Chapter One
Case Study for a Brief Introduction to International Trade
国际贸易简介案例
Part One  Selected Analysis of Case Study 
第一部分  案例精选
Case 1  US-India Wool Fabric Dispute  
Case Description: 
The United States imposed interim protection measures, from April 18th, 1995, to restrict imports of wool fabric for men’s and women’s shirts from India. Before the measures’ implementation, the United States and India had discussed the possibly serious damage to U.S. domestic enterprises resulting from the import of wool fabric for men’s and women's shirts. The two sides did not reach a satisfactory solution. So India submitted the case to the World Trade Organization for settlement.
Question: 
Will the United States remove the interim protection measures?
案例1  美—印羊毛织物摩擦案
案情介绍：
美国强制实行了过渡性保护措施，从1995年4月18日开始限制进口印度的羊毛制品——男式衬衣和女式衬衣。在措施实施以前，美国和印度就前者的主张，进口羊毛织物男式衬衣和女式衬衣可能会对美国国内企业引起的严重损害进行了磋商。由于磋商没有产生令人满意的解决办法，印度就把案件提交给世贸组织解决。
问题：
美国会撤销过渡性保护措施吗？

Answer:
In examining the facts, the experts group found that the United States did not review all the economic variables listed in Article VI of the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing, when determining whether import increase will damage its domestic enterprises. When determining the causal link between detriment of domestic enterprises and the increased imports, all these variables must be taken into account. The United States also did not analyze whether the damage was due to changes in customer preferences or technical upgrade as required by the provision. The group concluded that the interim protection measures implemented by the United States were contrary to the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing obligations. The United States followed the resolutions of the experts group and removed the interim protection measures. 
The Agreement on Textiles and Clothing requires discriminatory restrictions on imports of textiles and clothing should be removed gradually in the 10-year period, the completing date is January 1st, 2005. Although the protocol aims to promote the lifting of these restrictions, it allows importing countries to adopt transitional measures of protection to restrict imports if imports of certain types of textile products bring a “serious risk of harm, or constitute a real threat” to domestic firms producing the same products. Article VI of the agreement listed some economic factors (for example, production, productivity, capacity utilization, inventories, market share, exports, wages, employment, domestic market prices, profits and investment changes). In judging whether the increase of imports will cause any damage, these factors must be taken into account. The agreement further provides that if serious damage or actual threat is caused by other factors, such as technical updates or customer preferences changes, such protection measures shall not be enforceable.
回答：
在审核事实之后，专家组发现，在认定增加进口是否会引起对国内企业的损害时，美国没有审查在《纺织品与服装协议》第6条中列出的全部经济变数。在认定损害国内企业和增加进口之间因果关系时，必须把这些变数考虑进去。美国也没有像条款要求的那样审查对国内企业的损害是不是顾客喜好变化或技术更新的结果。因而，专家组得出结论，美国实施临时性保护措施，违背了《纺织品与服装协议》规定的义务。美国执行了专家组的决议，撤销了过渡性保护措施。 
《纺织品与服装协议》要求对进口纺织品和服装进行歧视性限制的国家在10年期限内逐步取消限制，结束时间是2005年1月1日。虽然协议的目标是促进取消这些限制，但是如果某些种类纺织品的进口对生产同类产品的本国企业带来了“严重损害的危险或构成了实际威胁”，它也允许进口国采取过渡性的保护措施限制进口。协议的第6条列举了诸多经济因素（例如，产量、生产效率、产能的利用、库存、市场份额、出口、工资、就业、国内市场价格、利润和投资方面的变化），在决定增加进口是否会引起损害时，这些因素都必须考虑进去。协议还进一步规定，如果严重损害或实际威胁是由其他因素引起的，例如，技术更新或顾客喜好的变化，此类保护措施不得强行实施。
Case 2  Whether or not GATT has been Violated
Case Description: 
Country A notifies Country B that Country B is forbidden to export mutton to Country A. The reason is that mutton hormone content exceeds the allowed amount, which will affect people’s health. After investigation, Country B finds out that the mutton hormone content is as same amount as that in Country A, and Country B also gets the information that Country A is unceasingly importing the similar quality mutton from Country C.
