and this concludes Article Three, national treatment. These are the three tests. We decide if it's an internal measure, then we decide if it is an internal tax or an internal recreation. If it's an internal tax, we go to Article Three, paragraph two, we start with the first sentence, which applies only to like products, strict, essential those that are close to being perfectly attributable, and if those requirements are not met or just in the alternative to be safe as lawyers, we move on to the second sentence, which talks about directly competitive versus reputable products, a broader coverage of products that are even in a long term competitive relationship. Now, if it's an internal regulation, we go to Article Three, paragraph four, and in that context, the right use of products is broad. It also includes those that would be considered directly competitive or substitutable under the second sentence. Are there any questions? Let's see if there are any questions by applying what you just learned into a case study. So it's also a good opportunity for you to kind of talk a little bit wake up because you are an expert. So we have two states here. We have alien and all for over four decades, the most popular car in Kenya has been the tour borrower, a large Fauci car that runs on conventional desert, which is primarily produced in the native in recent years to have increased environmental awareness in England, so people have decided to start purchasing carbon are considered friendlier. So they heard the conventional female example. So what did they decide to do? They switched from the conventional car to a hybrid car, which just so happens that is also produced domestically in this is the green bargain, a large hybrid farming car produced below green Wang is popularity in Finland has not been affected by the fact that it is currently slightly more expensive than the traditional reporter. So department of Finland recently adopted the green Act, which reduced the sales tax for hybrid vehicles from 20% to 15% alone, so for all other vehicles running on conventional visa, the sales tax remains at 20% on top of that, car dealerships in Kenya are now required to choose whether they want to specialize in conventional or hybrid and electric cars, and they cannot say both on the Same side, they need to decide, are they going to specialize in conventional cards and you're going to advise old language? Obviously, it's quite concerned here because of conventional reasons frequently. But now things are starting to change, and we have this regulatory prevention with the change in the same sex and the requirements for leadership. So what I want you to do is in small groups, just talk people around you. Just make sure you talk to each other. Public person doesn't really matter the size of the of the group. I want you to discuss whether this measure would be consistent with the rules of the data we have discussed. So follow this test. Is it a border or an internal measure? Is it an internal actual charge, or is it an internal law of regulation? And apply the steps of each test one by one to reach a preliminary conclusion. And
法律。我们关心的是结果，如果结果对这个项目的销售、使用、购买等方式有影响的话。其次，还是比较好比较，两种产品的待遇不同，它们是同类产品吗？在这种情况下，因为只有一句话，而不是作为文章的两句话，所以我们不需要进行区分。同类产品包括所有这些。因此，第 3 条第 4 款的相似性是一个宽泛的相似性测试，产品的相似性被扩展，既包括直接竞争的、可归属的产品，也包括相似的产品，因为我们需要第 3 条第 2 款和第 4 款的整体范围相互照应。这只是在第三条第二款下，而不是两个单独的测试，但总体而言，所有类型的竞争关系，无论是在内部税收方面还是在内部监管方面，都有相同的覆盖范围。而你需要证明的答案是，在这两种人工智能产品之间，其中一种，也就是重要的一种受到了较差的待遇。我们怎样才能证明监管改变了相关的竞争条件，从而打乱了两种产品的竞争关系？它影响了两种产品相互竞争的方式。至此，第三条 "国民待遇 "结束。这就是三项测试。我们决定它是否是国内措施，然后决定它是国内税收还是国内娱乐。 如果是内部税收，我们翻到第三条第二款，从第一句开始，只适用于同类产品，严格的、基本的、接近完全可归属的产品，如果不符合这些要求，或者只是为了作为律师的安全，我们就翻到第二句，谈到直接竞争产品与声誉产品，更广泛地涵盖了甚至处于长期竞争关系中的产品。现在，如果是内部规定，我们看第三条第四款，在这种情况下，正确使用产品的范围很广。它还包括根据第二句被视为直接竞争或可替代的产品。有问题吗？让我们把刚才学到的知识应用到案例研究中，看看还有没有问题。这也是一个很好的机会，因为你是专家，所以你可以说点醒世恒言。我们这里有两个州。我们有外星人和所有四十多年来，在肯尼亚最流行的汽车一直是旅游借用，大型福斯汽车，运行在传统的沙漠，这主要是在本机生产近年来有增加在英国的环保意识，所以人们已经决定开始购买碳被认为是更友好。因此，他们听到了传统女性的例子。那么他们决定怎么做呢？他们从传统汽车换成了混合动力汽车，而这恰好也是在国内生产的，这就是绿旺，绿旺下面生产的一种大型混合动力农用车，在芬兰的受欢迎程度并没有受到它目前比传统记者稍贵这一事实的影响。 因此，芬兰部门最近通过了绿色法案，将混合动力汽车的销售税从 20% 单独降至 15%，因此对于所有其他使用传统签证的车辆，销售税仍为 20%，除此之外，肯尼亚的汽车经销商现在需要选择是专营传统汽车还是混合动力和电动汽车，他们不能说两边都是一样的，他们需要决定，他们是要专营传统卡，还是要建议旧语言？显然，由于传统的原因，这里经常受到关注。但现在情况开始发生变化，我们有了这种监管预防，同性的变化和对领导的要求。所以，我想让你们做的是，在小组中，与周围的人交谈。确保你们彼此交谈。公众人物并不真正重要的组的大小。我希望你们讨论这一措施是否符合我们讨论过的数据规则。那就按照这个测试来做吧。是边境还是内部措施？是内部实际收费，还是内部法规？然后逐一进行测试，得出初步结论。还有then we discuss again with adding some extra layers of complexity to this to prepare ourselves for the tutorial on Friday before we move on to MFA. So take five, six minutes to discuss if people get sick. That what are specific matters. The same stocks, right we have the first one is an is a discount, essentially a reduction in the same stock for hybrid vehicles, from, from, 20% to 15% is measure number one and then measure number two. Somewhat so there is a requirement to choose what you're going to say. So these are two separate measures that we need to assess separately. Right for each one of them, we need to follow our regular methodology. So starting with the first measure, sales tax, from 20% to 15% of valoring for hybrid vehicles. Is this a border measure or an internal measure. It's an internal measure. Why? It applies to both domestic and foreign products. It doesn't specify, but it's a sales tax. So it is due to an internal event, which is the offering for sale and sale of this product, right? It is not due to importation. It is not a condition for the importation for products. It applies to all cars that are sold within the jurisdiction of alien so it is an internal measure. What is, the next thing that I need to determine, is it an internal tax or charge, or is it an internal law, regulation or requirement? It's an internal tax rate, it's in the name, which means that I'm going to which provision to Article Three, paragraph two, how do I apply this provision? Can someone give me an overview of the things that you discuss in your groups? Came along? Is this the first thing, first thing is applying. So first of all, we need to establish the threshold. This is a this is an internal tax return. I know that in our methodology, we do this even before that. But obviously, when you're writing you need to follow the test. You need to show that you have awareness of all the steps of the provision. So when you write it down, you can say, this is an internal measure. It's an internal tax, which is the first requirement for the application right from three part of two. It is an internal tax for this and tax reason, the other two steps of the test are the likeness of the products and whether the whether the imported product is taxed in excess compared to the like domestic product. So what was the main thing that we needed to do here in order to assess the value of the same tax? So yeah. What was the tricky part of the test? Find whether they are like or not? I want to say they were. What are the day here? What is the comparison diesel vehicles with the hybrid vehicles? Yeah. So we need to compare vehicles that are running on conventional diesel on the one hand, which are the imported products, in this case, for the country of Baldwin, to hybrid vehicles, which are currently produced by the Republic of England. So so this is the pair of comparison, and this is what we need to assess. We need to assess whether these lie for the purposes of first sentence, what is the threshold of similarity that we need to prove? What is the extent of the competitive relationship