Editorial

Citation

Alramahi, M. (2012), "Editorial", Journal of International Trade Law and Policy, Vol. 11 No. 1. https://doi.org/10.1108/jitlp.2012.41911aaa.001

Editorial

Article Type: Editorial From: Journal of International Trade Law and Policy, Volume 11, Issue 1

I am delighted to be able to present this latest issue of the Journal of International Trade Law and Policy. Markets worldwide are continuously witnessing swift waves of change. The ability to adapt to changes and maintaining competitive edge in the world of trade is accomplished through several means. One important backbone is relentlessly revising and improving any obsolete laws and legal framework governing flow of trade between countries and trade zones.

This issue sheds light through five different manuscripts on schemes and mechanisms affecting trade implemented by legal and international bodies as well as trade agreements and negotiations between leading economies worldwide. First, Dr Qiao Liu and Xiang Ren critically evaluate certain key articles of the Agreement of the International Monetary Fund with a focus on the free transfer provision, which permits funds to move freely in and out of the host state. This has been constantly a major obstacle to negotiations between China and the USA on bilateral investment treaties. This manuscript entitled “Transfer of funds in China-USA BIT negotiation: comparing the Articles of Agreement of the IMF” examines the international legal framework and suggests several tactics which China may take in the negotiation with the USA. The next manuscript entitled “False dichotomies in commercial contract interpretation” by Professor Larry A. DiMatteo. This manuscript was originally presented at the commercial and contract law session of Society of Legal Scholars 2011 Annual Meeting in Cambridge, UK. In this paper Professor DiMatteo examines the four well-known dichotomies of commercial contract interpretation in the literature of contract law, namely formalism-realism, literalism-contextualism, facilitation-regulation, and rules-standards. He argues that these are false dichotomies in that both poles of each dichotomy play a role in the interpretation and enforcement of commercial contract. The ultimately practical question to ask is whether contracting parties have agreed on how the contract is to be interpreted by the court. The third manuscript entitled “The right to reject for short delivery and termination” is authored by Dr Sean Thomas. This work was also presented at the commercial and contract law session of Society of Legal Scholars 2011 meeting in Cambridge, UK. Dr Thomas examines one of the thorny issues in English Sale of Goods Act 1979, the nature of the right to reject goods. There has been a great deal of confusion in both case law and academic literature on the question whether the exercise of the right to reject goods for short delivery by a buyer automatically terminates the contract. Dr Thomas argues that excising the right to reject for short delivery necessitates termination of the contract and that to clarify this area of law, the s. 30(1) Sale of Goods Act 1979 should entitle the buyer to terminate the entire contract if the seller has no opportunity to cure his shortfall in delivery by retendering. The fourth paper entitled “The effectiveness of EU’s generalised system of preferences: evidence from ASEAN countries” is co-authored by Weifeng Zhou and Professor Ludo Cuyvers. This work examines the evolution and effectiveness of EU’s GSP in promoting export growth and economic development, by closely studying imports of the EU from ASEAN beneficiary countries under the scheme in question. The methodology of analysis relied on examining trade flows for a specific time period between 1990 and 2007. The trade flows were analyzed at the aggregate level, the sectoral level and then finally at the individual beneficiary country level. The authors argue that the GSP has rendered limited effectiveness in accomplishing some of its goals. This is mainly attributed to the finding that despite the increase in the total imports in the time period studied; preferential imports under the GSP scheme had not increased substantially. The fifth paper entitled “Strengthening the WTO by replacing trade retaliation with stronger informal remedies” by Claus D. Zimmermann argues that trade retaliation should not be replaced by similar problematic measures in the dispute resolution mechanism implemented by WTO. The work reviews proposals suggested for the reform of the WTO remedies. Furthermore, it analyzes feasibility, in both economic and legal aspects, of any alternatives which may be adopted in the dispute resolution measures. The major findings highlighted by Zimmerman focus on and analyze viability of current dispute settlement measures such as avoidance of reparation for past losses, and others suggested such as the switch to alternative remedy of mandatory trade compensation instead of proportional countermeasures.

The mix of manuscripts in this issue is a fascinating one and I thank all the contributors for their efforts.

We hope this issue is enlightening and assists you with perspectives of professionals in the field of trade law and economics and that we remain true in our mission of being reliable, objective source of information to you. As a young and a growing Journal, we are capable of thinking and acting differently. Should any of you have an interesting idea for a special issue, or a provocative idea that needs a venue, please do not hesitate to send me an e-mail.

To increase the international reach of the Journal and ensure quality publications, I have welcomed a number of eminent scholars from around the world to join our board of reviewers. I would like to extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to the new and existing reviewers that have volunteered their time and energy over the past year to assist the journal in this respect. Moreover, a warm gratitude to our editorial board members for their reliable, continuing support to the journal.

Last but not least; I would like to thank and extend my appreciation to the Journal’s publisher Matthew Burton along with our Assistant publisher Joanna Alexander; and my colleague and Assistant Editor Dr Qi George Zhou for his profound assistance and support generally and specifically for his hard work in producing this issue.

It is my hope that we, the readers, contributors, and editors of the Journal of International Trade Law and Policy, can work together to add a little more colour, variation, and inspiration to the world of international trade law and policy.

Mohammad Alramahi