The Country B believes that Country A has violated the GATT principles and their benefits have been violated. 
Country A refutes that they adopt the measures which do not violate the GATT principles, but belong to the general exception to be permitted.
Questions:
1．Do you think Country A has violated the GATT principles? What kind of principles? Why? 
2．Do you think Country A’s rebuttal is right? Why?
案例2  是否违反了GATT规则
案情介绍：
A国通知B国，禁止从B国进口羊肉，理由是羊肉的荷尔蒙含量超标，影响国民的身体健康。B国经过调查发现，A国境内销售的羊肉荷尔蒙含量与B国羊肉的荷尔蒙含量是一样的。还发现，A国还不断从C国进口同样质量的羊肉。
B国认为A国违反了GATT原则，他们的利益受到了侵害。
A国反驳，他们采取的措施是不违反DATT原则的，是属于一般例外所允许的。
问题：
1．A国的做法是否违反了GATT的原则？违反了哪条原则？为什么？
2．A国反驳的理由对不对？为什么？

Answer:
1．Country A’s procedure has violated the most-favored nation treatment principle of GATT.
The most-favored nation treatment principle means: A member gives the preferential benefits in customs duty or other aspects to another member’s any imported native products, and must give unconditionally to the same imported products originating in other members.
The essence of the most-favored nation treatment principle requests the WTO members not to take the discrimination treatment to those same products imported from or exported to different member countries in the implementation preferential benefit or the limit aspect. This is the multilateral trade rule cornerstone and also the multilateral trading system livelihood legal base.
2．Country A’s rebuttal is not right.
About general exception, the item 1 of Article 20 in GATT stipulates: The necessary measures that the contracting party adopts in order to safeguard the people’s health and the safety of plant and animal life belong to the general exception. 
Country A not only allows to sell the mutton that has the same quality with the mutton from Country B, but also imports the same quality mutton from Country C. So it cannot use the general exception clause.
回答：
1．A国的做法违反了GATT的最惠国待遇原则。
最惠国待遇原则含义是：一成员就任何一项原产于另一成员的进口产品给予另一成员在关税或其他方面的优惠，必须立即无条件地给予原产于其他成员相同或类似的进口产品。 
最惠国待遇原则的本质是要求WTO成员不得对来自或出口到不同成员国的相同或类似的进出口产品在实施优惠或限制方面实行歧视待遇，它是多边贸易规则的基石，也是多边贸易体制赖以生存的法律基础。
2．A国反驳的理由不对。
关于一般例外，GATT第20条第1款规定：缔约方采取的为保障人民、动植物生命健康所必需的措施，属于一般例外。
A国一方面在自己国内允许销售同样质量的羊肉，另一方面又进口C国同样质量的羊肉。所以，不可以引用一般例外条款。
Case 3  Misunderstanding Caused by Cultural Differences
Case Description:
In November 1998, the Germany Daimler-Benz’s acquisition of one of the three U.S. auto makers, Chrysler Corporation, was thought by the world media as the “marriage of heaven”. Daimler-Benz AG, which is one of the strongest companies of Germany, is known to the world as the brand owner of “Mercedes”. Chrysler is the biggest among the three U.S. auto makers in making profits and is the most efficient company.
It was believed that this was the most powerful combined strength across the Atlantic and it would be a ride to be an invincible giant at the world auto market. Who would have thought, however, that this “hopeful and powerful marriage” did not seem to be happy. Mergers and acquisitions failed to achieve the desired goal of the company. By 2001, the company’s loss amounted to 2 billion U.S. dollars. Its stock prices were way down, and laid off its staff. The company’s running has been in a very difficult situation. 
Question:
Why did good prospects turn out to be a failure?