that we need to show in the context of how like should they be? I first sentence, how like do they need to be? I mean, you can vote, though, is it the characteristics or the properties on the these are the criteria that we're going to use, but what is the extent of competition that we need to show based on This criteria? Okay, we need a little bit more high competitive relationship, closely substitutable, right? And then we use this criteria to see if they are close to be perfectly if they are in such a high degree of competitive relationship, physical properties and characteristics and uses consumer facing habits and any other indication of the COVID reagent. What would take, are they like products? What did you use? What kind of evidence did you use in making this assessment to physical. Let's go one by one, nature and property. What do we know about these two projects? Are they identical? They have a difference. What is the difference their Engine and fuel, right? So do they run on the conventional diesel, or do they run on both the gas and electricity, as if the case for hybrid cars? So we know that there are there is an important difference. What else do we know? Large Family guard, right? So we know that both of them like in terms of presumably design and characteristics, they're probably highly similar. So as far as we can tell from this case study, which is a short case study, if it was longer to have more so again, coming
然后，我们再讨论一下，在此基础上再增加几层复杂性，为周五的教程做准备，然后再继续学习 MFA。所以，用五、六分钟的时间讨论一下，如果人们生病了。有哪些具体事项。同样的股票，对，我们有第一个是一个折扣，本质上是减少相同的混合动力汽车的股票，从，从，20％到15％是措施之一，然后措施二。因此，我们需要选择你要说的内容。因此，这是两个独立的措施，我们需要分别进行评估。对每一个措施，我们都需要遵循常规方法。从第一项措施开始，混合动力汽车的销售税从 20% 降至 15%。这是边境措施还是内部措施？是内部措施。为什么呢？它既适用于国内产品，也适用于国外产品。虽然没有具体说明，但这是一种销售税。因此，它是由于一个内部事件，即提供销售和销售这种产品，对吗？不是因为进口。它不是产品进口的条件。它适用于在外国人管辖范围内销售的所有汽车，因此是一项内部措施。接下来我需要确定的是，这是一项国内税费，还是一项国内法律、法规或要求？它是一种国内税率，它在名称中，这意味着我要将哪条规定纳入第三条第二款，我该如何适用这条规定？谁能给我介绍一下你们小组讨论的事情？一起来吗？这是第一件事，第一件事就是应用。所以首先，我们需要确定起征点。这是一份内部报税表。我知道，在我们的方法论中，我们甚至在此之前就这样做了。 但很明显，当你写作时，你需要遵循测试。你需要证明你对规定的所有步骤都有所了解。因此，当你写下来时，你可以说，这是一项内部措施。这是一项内部税收，这是申请的第一项要求，从第三部分的第二项开始。由于这个原因和税收原因，它是一种国内税，测试的另外两个步骤是产品的相似性和进口产品是否比国内同类产品多征税。那么，为了评估同一税种的价值，我们在这里需要做的主要事情是什么？是的。测试中最棘手的部分是什么？找出它们是否相同？我想说它们是。今天是什么日子？柴油车和混合动力车的对比是什么？柴油车和混合动力车的比较是什么？因此，我们需要将使用传统柴油的车辆与混合动力车辆进行比较，一方面，传统柴油是进口产品，在这种情况下，是鲍德温国家的产品，而混合动力车辆目前是由英格兰共和国生产的。因此，这就是一对比较，也是我们需要评估的。我们需要评估这些是否符合第一句的目的，我们需要证明的相似性门槛是什么？在它们应该有多像的背景下，我们需要证明的竞争关系的程度是什么？第一句，它们需要有多相似？我的意思是，虽然你可以投票决定，这些是我们要使用的标准中的特征或属性，但根据这些标准，我们需要证明的竞争程度是什么？好吧，我们需要更高的竞争关系，可紧密替代的关系，对吗？ 然后，我们用这个标准来看看它们是否接近完美，如果它们在竞争关系、物理性质和特征、用途、面对消费者的习惯和 COVID 试剂的任何其他迹象上都是如此。它们是同类产品吗？你使用了什么？在对实物进行评估时，你使用了什么样的证据？让我们一个一个来，自然和财产。我们对这两个项目了解多少？它们相同吗？它们有区别。它们的发动机和燃料有什么不同？那么，它们是使用传统柴油，还是像混合动力汽车那样，同时使用燃气和电力呢？因此，我们知道它们之间存在着重要的区别。我们还知道什么？大家庭卫士，对吧？所以我们知道，从大概的设计和特点来看，它们都很可能是高度相似的。因此，我们可以从这个案例研究中看出，这只是一个简短的案例研究，如果时间再长一些，就会有更多的案例研究。back to my original point, which is, don't be scared. No, what do we know from this case study is that we only difference between these two terms is The end. How do we feel about that and risk? What you see is very interesting, like two things. The first one is, we cannot make up fast, right? So we need to go, we need to work with what we have. So in this case, let's assume that these are the COVID, which is usually, of course, not the case, but we need to achieve. What you're saying is, the basis for this differentiation is origin. It looks like there is another reason for introducing this distinction, right? This is where you were going for, yes, actually, so do we need to? This is great, but what I'm trying to say is what you say is relevant here, and half of it is irrelevant here, but relevant later, when we discuss sections. Why? Because here we need to look at the product itself and the characteristics, and you're absolutely right to say how different are they really? They both use at least partially conventional diesel and gas. So this is another indication of the close COVID relationship, right? So in terms of physical characteristics, they're highly similar. It's just a one of the two can also run on electricity, but also with the exact same way that the other one. The second thing that becomes relevant from your response just a second, is whether environmental considerations. Are they even here? Are they even if we assume that one of them is very friendly with the environment and the other one is not, can we take this into consideration when we are determining whether the two products are like, what do you think for what we have discussed so far, no, And for the thoughts? Why? Why? No? No. Correct. So at this stage, when you're looking at the likeness of the product, the regulatory distinction, the reason why we have differentiated between these two products is irrelevant unless that reason is reflected in the actual competitive relationship of the two products. So the only way in which environmental considerations would be relevant here would be if you could show either that it affects the physical properties of the product, so the physical properties of the product are completely different, or if you could show that consumers perceive them as so different that they are no longer in a close competitive relationship. So if you could show that in Greenland, everyone is now only friendly products and the other become irrelevant in the market, it is no longer in a close competitive relationship because consumers, they believe that what is environment is what is not environment, then you could show that these two products, but if you cannot show this In perception, then they still make products because this factor, whether it is environmental friendly or not, the competitive relationship between the two products, all we care about here is whether the two products are in a close competition within that market. We don't care about why you wanted to produce this distinction. We don't care about whether this distinction was so legitimate, if it was for public health, if it was for public morals, if it was for the protection of acute species, that we will see a little bit we don't care about all we care about is the competitive relationship between the products. This is this discussion that we've been having effect test it has been suggested in the context of some that we need of this distinction is the aim protect the domestic industry, or is something different a legitimate aim, and it has been consistently rejected in your students, in your students, they are saying, we don't see any reflection of this test In the wording of Article Three paragraph, first sentence, we see a bit of an indication in the second sentence, when it's for so as to afford protection to the domestic industry, but nothing in the first sentence, and it would also have secondary relationship between the rule and exception, because all these things become relevant later on when we discuss exceptions. So when we talk about the main rule, care about why they did it. We care about the why later on, in order to have a transparent, consistent mechanism, every time we discriminate, it's going to be at least in first place, at least a violation of the non discrimination principle. We can also see whether, yes, we will see whether it is okay discriminating, the fact that understood, yeah. So coming back to based on this conversation that we just had, when we look at the two products
