首页> 外文期刊>Journal of world trade >The Front Polisario Verdict and the Gap Between the EU's Trade Treatment of Western Sahara and Its Treatment of the Occupied Palestinian Territories
【24h】

The Front Polisario Verdict and the Gap Between the EU's Trade Treatment of Western Sahara and Its Treatment of the Occupied Palestinian Territories

机译:前波里萨里奥判决与欧盟对西撒哈拉的贸易待遇与对巴勒斯坦被占领土的待遇之间的差距

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Morocco's control over Western Sahara and Israel's control of the West Bank bear similar features in terms of public international law. Yet, when it comes to the application of its Common Commercial Policy, the EU has been treating the two cases differently. With respect to Israel, the EU determined that the 1995 EU-Israel Association Agreement is not applicable to the West Bank and Gaza Strip, thereby denying Israel any trade benefits with respect to the Territories, whereas for many years it insisted that its 1996 Association Agreement with Morocco is applicable to occupied Western Sahara, thereby enabling Morocco and Moroccan corporations to enjoy trade benefits with respect to Western Sahara. The willingness of the EU to pursue its CCP vis-a-vis Morocco and Western Sahara (de facto application with no de jure recognition) in a manner inconsistent with, if not contradictory to its practice towards Israel and the West Bank and Gaza Strip (no application and no recognition), raised much criticism. In December 2016 the European Court of Justice adopted a verdict that rejects the applicability of the EU-Morocco Association Agreement to Western Sahara (The Front Polisario Verdict). This article aims to (1) analyse the gap between the EU's trade policy and practice in these two cases and the legal and other implications thereof, and (2) address the question whether the verdict in Front Polisario eliminates this gap. Within this context, the article analyses the interface between the CCP and international law. In tackling these themes, the article will contribute, more broadly, to scholarship dealing with the interface between public international law (including issues of statehood, occupation and self-determination) and international trade, with specific reference to the applicability of international trade agreements to disputed and occupied territories.
机译:就国际公法而言,摩洛哥对西撒哈拉的控制和以色列对西岸的控制具有相似的特征。但是,在实施其共同商业政策时,欧盟对这两种情况的处理有所不同。关于以色列,欧盟确定1995年《欧盟-以色列联合协定》不适用于西岸和加沙地带,从而剥夺了以色列与该领土有关的任何贸易利益,而多年来,它坚持认为其1996年《联合协定》与摩洛哥的协定适用于被占领的西撒哈拉,从而使摩洛哥和摩洛哥公司享有与西撒哈拉有关的贸易利益。欧盟愿意以与摩洛哥,以色列和西岸和加沙地带的做法不相抵触甚至不相抵触的方式,对摩洛哥和西撒哈拉实行CCP(事实上的申请,没有法律上的承认)没有申请,也没有认可),引起了很多批评。 2016年12月,欧洲法院通过了一项裁决,驳回了《欧盟-摩洛哥协会协议》对西撒哈拉的适用性(前波里萨里奥案判决)。本文旨在(1)分析这两种情况下欧盟的贸易政策和惯例之间的差距以及其法律和其他含义,(2)解决前波里萨里奥案中的裁决是否消除了这一差距的问题。在此背景下,本文分析了中共与国际法之间的关系。在解决这些主题时,本条将为涉及国际公法(包括国家地位,占领和自决问题)与国际贸易之间的关系的奖学金做出更广泛的贡献,并特别提及国际贸易协定对以下方面的适用性:有争议和被占领的领土。

著录项

  • 来源
    《Journal of world trade》 |2018年第4期|619-642|共24页
  • 作者

    Harpaz Guy;

  • 作者单位

    Hebrew Univ Jerusalem, European Law, Law Fac, Jerusalem, Israel;

  • 收录信息
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号