案例3  因文化差异而引发的误解
案情介绍：
1998年11月，德国戴姆勒-奔驰公司并购美国三大汽车公司之一的克莱斯勒公司，被全球舆论界誉为“天作之合”。戴姆勒-奔驰公司是德国实力最强的企业，是扬名世界的“梅赛德斯”品牌的所有者。克莱斯勒则是美国三大汽车制造商中盈利能力最强、效率最高的公司。
人们认为，这宗跨越大西洋的强强联合定会成就一个驰骋世界汽车市场，所向无敌的巨无霸。然而谁会想到，这桩“婚姻”似乎并不美满，并购后并没有实现公司预期的目标。到2001年，公司的亏损额达到20亿美元，股价也一路下滑，并且裁减员工，公司的发展一直都很艰难。
问题：
为什么美好预期结果却失败了？

Answer:
The experts believe that cultural differences between the two companies at different sides of the Atlantic companies are main causes why the merger turns out to be a failure. Daimler-Benz CEO Schrempp failed to realize that there were many differences in organizational structure, pay system, or the corporate culture. So he would adopt the management methods usually used in Germany to run the newly merged corporation. In management system, most of the members in the board are Germans. But he would say to the media that the merger is a merger of equals, which made the Chrysler U.S. employees not know what to do. Furthermore, Schrempp fired Chrysler CEO who was a M&A Integration Manager during that time shortly after the merger. All this led Chrysler employees to generate the feeling of hostility. As a result, a lot of good American designers and senior managers left to Ford, General Motors or other auto companies. In this way, it is not hard to understand why merger once to be known as the “the merger of the perfect match” at last turns out to be a failure.
回答：
专业人士认为，大西洋两岸不同文化差异的冲突是这场婚姻危机的根本原因。戴姆勒-奔驰公司的CEO施伦普一开始没有意识到两家企业无论在组织结构、薪酬制度，还是企业文化上都有很大差异，他却采用德国的完全控制方式把克莱斯勒当成一个部门来看待。在公司管理制度上，董事会结构成员都是以德国人为主。但是，他却在媒体上说：“这是一次平等的合并。”这使克莱斯勒的美国员工无所适从。再加上，施伦普在企业合并不久就解雇了作为并购整合经理的克莱斯勒总裁，使克莱斯勒员工产生敌对情绪，许多优秀的美国设计师、高级管理人员纷纷离职投奔福特、通用汽车或其他汽车公司。这样，也就不难理解为什么这次一开始被称为“天作之合”的并购最后如此失败。
Case 4  Why Spanish Burned Chinese Shoes
Case Description：
Elche, a town in Spain became the focus of the global on September 14th, 2004, because the value of nearly 10 000 000 dollars “made in China” shoes had been burned by a local illegal group. 
This was the first serious violation of Chinese legal rights on trade in the history of Spain.
Question:
Why did the incident happen to Chinese shoes?
案例4  为什么西班牙人要烧毁中国鞋
案情介绍：
2004年9月14日，西班牙小镇埃尔切由于近1 000万美元价值的“中国制造”鞋被当地不法集团烧毁而变成了全球关注的焦点。
这是西班牙有史以来第一起严重侵犯华商合法权益、野蛮排斥华人的暴力事件。
问题：
为什么会发生此次火烧中国鞋的事件呢？

Answer:
On one hand, Chinese shoes manufacturers do not comply with local business hours, they also open doors on Sunday and holiday, particularly for long hours each day and sometimes even unloading work is done at midnight. Such acts are not only contrary to the local business traditions but also not allowed by its law.
On the other hand, the Chinese manufacturers are lack of public awareness and social responsibility. They contact with the local social integration, but unwilling to participate in local community activities and return for the local community. They look like living in “a country of islands”.
Wenzhou which is the earliest forerunner of Chinese market economy relies on flexible measures and dose not observe the rules of walking a fine line, but takes bold adventure of the natural disposition.
This has been deeply implanted in the soul of Wenzhou and even becomes a social culture in China. That is quite different to Spain where the Spanish are accustomed to rules.
Despite the extraordinary ability of manufacturers to defeat their counterparts in Spain, troubles caused by conflicts of different cultures would defeat themselves.