回到我的原点，那就是，不要害怕。不，从这个案例研究中我们知道，这两个词之间唯一的区别就是 "结局"。我们如何看待 "终结 "和 "风险"？你所看到的非常有趣，比如两件事。第一件事是，我们无法快速弥补，对吗？所以我们需要去做，我们需要利用我们所拥有的。因此，在这种情况下，我们假设这些就是 COVID，当然，通常情况并非如此，但我们需要实现。你的意思是，这种区分的基础是原产地。看起来，引入这种区分还有另一个原因，对吗？这就是你想说的，是的，实际上，我们需要这样做吗？这很好，但我想说的是，你所说的在这里是相关的，有一半在这里是不相关的，但在我们以后讨论章节时是相关的。为什么？因为在这里，我们需要看看产品本身和特性，你说得很对，它们到底有什么不同？它们都至少使用了部分传统柴油和天然气。这也从另一个角度说明了 COVID 的密切关系，对吗？因此，就物理特性而言，它们非常相似。只是这两种燃料中的一种也可以使用电力，但使用方式与另一种完全相同。从你的回答中可以看出，第二点是环境因素。它们是否存在？如果我们假定其中一种产品对环境非常友好，而另一种产品对环境不友好，那么我们在确定这两种产品是否一样时，是否也要考虑到这一点？为什么？为什么？为什么？不对 因此，在现阶段，当你审视产品的相似性、监管上的区别时，我们区分这两种产品的原因是无关紧要的，除非这一原因反映在这两种产品的实际竞争关系中。因此，与环境因素相关的唯一方式是，如果你能证明环境因素影响了产品的物理特性，因此产品的物理特性完全不同，或者如果你能证明消费者认为这两种产品如此不同，以至于它们不再具有密切的竞争关系。因此，如果你能证明，在格陵兰岛，现在大家都只做环保产品，其他产品在市场上变得无关紧要，不再是紧密的竞争关系，因为消费者，他们认为什么是环保，什么就不是环保，那么你就能证明这两种产品，但如果你不能证明这一点 在认知上，那么他们仍然会生产产品，因为这个因素，不管是不是环保，这两种产品之间的竞争关系，我们在这里关心的只是这两种产品在该市场内是否处于紧密的竞争关系。我们不关心你为什么要生产这种不同的产品。我们不关心这种区别是否合法，是否是为了公共卫生，是否是为了公共道德，是否是为了保护急性物种，我们会看到一点，我们不关心所有我们关心的是产品之间的竞争关系。 这就是我们一直在讨论的效果检验问题，有人提出，我们需要这种区分，目的是保护国内产业，还是其他合法的目的，这在你的学生中一直遭到反对，在你的学生中，他们说，我们在第 3 条第 1 款的措辞中没有看到这种检验的任何反映、第一句话，我们在第二句话中看到了一点迹象，那就是为了给国内产业提供保护，但第一句话中没有任何迹象，而且规则和例外之间还存在次要关系，因为所有这些事情在我们以后讨论例外时都会变得相关。因此，当我们讨论主要规则时，要关心他们为什么这样做。为了有一个透明、一致的机制，我们以后要关心为什么，每次我们进行歧视时，至少首先会违反非歧视原则。我们还可以看到，是的，我们会看到是否可以歧视，事实是理解的，是的。因此，根据我们刚才的对话，当我们审视这两种产品时that are under comparison here, it looks like, in terms of physical properties, nature and characteristics, the only difference is in the engine there, it's a difference, right? We cannot deny that this is a difference. But in terms of all other characteristics, to you, almost identical end users are obvious bars used by the standards in terms of consumer tastes and habits. We have some here. The information here says that one of them was the most popular for a very long time, but now they are increased again. Have started emergency cars that are friendly to the environment. There's no indication here of any strong preference for one or the other based on these kind of consumer preferences interchangeable. Some of them still switch to hybrid car instead of the other interchangeability. Also have one more indication here, which is that one of the two is more expensive, a little bit more expensive, but this does not seem to be affecting purchasing decisions. Why did I add this, as we will see further, on Friday and also in your reading for Friday, price is an important consideration. Price is an important consideration, if we can show that the price difference is so big that it actually creates two separate markets. For example, is probably not like a family car, right? If one of them is a laboratory product which is addressed to completely different consumers, then obviously these two are not considered interchange. This is never going to happen, right? Of course, states have been case law tried to make this kind of arguments make lesser differences. So you will see buying cigarettes, for example, the main case law of this issue that you have, that's what the in the original is. What they were trying to argue was that, because overall, the income in that country is not very high, import cigarettes that were very that were very expensive do not really address the average consumer. There are other larger products, but the panel found that the price differentiate is not that big, and that a lot of people may still consider buying the more expensive product. So there is still a competitive relationship between the two products. So it's not a fragmented market by different products from completely different price ranges. So price is another consideration that we can that we can discuss, especially in the context of the second sentence, where it's about more broadly, whether two products are directly compiled or substituted. First sentence, we discuss all these issues, and we probably reach the conclusion that these are like products. They are close to being perfectly substitutable. But in the alternative, we could say that even if they are not like products, they are certainly directed. They are seen as the same difference, and most people so in this case, it's happy, if not under the first sentence, then in second sentence you have direct, competitive the problem under the second sentence now would be that you would need To show that the differential in the tax between 15 and 20, this 5% which is definitely in excess, right? Conventional carbon charge in excess of hybrid cars. In the context of the second sentence, we will need to show that this is the similar taxation, which, as we said, is more than just the limits. You need to show that this is significant enough to affect the competitive relationship between these competitive process. And that would be debatable, right? So you need to make some arguments. Is this important? You could say that it is already more expensive, and I do make it even more expensive there for accepting variation products. And 5% is a considerable amount of good amount. This is realization. Or you could say that look 5% there are differences that sound to you? Jake, not too much. And you would also need to go through the fourth requirement for the second sentence to show that it is applied so as to afford protection to the domestic industry. We said that this is not about intent. It's about actually looking at the way that the measure is applied, about the structure of the measure. What do we see here? We see that in the way that this is applied, although it doesn't have an origin based distinction, it doesn't say domestic ones have pay as tax and imported pay more. De facto domestic industry would seem about agriculture, right? So we can use this as an element of the design to argue that this is a protectionist measure, and also this. Perhaps, when we said before
从物理性质、性质和特点来看，唯一的区别就是发动机，这就是区别，对吗？我们不能否认这是一个区别。但是在所有其他的特征方面，对你来说，几乎完全相同的最终用户，在消费者的口味和习惯方面，都是标准所使用的明显的杠杠。我们这里就有一些。这里的信息说，其中一个是最受欢迎的很长一段时间，但现在他们又增加了。已经开始紧急生产对环境友好的汽车。这里没有任何迹象表明，根据这种消费者的偏好互换，对其中一种或另一种有强烈的偏好。有些消费者还是会选择混合动力汽车，而不是其他可互换的汽车。此外，还有一个迹象表明，这两种汽车中的一种更贵，稍微贵一点，但这似乎并不影响购买决策。我为什么要加上这一点，因为我们将在周五进一步看到，在你们周五的阅读中也会看到，价格是一个重要的考虑因素。如果我们能证明价格差异如此之大，以至于实际上形成了两个不同的市场，那么价格就是一个重要的考虑因素。举例来说，这可能不像一辆家用轿车，对吧？如果其中一个是实验室产品，面向的是完全不同的消费者，那么显然这两个产品就不能被认为是互换的。这种情况永远不会发生，对吗？当然，各州都有判例法试图让这种说法产生较小的差异。因此，你会看到购买香烟，例如，这个问题的主要判例法，你有，这就是在原来的是什么。 他们试图论证的是，由于该国的总体收入并不高，因此非常昂贵的进口香烟并不能真正满足普通消费者的需求。虽然还有其他更大的产品，但专家小组发现，价格差异并不大，很多人还是会考虑购买更贵的产品。因此，这两种产品之间仍然存在竞争关系。因此，这并不是一个由完全不同价位的不同产品分割的市场。因此，价格是我们可以讨论的另一个考虑因素，尤其是在第二句的背景下，它涉及到更广泛的问题，即两种产品是直接竞争还是相互替代。第一句话，我们讨论了所有这些问题，可能得出的结论是，这些都是同类产品。它们接近于完全可替代。但是，我们也可以说，即使它们不是同类产品，也肯定是有指向性的。它们被视为相同的差异，因此在这种情况下，大多数人都很高兴，如果不是根据第一句话，那么在第二句话中，你有直接的、有竞争力的问题，现在根据第二句话，你需要证明15%和20%之间的税收差异，这5%肯定是超额的，对吗？传统碳排放超过混合动力汽车。在第二句的上下文中，我们需要证明这是类似的税收，正如我们所说，这不仅仅是限制。你需要证明这足以影响这些竞争过程之间的竞争关系。这一点值得商榷，对吗？所以你需要提出一些论据。这很重要吗？ 你可以说它已经更贵了，而我确实让那里接受变异产品的价格更贵。而 5%是一个相当大的数目。这就是实现。或者你也可以说，你觉得 5%有什么不同吗？杰克，不会太多。你还需要通过第二句话的第四个要求来证明它的应用是为了给国内产业提供保护。我们说过，这与意图无关。我们说，这与意图无关，而是要看该措施的实施方式和结构。我们在这里看到了什么？我们看到，在实施方式上，虽然它没有基于原产地的区别，但也没有说国产的要交税，进口的要交更多的税。事实上，国内工业似乎与农业有关，对吗？因此，我们可以将此作为设计的一个要素，来论证这是一项保护主义措施，还有这一点。