回答：
一方面，中国鞋商不遵守当地的营业时间，星期天和节假日也敞开大门营业，特别是每天长时间开门营业，有时候甚至在午夜装卸货物。这种行为不仅不符合当地的传统贸易习惯，而且也违反了当地的法律。
另一方面，中国制造商的公共意识和社会责任感淡薄。他们接触了当地社会，但不愿在当地社区参与活动，以及回馈当地社区。他们就像生活在一个“独立王国”。
温州作为中国市场经济最早的先行者，依赖于灵活方式，不遵守当地行规，采取的是大胆冒险的做法。
而这一点已经深深根植于温州商人的灵魂中，甚至已成为一种中国社会文化。而西班牙完全不是这样，西班牙人习惯以规则为活动基础。
尽管生产商们有非凡能力击败西班牙的同行，但是文化之间的冲突所造成的麻烦同样能够带来不可小视的麻烦。
Case 5  Animal Protection Case
Case Description：
Sea turtles were ranked as the highest level protected endangered rare animals in “Convention on International Trade Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora” in 1970s. In the past, sea turtles manslaughter during shrimp trawling was the number 1 threat to the survival of the rare animal. In order to protect rare sea turtles, the U.S. Congress passed “Endangered Species Act” in 1973, all kinds of possession, processing and hurt by mistakenly shrimp trawl for marine turtles were listed as illegal. In 1989, the United States added one more article in the Act——Article 609 in order to encourage other countries to use TED——turtle escape device. This device can help to enhance the shrimp catch, and also to enable the strayed turtles to escape from the shrimp nets (escape rate of 97%). The meaning of the article was to promote the use of TED in other countries to improve the degree of protection of sea turtles. In certain sea areas, if a country’s shrimp net was not equipped with the TED, or a country failed to reach the standards of the United States to protect sea turtles, the United States would ban the imports of wild shrimp and shrimp products captured by that country. 
In 1996, the United States extended this prohibition to all countries, which triggered trade disputes. More than 20 countries filed complaints with WTO, asking the WTO or as the third party to intervene. Complaining party believed that the U.S. legislation to protect sea turtles deserved recognition and support, but if the United States prohibited imports of shrimp products captured from countries without similar legislation, it constituted a unilateral action to apply domestic law globally, which endangered the multilateral free trade principles and injured other countries.
Question:
What is your opinion?
案例5  动物保护案例
案情介绍：
海龟是被20世纪70年代的《濒危野生动植物物种国际贸易公约》列入最高级别保护的濒危珍稀动物。以往，海洋拖网捕虾作业中对海龟的误杀是这一珍稀动物生存的最大威胁。为了保护珍稀的海龟，美国国会在1973年通过的《濒危物种法案》中将各种占有、加工和为海洋拖网捕虾所误害的海龟视为非法。1989年，美国在这一法案的修正中又增加了推动其他国家使用既能够提升海虾捕获量，又能使误入捕虾网的海龟得以逃生（逃生率97%）的海龟排离器（TED）的条款（即609条款）。该条款的含义是，推动其他国家使用TED提高海龟的保护程度。在一定的海域内，如果某国的捕虾网上没有使用海龟排离器，或没有达到美国保护海龟的标准，美国将禁止从该国进口捕获的野生虾及虾类制品。
1996年，美国又将这一禁止扩大到一切国家，由此引发了贸易争议，20多个国家向世贸组织提出申诉或作为第三方介入。申诉方认为，美国立法保护海龟值得肯定、支持，但若其他国家没有类似立法，美国便禁止从这些国家进口捕获的野生虾类产品，属于国内法律域外适用的单边行为，危害了多边自由贸易的原则，并给其他国家造成了损失。 
问题：
你的观点是什么？

Answer:
The expert committee established by the Trade Dispute Settlement Body rejected the report and supporting evidence from many of the world animal protection and environment organizations, and decided that the United States lost the case, and its Article 609 violated the principle of free trade in the world. The U.S. was not allowed to refer to the GATT exception article “effective protection of exhaustible natural resources” and its Article 609 must be modified. The U.S. did not accept the ruling and lodged an appeal. In October 1998, the WTO’s Appellate Body rejected the expert committee’s opinion, stating that the committee should not refuse the report and evidence from other international organizations, and the United States could refer to the “exhaustible natural resources” principle, but in the implementation of its article, there were some unreasonable arbitrary differential treatment which was contrary to the spirit of GATT. 
The key of this case is whether it’s legal for the United States to adopt trade sanctions to strengthen environmental protection. Another question is whether environment protection has become another form of trade barriers. Nowadays, people all know that the maintenance of the world trade liberalization is an important task of WTO, the policy objectives of WTO are to advocate free trade, and oppose member states to take unilateral trade restrictive measures to achieve other policy objectives. In order to achieve its policy objectives, WTO covers many areas, and with the economic development, the areas touched by WTO will be more extensive. Environment and trade issue is one of the new topics.
回答： 
贸易争议解决机构成立的专家组拒绝了世界许多动物保护与环保组织提供的佐证意见（协助报告），判定美国败诉，其609条款违背了世界自由贸易原则，不能援引GATT中“有效保护可耗竭天然资源”的例外条款，必须予以修改。经美国上诉，1998年10月，世贸组织的上诉机构并未同意专家组的意见，认为专家组不能拒绝其他国际组织的协助报告，美国援引“可耗竭天然资源”的条款成立，但在执行中存在着不合理的差别待遇，过于武断，违背了GATT的精神。 
这个案例的关键是，美国采用贸易交叉制裁来强化环境保护是否合法，而问题的另一方面是保护环境是否已经成为贸易壁垒另一种形式。今天，人们都知道维护世界贸易的自由化是世贸组织的重要任务，世界贸易组织就是维护自由贸易优先、反对成员国采取单方面的贸易限制措施来达到贸易之外的政策目标。为了达到其政策目标，WTO制约着许多领域，并随着经济的发展向更多的领域扩展，环境与贸易问题就是其中的一个新议题。 
Case 6  South Korea Liquor Tax Case
Case Description：
According to the Korea liquor tax law, South Korea levied 35% tax on the domestic soju, while tax on other imports distilled spirits (whiskey, vodka, rum, etc.) was 100%. EU and U.S. believed that South Korea violated Article 2 in Section III of GATT 1947——the national treatment provisions of the domestic tax. The key issue in this case was to determine whether the whiskey, vodka and other distilled spirits were the same products as the traditional Korean soju. According to Article 2 in Section III of GATT, only when the tax for the imported product is higher than the same domestic products, is it considered a violation of the national treatment principle. For different products, of course, different tax is taken for granted. 
In preparation stage, the South Korea attorney consulted the Japanese experts (Japan had a similar case before) what kind of persons was suitable to be the experts of this case. Japan gave a very practical suggestion: Since the case was about alcohol, the experts should be people who drink alcohol. They could tell the difference between whiskey and soju. In addition, Korea believed that in order to prove the soju and whiskey were not the same products, the price difference should be identified. Whiskey was 12 times expensive than soju. In accordance with the general rules of anti-trust law, since the price gap between the two products was so huge, they were not competitive and replaceable (and thus not the same products). South Korea believed that if there was an expert with anti-trust background in the group, this expert would be able to prove that the two products were not identical. South Korea also prepared materials from all aspects. For example, they found a very convincing evidence from a publication by EU——How to Export Food to South Korea. This book explained the significant differences between soju and whiskey and other liquor. In addition, the South Korea paid attention to every detail. For example, in order to overcome language difficulties in hearing, they carefully prepared written materials and answered all questions according to the written materials.
The South Korea lost the case.
Question:
What can we learn from this case?