也许，我们之前说过that, we know that there is a small which was not affected consumer preferences so far. But then, if you also have this extra 5% of them we need to pay. Maybe this would change the competitive relationship even more, because now they're going to pay the same price before the hybrid would have been more expensive. You're making it equal. You're equalizing it by changing the sales tax. So this is another indication of the protectionist measure protecting the domestic hybrid cars industry. And you would reach a conclusion as to whether Article Three, paragraph two, first sentence for second sentence which is violated, then you will need to go to the second measure, which is the requirement for dealerships that are saying Cars within England to decide whether they want to specialize on one or the other. Which case does it remind us of Korea beef? Right? We discussed this last time in Korea beef, their stores have to decide whether they're going to specialize on domestic or imported beef, and if they were larger retailers, they have to display them separately. What arguments did you make on this? Which provision did you apply? Paragraph four, right. Article Three, paragraph four, why? Because this is not an internal law, already a which affects the internal sale and offering for sale of cars. It's about whether you can sell both. So it's definitely an effect on the conditions for saving cars within female so this paragraph four requirement that it is all radiation requirement effective met. The second one is about whether products are like again. So here we will need to explain that likeness under three paragraph four is broader than likeness under three paragraphs to first sentence, and then it is actually the combined scope of light products and their competitors. Since the pair of comparison is the same here, you still compare to conventional cars. You don't explain that the requirement changes, but here, and since we found that they are even be like products will be met under our report, and then you need to show that this is less favorable treatment following the reason in COVID, the fact that you make them choose, and that you do not allow them in the same store, and you do not allow consumers to freely compare and choose within The same setting, this does upset the competition, and specifically it affects the competition for imported hybrid cars, because we can assume that in most cases, they would prefer for imported conventional cars, because we would assume that Most people would choose to specialize on the domestic product because it has easier distribution channels. They know the people that make them, etc, etc. You need to apply for by analogy the reasoning of COVID appropriate citations, and that would conclude your analysis on substandard provisions. But as we will see later on, in our module, there would be, normally, another layer, which is exceptions. So then it would also need to be whether exceptions apply. In this case, it would be, though relating to environmental protection. Are there any questions? Is it clear that it was before? Yeah, okay, we'll have more. Do you want to take a break three, five minutes and then come back to talk about MFN? Okay, so let's come back to
这一点，我们知道，有一个小的，这是迄今为止没有影响消费者的喜好。但是，如果你也有这个额外的 5%，我们需要支付。也许这会更大程度地改变竞争关系，因为现在他们要支付相同的价格，而之前的混合动力车会更贵。你让它变得平等了。你通过改变销售税来实现平等。因此，这也是保护国内混合动力汽车产业的保护主义措施的另一种表现。至于是否违反了第三条第二款第一句和第二句的规定，你们将得出结论，然后你们将需要采取第二项措施，即要求在英国境内销售汽车的经销商决定是否要专门销售一种或另一种汽车。这是不是让我们想起了韩国牛肉？对不对？我们上次讨论过韩国牛肉，他们的商店必须决定是专营国产牛肉还是进口牛肉，如果是较大的零售商，就必须分开陈列。你们对此有何论据？你们适用了哪条规定？第四款，对吧。第三条第四款，为什么？因为这不是国内法，已经影响到汽车的国内销售和发售。这关系到你是否可以同时销售这两种汽车。所以它肯定是对女性内部保存汽车的条件有影响，所以这第四款要求它是所有辐射要求有效满足。第二个是关于产品是否又像。那么在这里我们就需要解释一下，三段四款下的像不像比三段到第一句话下的像不像要宽泛一些，然后它实际上是光产品和竞争对手的综合范围。 因为这里的比较对象是相同的，所以你还是与传统汽车进行比较。你没有说明要求发生了变化，但在这里，既然我们发现它们甚至都是同类产品，那么在我们的报告中就会得到满足，然后你就需要证明，按照 COVID 中的理由，这是一种较差的待遇，事实上，你让他们进行选择，而且你不允许他们在同一家商店，你不允许消费者在同一环境中自由比较和选择、这确实扰乱了竞争，特别是影响了进口混合动力汽车的竞争，因为我们可以假定，在大多数情况下，他们更倾向于进口传统汽车，因为我们可以假定，大多数人会选择专攻国内产品，因为它有更容易的销售渠道。他们认识制造这些产品的人，等等。您需要类比适用 COVID 的适当引证推理，这将结束您对不合标准条款的分析。但正如我们稍后将在我们的模块中看到的，通常还会有另一层，即例外情况。因此，还需要考虑例外情况是否适用。在这种情况下，虽然与环境保护有关，但也是如此。有问题吗？之前说的清楚吗？是的，好的，我们会有更多。你们想休息三五分钟，然后再回来讨论最惠国问题吗？好了，让我们回到

All right, we have now concluded our analysis of Article Three and the national treatment application. We already said that the national treatment obligation is about discriminating in favor of domestic products and against imported products. And we are now moving on to MFN under Article One, paragraph one, which is no longer about domestic products. So it is not about discriminating in favor of your domestic industry. It is about discriminating amongst different important products, amongst products of different origins. Article one parameter what has been described in several reports as a pervasive principle and a cornerstone of the gut, or one of the failures of the WTO trading system, as we have already discussed during the creation MFN, was one of the most important things. Why? Because, before they got at, the WTO trade could be prevented. You could choose your trading partners. You could say, I want to trade without in these two countries, and I don't want to trade with
好了，我们现在结束了对第三条和国民待遇适用的分析。我们已经说过，国民待遇义务是关于有利于国内产品和不利于进口产品的歧视。我们现在要讨论的是第一条第一款下的最惠国待遇，这不再是关于国内产品的问题。因此，这并不是对国内产业的歧视。这是对不同重要产品、不同原产地产品的歧视。正如我们在创建最惠国待遇时已经讨论过的那样，第一条参数在几份报告中被描述为一项普遍原则和内脏的基石，或者说是世贸组织贸易体系的失败之一。为什么呢？因为在此之前，世贸组织的贸易是可以避免的。你可以选择你的贸易伙伴。你可以说，我想不在这两个国家进行贸易，我不想与这两个国家进行贸易。anyone else, but now, because of an event, you need to trade with everyone under the same conditions, so you cannot pick and choose your trading partners. And as we remember, we said that during the negotiations about the concessions, the promises that were made for customs duties and tariffs, everything still applied. So you could not say to one country, I'm going to lower my tariffs for your products, but I'm going to keep them high for everyone else you want to give everyone the same treatment. So MFN, under Article One says, with respect to customs duties and charges of any kind imposed on or in connection with importation or exploitation or imposed on the international transfer pages or in person exports, and with respect to the method of getting substitution charges, rotation and with respect to all matters referred to markers two and four of Article Three, any advantage favored unit granted by any contracting party to any product originating even for any other country shall be accorded immediately, unconditionally to the life products originating in or destined for the territories of all other contracting parties. The long sentence gives us a lot of information. The entire third part, which said, with respect to this and that this is all the scope of application of MFN. The most important thing that we learned from this is that compared to national treatment, that only applies with respect to internal measures we discussed before, it wouldn't make sense to apply to border measures, because you cannot have discrimination at the border in favor of your message, there is de facto, by default discrimination. Border measures only applies to police violence. MSN applies to both border and intelligence. It applies with respect to customs duties and charges and methods of imposing such duties and anything that happens at the border. And it also applies with respect to all measures under paragraphs two and four particles. So measures both internal axis and in general regulations, it is very easy to understand why, if this is state A, these are the borders, and then we have state B and state C. You could disagree against state B and in favor of state C by saying, products from state C are going to pay 3% custom duty borders and products from state B are going to pay 30% custom duty. That would be a violation of MSN because they can be differently with respect to border measures. I could also say C can import as much as they want. B can only import up to 100,000 tones per year, it would be a quandary, mutation, again, mutation, because it only applies to B and not to C. All of these would be border measures, and that would be