案例6  韩国酒税案
案情介绍：
根据韩国酒税法，韩国对国内烧酒征收35%的税，而其他进口蒸馏酒（威士忌、伏特加、郎姆酒等）的税率是100%。欧盟和美国认为韩国违背GATT1947的第3条第2款，即国内税的国民待遇条款。本案的关键是确定威士忌、伏特加等蒸馏酒和韩国的传统烧酒是否是相同产品。因为根据GATT第3条2款，只有在对相同产品征税高于国内产品的情况下才可以援引此款。如果不是相同产品，征收不同的税是理所当然的。
在准备中，韩国律师特意向日本咨询（日本曾有过类似的案件）什么样的人适合作为该案的专家。日本给出了一个非常具有实践意义的建议。日本说，既然此案涉及的是酒类，专家本身应是饮酒者，那么他就可以品尝出威士忌和烧酒的区别。另外，韩国认为，为了证明烧酒和威士忌等不是相同产品，可以从价格差价上入手。威士忌比烧酒要贵12倍。按照反垄断法的一般规则，存在如此巨大价格差距的两种产品是不构成竞争性和替代性的（进而不是相同产品）。韩国认为如果专家组中有一个具有反垄断法背景的律师在，那将有助于从相同产品的认定上为此案打开缺口。韩国也从各个方面积极准备应诉材料。例如，在一本当时欧盟出版的《向韩国出口食品导读》中发现了最为有力的证据。这本书中讲述了烧酒和威士忌等酒的不同。此外，韩国注重了每个细节，例如，在听证会上，韩国为了克服语言的困难，认真准备了书面材料，所有问题的回答均按书面材料进行。
但是，最终还是韩国败诉。
问题：
从该案例中我们可以吸取哪些教训？

Answer:
Even though South Korea accumulated a great deal of practical experiences which helped them to handle other international trade disputes, unfortunately, it lost the case. Chinese enterprises have experienced a number of bilateral disputes, however, our professional experience and ability ane not enough. From this case we learn that learning how to utilize trade dispute settlement mechanism is a priority for us.
回答：
尽管韩国在此案中积累了大量实战经验，为该国以后处理国际贸易纠纷提供了帮助，很遗憾，最终还是韩国败诉。中国企业遭受过许多贸易纠纷，但是，我们实战的经验和能力还是不够的。该案例给我们的启示是学会使用贸易争端解决机制是当务之急。
Case 7  Kodak vs Fuji
Case Description:
The case happened under extreme conditions——the Uruguay Round negotiation. Japan promised to reduce its import tariff of color and black- white film to zero, meaning that foreign competitors, such as the U.S. Kodak can enter into the Japanese market without any barriers. Fuji and Kodak are the world’s two dominant players in the film industry. In Japanese market, Kodak had been looking for opportunities to beat the opponent all the time. 
In the market access issues, it’s difficult for Kodak to find fault with Japan. So how did Kodak to use WTO rules to find a breakthrough to defeat opponents? Kodak utilized the Article 1 in Section 23 of GATT. The United States claimed that Japan did not violate WTO obligations of a particular provision and the Japanese achieved tariff reduction commitment in previous rounds of negotiations. However, the Japanese Government adopted measures on film sales and distribution. Accordingly, the United States rights and benefits generated from Kennedy Round, Tokyo Round and the Uruguay Round about tariff concessions had been impaired or deprived. This is contrary to Article 1 in Section 23 of GATT.
Specifically, the United States has accused Japan for restricting distribution, encouraging and promoting the Japanese film market system’s transition from variety-brand department store-selling to a single-trade-mark franchising system, which restricted the sales of imported films and hampered Kodak market development capacity.
The United States lost the case.
Question:
Why did the United States lose the case?
案例7  柯达对富士
案情介绍：
故事发生在一个极端的背景条件下，乌拉圭回合。日本对彩色和黑白胶卷的进口关税承诺降到零，即外国产品，如美国柯达进入日本市场已经不存在任何障碍。富士和柯达是世界上胶卷业的两个霸主，在日本市场上，柯达每时每刻都在寻找机会击败对手。 
在市场准入问题上，柯达很难挑剔日本。那么如何利用WTO规则寻找打败对手的突破点呢？柯达使用了GATT第23条1款。美国说日本并没有违背WTO的某一特别的义务条款，日本实现了其在历次回合中关于关税减让的承诺。但是，日本政府关于胶卷销售的措施，却使美国因日本在肯尼迪回合、东京回合和乌拉圭回合中所作的关税减让而应带来的好处正在丧失或减损，这一点违背了GATT第23条1款。 
具体地说，美国指责的日本限制流通的措施，鼓励并促进了日本胶卷市场销售体制从多种商标的大商场出售转变到单一商标的专卖销售，从而制约了进口胶卷的销售能力，妨碍了柯达的市场开拓能力。
美国在该案中败诉。
问题：
为什么美国会在该案中败诉？

Answer:
This case illustrates that even with zero tariff, companies still can use the rules, like Kodak did, to gain market share, or, like Fuji, to resist the impact. WTO Panel believed that to determine whether a particular situation would be predicable during the negotiations process, the easiest way was to judge whether the situation had emerged before or after the negotiation. Japan had presented sufficient materials to prove that before the negotiation process, the monopoly marketing system had already existed.
回答：
这一案例说明，即使在零关税下，企业依然需要像柯达那样运用规则争取市场，也能够像富士那样运用规则抵制冲击。WTO专家组认为，要确定某一情况在谈判时是否可以预见，最简单的办法就是看这一情况是在谈判前出现的还是在谈判后出现的。日本用充分的材料证明了在谈判过程中，专卖销售体制已经存在。 
Part Two  Case Exercise
第二部分  案例思考题
1．Once a very high level of vice-president from the United States went to do some business in Bahrain frequently, a country that can allow alcohol to come in or go out of the state. Later he was sent to the neighboring country——Qatar to carry out an undated long-term negotiation. Based on the faith of success, he put two bottles of brandy in his backpack and was ready to celebrate the success with his colleagues after the ceremony. But as an unexpected result, he was not only driven away immediately by a man devotional to the custom in the Muslim country, but also made the company an unpopular enterprise. In addition, the company gained the serious treatment that the vice-president of the corporation was never able to return to Qatar, saying nothing about making the trade.
Question:
Please illustrate the reason why the vice-president failed.
曾经美国有一个很高级别的副总裁经常出入巴林——一个准许酒精进出的国家。他后来被派往邻国卡塔尔去进行一个无限期的长期谈判。基于对成功的信心，他放了两瓶白兰地在他的背包里，准备在仪式后与他的同事庆祝。结果，他不但被这个严谨的回教国家里的一个对习俗虔诚的男子立刻赶走，而且使公司成为了不受欢迎的公司。除此之外，他还被这个国家指令：永不能重返该国。
问题：
请说明这位副总裁失败的原因。

2．Once a Northern California maker bought a textile machinery company which was near Birmingham to open the European market. Not long after taking over the company, the U.S. manager wanted to correct a production problem about the tea time in the afternoon. In UK, each person could have a half-hour for afternoon tea, and at that time each worker could drink some grape wine that was contained by large-ounce container according to their own taste. But the management proposed to cut the tea time to 10 minutes. The Unions agreed to try but failed. A Monday morning after those workers made riots and windows were broken. They clamored when the administrative staff arrived at the factory. At last the police were called to maintain order. Then the company installed an automatic stall tea machine immediately. Workers just need to put cups on the water valves under the standard and then amount of drink will be poured. This small container replaced the five-ounce cup. All the rules were set up according to the will of the Americans. Their proposal was originally to request employees to make greater contribution to the corporation. But the result was: the company went worse and worse. Finally, the company ended in failure.
Question:
Please illustrate the reason of the failure.