violations of N effect of the border. But you could also do the same for internal measures. Imagine if you said that 20% and products from state a VAT, 40% would be an internal measure, domestic product, but the way that you have created your VAP system, certain important products eliminated again. Take, for example, this case study that we just discussed. So we said that conventional cars are actually produced in Oakland, and hybrid cars are domestically produced. Imagine if hybrid cars were not only domestically produced, but they were also produced by about a third country, whatever land. In that case, this particular measure, which changes the sales tax in favor of hybrid cars, would not only benefit my domestic producers, but it would also benefit the producers of that other state than whatever land so the same measure would be both in favor of my domestic producers and in favor of that other foreign producer, but always to the old land. So that would be discriminating between both whatever and all land, and between all land and the domestic product. So that would be both a violation of national treatment and a violation of MFN. So MFN is applied to everything. Whenever there is discrimination between two different foreign countries, the products of those two different foreign countries, we could have potentially a violation of MFN, whether it's an internal measure or a border measure. And when it comes to internal measures, it is quite often that the very same measure is both a violation of MFN and national treatment, but national treatment is not applied to border measures, all the internal measures. So this is the second important difference in the scope of MFN and national treatment. National Treatment applies to discrimination between
但现在，由于一个事件，你需要在同样的条件下与所有人进行贸易，所以你不能挑选你的贸易伙伴。我们还记得，我们说过，在关于减让的谈判中，就关税和关税做出的承诺仍然适用。因此，你不能对一个国家说，我将降低对你的产品的关税，但我将保持对其他国家的高关税，你要给每个人同等待遇。因此，最惠国条款第一条规定，关于对进口或开采征收的或与进口或开采有关的任何种类的关税和费用，或对国际转让页面或个人出口征收的关税和费用，以及关于获得替代费用的方法、轮换和关于第三条标记二和标记四提及的所有事项，任何缔约方给予原产于甚至运往任何其他国家的任何产品的任何优惠单位，应立即、无条件地给予原产于或运往所有其他缔约方领土的生命产品。长长的一句话给了我们很多信息。整个第三部分说，关于这个和那个，这就是最惠国待遇的所有适用范围。我们从中了解到的最重要的一点是，与国民待遇相比，国民待遇只适用于我们之前讨论过的国内措施，适用于边境措施是没有意义的，因为你不能在边境上有有利于你的信息的歧视，这是事实上的、默认的歧视。边境措施只适用于警察暴力。MSN 既适用于边境措施，也适用于情报措施。 它适用于关税和收费、征收这些关税的方法以及在边境发生的任何事情。它也适用于第 2 段和第 4 段中的所有措施。因此，无论是内部轴心措施还是一般法规措施，都很容易理解为什么，如果这是 A 国，这些是边境，然后我们有 B 国和 C 国，你可以不同意 B 国的意见，而支持 C 国的意见，说 C 国的产品将支付 3% 的边境关税，而 B 国的产品将支付 30% 的关税。这就违反了 MSN，因为它们在边境措施方面可以有所不同。我还可以说，C 国想进口多少就可以进口多少。所有这些都是边境措施，都违反了边境的 N 效应。但你也可以对国内措施采取同样的做法。试想一下，如果你说 20%的增值税和来自国家的产品，40%的增值税将是一项内部措施，即国内产品，但你创建增值税制度的方式，某些重要的产品又被淘汰了。以我们刚才讨论的案例研究为例。我们说，传统汽车实际上是在奥克兰生产的，而混合动力汽车是在国内生产的。试想一下，如果混合动力汽车不仅在国内生产，而且还在第三国生产，不管是什么国家。 在这种情况下，改变销售税以支持混合动力汽车的这一特殊措施，不仅会使我国内的生产者受益，而且也会使其他国家的生产者受益，而不是什么土地，因此，同一措施既有利于我国内的生产者，也有利于其他外国生产者，但总是有利于旧的土地。因此，这既是对任何土地和所有土地的歧视，也是对所有土地和国内产品的歧视。因此，这既违反了国民待遇，也违反了最惠国待遇。因此，最惠国待遇适用于一切。只要两个不同的外国之间存在歧视，这两个不同的外国的产品之间存在歧视，我们就有可能违反最惠国待遇，无论是国内措施还是边境措施。说到国内措施，往往是同一项措施既违反了最惠国待遇又违反了国民待遇，但国民待遇并不适用于边境措施，而是适用于所有国内措施。因此，这是最惠国待遇和国民待遇范围的第二个重要区别。国民待遇适用于domestic and foreign products. MFN applies to discrimination amongst imported products different countries and also NASA driven applies only to MFN applies to both border and internal measures here On the scope and hybrid be, what would be that? Would it be a border? Is it an internal tax or an internal charge? Whoever? Is that it's a law, regulation or requirement that affects the internal, say, open source, a or purchase of the product. It is, it is prohibitive, right? It is not sufficient, but it may nonetheless be justified under the exception, because the products are like and the competitive relationship is upset. You give an incentive for them to buy something else. There are also problems under the loan subsidies for this particular measure, which we are not but of course, it is an internal measure it falls under now, any other questions on this, let's see what the test is under Article One, paragraph one, the eagle test based on two. Wording of Article One factor one is first of all, we need to show that it falls within this article one, so that it is either a border measure or an internal measure, any of all those with respect to blood and blood that we have in the COVID Then again, as in all previous tests, we need to show that the products are like products, like products in the complex of Article One, paragraph one is the same as in Article Three, paragraph four. So broad likeness. Why? Because, as in the case of Article Three, paragraph four, we don't have this difference between the two sentences that we see in Article Three, paragraph two. So the context is different, like mysterious broad, again, it includes both, like strict potential. And it is interesting to note that in the context of article one parameter one, we don't have a lot of case law. So caseload usually uses the analysis of reports under Article Three, paragraph four, for the purposes of likeness under Article One, paragraph one, because the scope of likeness and the two provisions is the same. So in your assessments, you can use both cases discussed in Article One, paragraph one, and case is discussed in Article Three. Paragraph four for your likeness analysis, but what you cannot use is the reports about Article Three. Paragraph two presented because likeness is different, and then you need to show that the measure, addition, confers an advantage, favor, privilege or immunity on a product originated of any country which court requirement is not extended immediately and unconditionally to all Other countries. So I provide an advantage, a better treatment to one WTO member, and I do not extend this immediately and unconditionally to all other WTO members. That's how we established a breach of benefit. So we need to show that it is either a border or an internal measure which applies to like products, and that some of these like products get an abundance privilege or immunity, which is not immediately an unconditionally extended to all other like products. We need to show not only that the products are like, but also that in the way that this applies, it amounts to discriminated, right, that one country gets an advantage and the other one doesn't. In most cases, this will be edited from the facts. So the product will be originating from state x, and then our product would be originated from state B or whatever. What is unadvantaged, favor, privilege or immunity. This is a very broad term any measure that creates more favorable competitive opportunities or affects a commercial relationship between products of different origin would be considered an advantage, privilege or immunity. For example, measures that are considered as an advance privileged unity would be market action being conditional upon the fulfillment of certain requirements for some countries and not for others. A tax reduction that applies for some and not others, an equal duty exemption creates differential right licensing procedure that only applies some products and other products, or any other kind of flexibility that you could provide in import procedures, such as exemptions from advanced declaration requirements or others. All of these have been found in cases, to provide advantage to one country and therefore affecting the competitive opportunities from another country. And as always, for all of our provisions in the WTO, this is not contingent upon actual trade effects. You don't need to show that this has actually harmed the products from certain countries.
最惠国条款适用于国内和国外产品。最惠国待遇适用于不同国家进口产品之间的歧视，也适用于 NASA 驱动的仅适用于最惠国待遇的边境和国内措施。是边境措施吗？是国内税还是国内费？是谁呢？是影响内部的法律、法规或要求，如开放源代码或购买产品。这是，这是禁止性的，对吗？这还不够，但在例外情况下，这可能是合理的，因为产品相似，竞争关系被打破。你鼓励他们购买其他产品。贷款补贴也有问题，我们没有采取这种特殊措施，但当然，这是一项内部措施，现在属于内部措施，还有其他问题吗？第 1 条第 1 款的措辞是：首先，我们需要证明它属于第 1 条的范围，因此，它要么是边境措施，要么是内部措施，要么是我们在 COVID 中关于血液和血液的所有措施，然后，与之前的所有测试一样，我们需要证明产品是同类产品，第 1 条第 1 款中的同类产品与第 3 条第 4 款中的同类产品相同。所以是广泛的相似性。为什么呢？因为在第 3 条第 4 款中，我们没有看到第 3 条第 2 款中两个句子之间的这种差异。因此，上下文是不同的，就像神秘的广义，同样，它包括两者，就像严格的潜在性。值得注意的是，在第 1 条参数 1 的情况下，我们没有很多判例法。 因此，案例通常使用第 3 条第 4 款下的报告分析，用于第 1 条第 1 款下的相似性，因为相似性的范围和这两个条款是相同的。因此，在评估中，您可以同时使用第一条第一款中讨论的案例和第三条中讨论的案例。第四段用于你的肖像分析，但你不能使用的是关于第三条的报告。第二段提出，因为相似性是不同的，然后你需要证明该措施、补充条款赋予了原产于任何国家的产品以优势、优惠、特权或豁免，而法院的要求并没有立即和无条件地扩展到所有其他国家。因此，我向一个世贸组织成员提供了一种优势、一种更好的待遇，但我并没有立即和无条件地将这种优势和待遇扩大到所有其他世贸组织成员。这就是我们如何确定违反利益的。因此，我们需要证明，这是一项适用于同类产品的边境措施或内部措施，其中一些同类产品获得了大量特权或豁免，而这些特权或豁免并没有立即和无条件地扩展到所有其他同类产品。我们不仅需要证明这些产品是同类产品，还需要证明在适用方式上，这相当于歧视，对吧，一个国家获得了优势，而另一个国家没有。在大多数情况下，这都是经过编辑的事实。因此，产品将来自 x 国，而我们的产品将来自 B 国或其他国家。什么是 "无优势"、"优惠"、"特权 "或 "豁免"？ 这是一个非常宽泛的术语，任何能创造更有利的竞争机会或影响不同原产地产品之间商业关系的措施都可被视为优势、特权或豁免。例如，被视为 "先行特权统一体 "的措施是，市场行动以某些国家满足某些要求为条件，而另一些国家则不满足这些要求。适用于某些国家而不适用于另一些国家的减税，平等免税，只适用于某些产品而不适用于另一些产品的差别权利许可程序，或在进口程序中可以提供的任何其他种类的灵活性，如免除预先申报要求或其他要求。所有这些在案例中都被发现为一个国家提供了优势，从而影响了另一个国家的竞争机会。与以往一样，对于我们在世贸组织的所有规定，这并不取决于实际的贸易效果。你不需要证明这实际上损害了某些国家的产品。You don't just show that the result has already happened. You just need to show that in the way that the matter is designed and applied, it can upset the equality competitive opportunities between the products. And again, as in all other cases, discrimination here can be the urech so the law itself the basis of origin, or it can be de facto, either way that it applies. For example, I just said before hybrid and conventional part, although this is origin neutral, it doesn't say domestic or cars from whatever land are getting an advantage. It says hybrid cars. We know that hybrid cars come from only these two countries, whereas the rest come from other countries. So in the way that this is applied, it results to origin based discrimination. Remember that for likeness, if origin is the only criteria, we don't even need to discuss it further, they are to view like if the only differentiating factor is on the basis of origin, they are automatically like products. We don't need to explain this further, because the only basis for distinguishing one from the other is origin, so all other things are identical. I'm skipping this slide because we've already explained this. The accordion of likeness here stretches we have a broad license test similar so both products that are close to being perfectly substitutable and products that are more broadly directly compared seen as alternative to satisfying the same need. All of this would meet the requirements of likeness under Article One, paragraph one, we do for Article Three, paragraph four. So all the Article Three, paragraph two, first sentence has a narrow likeness test because there's a second sentence that broadens the scope for direct COVID. So essentially, the scope of COVID is always it's just an Article Three, paragraph two, it is broken down into two separate tests directly compared to feasible products are always protected under all the provisions, 3234, and one, one. It's just that in three, two separate tests, depending on how close the competitive relationship is. And then, of course, we, after we have established that there is an advantage. We need to show that this advantage is not given to everyone, is not extended immediately and unconditionally, meaning without a one, instantly and without any condition to all other training partners. Excuse me, I should one of the most famous cases regarding MFN is the case of EC C provides. So the EU decided to be very sensitive about seeds, and they decided to ban the importation of seed products in 2009 so boats, oil, everything that is produced by the king of seal will bond. But they established certain exceptions, some exemptions from this general fund. The most important of these exemptions was an exemption that said that where the sea products resulted from hunts traditionally conducted by elite and other indigenous communities and contribute to their subsistence, then they qualify for an exemption. So they said, everything is bad unless it comes from indigenous communities, which traditionally hunt for states and they rely on this for their subsistence. And then Canada, though it challenged this exemption, saying that it discriminates against their own industries, because they say, Wait a second. Why are they allowed to hunt and sell silly products? And we are not this amounts discrimination because indigenous sellers are a very small part of our production in Norway and Canada, it is made by non Indigenous fishermen. These kind of activities are conducted, whereas in other places, such as Greenland or in Finland and Sweden, the same industry is almost entirely in and in some of these cases, right. They have commercial activity based on C what you're doing, essentially is you, it looks like you're caring for the indigenous community, but what you're doing is discriminatory. You are allowing some states to benefit from their existing commercial activity on skills, whereas disallowing other states from doing the same. What we think here, what is the test that we need to apply? What I didn't hear you. Okay. What is the problem here? Where do we need to go? Is it an internal measure or a boarded measure? Let's start with the basis. A border matter is an it's an import bond, right? So you cannot import anything. You can have import from the true part is true. But also there's another catch here this. This was not only an import ban, it was also a sales ban that was also applied domestic reasons in the UD, you will see that
你不仅要证明结果已经发生。你只需要证明，该问题的设计和应用方式会破坏产品之间的平等竞争机会。同样，与所有其他情况一样，这里的歧视可以是法律本身的歧视，也可以是事实上的歧视。例如，我刚才说到混合动力汽车和传统汽车，虽然这是原产地中立的，但并没有说国产汽车或来自任何国家的汽车会获得优势。它说的是混合动力汽车。我们知道，混合动力汽车只来自这两个国家，而其他汽车则来自其他国家。因此，按照这种应用方式，就会产生基于原产地的歧视。请记住，就相似性而言，如果原产地是唯一标准，我们甚至不需要进一步讨论，如果唯一的区分因素是原产地，它们就会被视为相似产品。我们不需要进一步解释这个问题，因为区分一个和另一个的唯一依据就是原产地，所以其他所有东西都是一样的。我跳过这张幻灯片，因为我们已经解释过了。这里的 "相似性手风琴 "表明，我们有一个广泛的类似许可测试，因此，无论是接近完全可替代的产品，还是更广泛的直接比较产品，都被视为满足相同需求的替代品。所有这些都符合第 1 条第 1 款关于相似性的要求，我们也符合第 3 条第 4 款的要求。因此，所有第三条第二款第一句都有一个狭义的相似性测试，因为第二句扩大了直接 COVID 的范围。 因此，从本质上讲，COVID 的范围始终只是第三条第二款，它被细分为两个独立的测试，直接与可行的产品相比，始终受到所有条款的保护，3234，和一个，一个。只是在三条中，根据竞争关系的密切程度，有两个不同的测试。当然，我们在确定存在优势之后。我们需要证明，这种优势并不是给所有人的，并不是立即和无条件地，也就是无一例外地，立即和无条件地扩展到所有其他训练伙伴的。对不起，关于最惠国待遇最著名的案例之一是欧共体 C 规定的案例。因此，欧盟决定对种子非常敏感，他们决定在 2009 年禁止进口种子产品，因此船、油、一切由海豹之王生产的产品都将受到限制。但是，他们规定了一些例外情况，即对这项普通基金的一些豁免。其中最重要的一项豁免规定是，如果海产品来自精英和其他土著社区的传统狩猎活动，并有助于他们的生计，那么这些海产品就有资格获得豁免。因此，他们说，除非来自土著社区，否则一切都不好，因为土著社区传统上是为国家狩猎，他们的生计依赖于此。加拿大对这一豁免提出质疑，认为这是对本国产业的歧视。为什么他们可以狩猎和销售愚蠢的产品？而我们并没有受到这种歧视，因为在挪威和加拿大，土著卖家只占产量的很小一部分，都是由非土著渔民生产的。 而在其他地方，比如格陵兰岛、芬兰和瑞典，同样的行业几乎完全存在，在某些情况下，是的。他们的商业活动是建立在C的基础上的，你所做的，本质上是你，看起来你在照顾土著社区，但你所做的是歧视性的。你允许某些州从他们现有的技能商业活动中获益，却不允许其他州做同样的事情。我们在这里是怎么想的，我们需要进行什么测试？我没听清楚。好吧。问题出在哪里？我们需要去哪里？是内部措施还是外部措施？让我们从基础开始。边境问题是进口关税，对吗？所以你不能进口任何东西。你可以从真正的部分进口，这是真的。但这里还有一个问题。这不仅是一项进口禁令，也是一项销售禁令，同样适用于 UD 的国内原因，你会看到one country so it was both a border measure and an internal measure, and we needed here to decide whether it is a quantitative restriction under Article 11 or an internal measure under Article Three, because it applied domestic and that foreign magic, foreign products, it will decide that this is Article Three, right? So if the bond is not only a border measure. It's not only a condition for importation. Applies equally to the same of so those projects within the jurisdictional state, then it is no longer arc, but it is rather art for free. Because, remember, we said that we need to look at where and when it is applied, but also why it is applied. Is it due to importation, or, more generally, due to an internal event? And most importantly, does it apply to only imported products or also domestic products? So actually, in this case, it is my fault, because I said in reality, with a ban on all C products, right? So my band will correct this slide. But the difference between article eight and Article Three is whether it applies horizontally to all products or only to important products at the border. So let's assume this is an internal measure the general fund which affects both domestic and important products and important product. Where do we need to go after that? Under which so this is both MSN and national treatment, because we said that MFN have led to respect to both internal and border letters. And then we also have national treatment. Why is it both because of something weird, right? So here we have Greenland, which is a semi autonomous region, so it is considered part of Denmark, where it is also considered as an area outside the EU, so country. And then we also have Finland and Sweden, which are part of the EU, so they're considered domestic projects. So we have discrimination, both amongst different countries. Countries, Greenland on the one hand, and Canada Norway on the other. And we have discriminated domestic products that these products from Finland and Sweden against Canada and Norway. So it is both discrimination under MFN and discrimination under national treatment, under Article Three for national treatment, we will need to go to Article Three, paragraph four. Regulation requirement. It's a general bond on the sale of this product. So it's not a charge of four for MFN one, paragraph one. And we say that this is within the scope of MFA as one of the measures that are covered under a likeness, right? This is the next step, and the likeness is the same in the two provisions. So this is easy for us, really. You need to do it once, the first one before the first one of the two provisions that we're going to analyze. And then when we reach our analysis, and just say that the same test applies with relevant are the products like here? Why is this the only reason you're absolutely right? So do I need to say all the stuff I don't, because the only criteria here is origin, right? Where do they come from? Do they come from an indigenous community which exists in certain countries? Do they come from something else? So in an origin based discrimination, so like this case, please view there's no other differentiating factor, solely that some of them come from indigenous communities which are using here. Is there a less favorable treatment under some of them are exempted from imported, from from the bond of importation. Is there an advantage favor or yes, the other ones is not traditionally So in both cases, we have a prima facie in the first place, a violation of MFA and national treatment. One, paragraph one and three, paragraph four, of course, the EU here try to bring the same argument that we discussed before. So the EU said these products are not alike, because I differentiate on the basis of a legitimate regulatory distinction. What is the legitimate regulatory distinction here the needs of indigenous communities? So I'm not discriminating on the basis that I want to protect an advantage to certain countries. It's not an origin based discrimination. I do it exclusively for a legitimate reason which is taking into consideration the needs of the indigenous, legitimate regulatory distinction. And of course, the panel of the apparel body said, No, that makes no sense. This is not what we look for in art of paper. For you can make all these arguments under the exceptions, but you cannot make regardless, in the context of blindness, nowhere in art, but require before the decision, then it's fine.
我们需要在这里决定它是第 11 条下的数量限制还是第 3 条下的内部措施，因为它适用于国内，而外国的魔法、外国的产品，它将决定这是第 3 条，对吗？因此，如果保税不仅仅是一项边境措施。它不仅是进口的条件。那么它就不再是弧线，而是免费的艺术。因为，请记住，我们说过，我们不仅要看适用的地点和时间，还要看适用的原因。是由于舶来品，还是更普遍的由于内部事件？最重要的是，它只适用于进口产品，还是也适用于国内产品？所以，实际上，在这种情况下，是我的错，因为我说的是在现实中，对所有 C 类产品实施禁令，对吗？因此，我的乐队将纠正这个幻灯片。但第八条和第三条的区别在于，它是横向适用于所有产品，还是只适用于边境的重要产品。因此，让我们假设这是一项内部措施，即对国内重要产品和重要产品都有影响的普通基金。在这之后，我们需要去哪里？因为我们说过，最惠国待遇导致了对国内和边境信件的尊重。然后我们还有国民待遇。为什么既是 MSN 又是国民待遇呢？格陵兰是一个半自治的地区，所以它被认为是丹麦的一部分，也被认为是欧盟以外的地区，所以是一个国家。然后我们还有芬兰和瑞典，它们是欧盟的一部分，所以它们被认为是国内项目。 因此，不同国家之间都存在歧视。一方面是格陵兰，另一方面是加拿大和挪威。我们对芬兰和瑞典的国内产品以及加拿大和挪威的产品实行歧视。因此，这既是最惠国待遇下的歧视，也是国民待遇下的歧视，根据国民待遇第三条，我们需要查看第三条第四款。条例要求。这是销售该产品的一般保证金。因此，这不是最惠国待遇第一条第一款的四项收费。我们说，这是在外交部的范围内，作为一个相似性所涵盖的措施之一，对不对？这是下一步，两个条款中的相似性是相同的。因此，这对我们来说很容易，真的。你只需要做一次，在我们要分析的两条规定中的第一条之前做一次。然后，当我们进行分析时，就说同样的测试适用于相关的产品，这里的产品是什么样的？为什么这就是你绝对正确的唯一理由？所以我需要说所有我不需要说的东西吗？因为这里唯一的标准就是原产地，对吗？它们来自哪里？他们来自某些国家的原住民社区吗？他们来自其他地方吗？因此，在基于原籍的歧视中，就像这个案例一样，请注意，没有其他区别因素，只有他们中的一些人来自这里使用的土著社区。他们中的一些人被免于进口，免于进口保税，这是否是一种较差的待遇？因此，在这两种情况下，我们首先有一个初步证据，即违反了 MFA 和国民待遇。 第一，第一段和第三，第四段，当然，欧盟在这里试图提出我们之前讨论过的同样的论点。因此，欧盟说这些产品不一样，因为我是根据合法的监管区别来区分的。这里的合法监管区别是什么，是土著社区的需求吗？因此，我并不是因为要保护某些国家的优势而进行歧视。这不是基于出身的歧视。我这样做完全是出于一个合法的理由，即考虑到土著的需要，合法的监管区别。当然，服装机构的专家小组说，不，这没有道理。这不是我们所追求的纸上艺术。因为你可以在例外情况下提出所有这些论据，但你不能不管不顾，在盲目的情况下，在艺术中无处不在，但要求在决定之前，那么它的罚款。They don't say that. They say very clear things we will try to make here in the lectures. But they do say set the specific things with respect to this test, and a legitimate regular distinction is not part of the test. This line of argument was rejected. They said, This measure is in violation of MFN and national treatment. And you can make this kind of arguments under the exceptions as we will discuss when we discuss exceptions, indeed, the European Union tries to justify it on the basis of and also for the protection of indigenous communities. So it should be fine. There is no problem. This defense will be rejected on the basis of other reasons that we will discuss in a couple of weeks. I weeks. Okay, I have three minutes, but I'll come back to that on the third there's another huge debate here about likeness, and that huge debate is about process and production methods. So two products may look identical, but they may be produced in very different ways. This is very important for a lot of contemporary considerations such as human rights violations and environmental protection. So two products may be virtually identical, but one of them may be produced with environmental friendly techniques, or it may have a very low environmental footprint, no emission, blah, blah, blah, or it may be a product from an open business, or from a woman owned business, or a black owned business, so important consideration which have nothing to do with the final characteristics of liberal one may be actually produced by forced labor or by huge violations of the liberal law. And the other one may be produced in a very friendly and sustainable manner by local business, etc, etc. All of these are process and production methods. Most of the times are non product related, so they do not decide any difference. In some cases, the production an effect on the final product, where virtual ingredients or different results in different characteristics of the final product, different taste, different quality, maybe, but in most cases, they do not result. I'm going to give you the general rule, and then we're going to go a little bit further on Friday as to why, but the general rule is that when these process and production methods do not affect the characteristics of the final product, they do not affect the items, so the products will stay behind, Even if the process and production methods are very different, unless production method has an effect in the final practices of the project. Or we can prove that because of the different production methods, consumers perceive them very differently. So for example, in a certain market, consumers only buy products that are produced in an environmental impact, or they only buy products that are certified that will be cruelty free, or that they are certified that they are made with by like a really high environmental and labor standards, to explain why nurses are rather Stein, thank you very much, Steve versus 400, exercise, please look, forget it. There's a form of exercises on Blackboard about writing a short par group on brightness.
他们没有这么说。它们说得很清楚，我们将在讲座中努力加以说明。但他们确实说了关于这一检验标准的具体内容，而合法的常规区分并不是检验标准的一部分。这一论点遭到了否决。他们说，这项措施违反了最惠国待遇和国民待遇。你可以在例外情况下提出这样的论据，我们将在讨论例外情况时进行讨论，事实上，欧盟试图以保护土著社区为由为其辩护。所以应该没问题。没有问题。我们将在几周后讨论的其他理由中驳回这一辩护。I weeks.好的，我有三分钟时间，但我会在第三分钟再谈这个问题，这里还有一个关于相似性的大辩论，这个大辩论是关于工艺和生产方法的。因此，两件产品可能看起来一模一样，但它们的生产方式可能截然不同。这一点对当代的许多问题都非常重要，如侵犯人权和环境保护。因此，两件产品可能几乎完全相同，但其中一件可能是用环保技术生产的，或者对环境的影响非常小，没有排放，等等等等，或者可能是开放企业的产品，或者是妇女拥有的企业的产品，或者是黑人拥有的企业的产品，这些重要的考虑因素与自由主义的最终特征无关。而另一种可能是当地企业以非常友好和可持续的方式生产的，等等。所有这些都是工艺和生产方式。 大多数情况下，生产与产品无关，因此不会产生任何差异。在某些情况下，生产会对最终产品产生影响，虚拟成分或不同的结果会导致最终产品的不同特性、不同的口味、不同的质量，也许是这样，但在大多数情况下，它们不会产生影响。我先给大家讲讲一般规则，然后我们周五再进一步讲讲为什么，但一般规则是，当这些工艺和生产方法不影响最终产品的特性时，它们不会影响项目，所以产品会留下来，即使工艺和生产方法有很大不同，除非生产方法对项目的最终实践有影响。或者，我们可以证明，由于生产方法不同，消费者对它们的看法也大相径庭。例如，在某个市场上，消费者只购买对环境有影响的产品，或者他们只购买经过认证的产品，这些产品将是无公害的，或者他们经过认证，这些产品是由像真正高的环境和劳工标准制造的，来解释为什么护士们都比较斯坦恩，非常感谢，史蒂夫与400，练习，请看，算了吧。黑板上有一个练习表格，是关于写一篇关于亮度的短文。