一个北加利福尼亚厂商收购一个英国伯明翰市附近的一所纺织机器公司，希望藉此能打开欧洲市场。在接管公司后不久，美国的管理人员希望去矫正一个生产上的问题，就是下午茶点休息时间的问题。在英国，每人可以有半小时的下午茶点时间，这时每个工人会按他独特的口味品尝一些大型盎司容器盛载的葡萄酒。管理层提议改下午茶时间为十分钟的休息。工会同意尝试但失败了。之后的一个星期一早上，工人们暴动，窗户被打烂，当行政管理人员到工厂时工人们大声叫嚣着，最后还请警员去维持秩序。公司立即安装一部自动贩茶机。工人们只需把纸杯放在水掣底下便会倒出标准份量的饮品。这细小的容器取代了五盎司的杯。因为它们是以美国人的意志建立起来的规则，其所传达的信息原本是请求员工对工作的做出更大贡献。但结果却是：工厂此后的生产再不复前，最后，该公司以倒闭告终。
问题：
请说明公司失败的原因。

3．A Chinese Company A offered to an Australian Company B, selling them a batch of some goods. Besides some necessary transaction terms and conditions were set out clearly in the offer, the offer also indicated that the payment was made by sight L/C and the delivery was to be made within two months after receipt of the L/C. Company B replied in their letter that they could accept the offer, but asked for immediate delivery. However, Company A didn’t give any answer to this letter. Then presently Company B opened the letter of credit at sight, and indicated “immediate shipment”. During that time the marketing price for the goods was rising greatly. So Company A refused to deliver the goods.
Question:
(1) Is it right for Company A to do like that?
(2) Is there any business relationship between the two companies?
中国A公司向澳大利亚B公司发盘，销售某商品一批，除列明其他一些必要的交易条件外，发盘表明，以即期信用证付款，收到信用证后2个月内交货。B商在发盘有效期内回电，称接受发盘，同时要求立即装运。但A公司未做答复。随即B商开来即期信用证，并注明“立即装运”。当时该货物的国际市场价格大幅上涨，A公司拒绝交货，并立即退回信用证。
问题：
（1）A公司的做法是否合理？
（2）双方之间是否存在合同关系？

4．A Norwegian customer bought a batch of plastic hairpins from a Chinese manufacturer, but required that the trademark of these goods should adopt the buyer’s trademark, and in the packaging “Made in China” would not be marked.
Questions:
(1) Can the Chinese manufacturer accept the conditions?
(2) Can the Chinese manufacturer sell the goods directly to other customers in the same place once the buyer refuses to take delivery of the goods? Why?
一挪威客户购买中国厂商生产的塑料发夹，但要求改用买方商标，并且在包装上不得注明“中国制造”。
问题：
（1）中国厂商可否接受客户的条件？
（2）一旦该货买方拒收，中国厂商可否将该批货物直接销售给同一地区的其他客户？为什么？

5．There is an origin delivery contract, which sells 10 tons of fresh lychee, worth of USD150 000. The contract stipulated that the buyer must send refrigerated container trucks to the farms to pick up the goods within the period of May 25th~31st. Despite repeated urging of the seller party to send trucks, the seller did not get any answer from the buyer until June 7th. In this case, the seller had to sell the goods to another buyer on June 8th and got the payment of only USD100 000. 
Question:
In this circumstance, what problem does the seller or the buyer have separately?
有一产地交货合同，出售新鲜荔枝10吨，总值150 000美元。合同规定买方必须在5月25日至31 日之间派冷藏集装箱车到产地接运货物。卖方虽多次催促对方派车，但直至6月7日均未见对方派车接受货物。于是卖方不得不在6月8日把这批货物卖给另一新买主，价款只有100 000美元。
问题：
在此情况下，卖方与买方各有什么问题？ 
6．American agricultural producers, as well as the owners of capital-and-technology-intensive industries tend to free trade, while the workers prefer the implement of trade protection. China’s situation is opposite: the majority of manufacturing workers are the supporters of free trade. 
Question:
Please try to explain the reasons.
美国的农业生产者以及资本和技术密集型行业的所有者总是倾向于自由贸易，而劳动者则要求实行贸易保护。中国的情形则相反，广大的制造业劳动者则是自由贸易的支持者。
问题：
请解释其原因。
Part Three  Keys to the Case Exercise
第三部分  思考题答案
1．Answer:
With the rapid development of global economy, multinational business has already become an essential way for corporations to integrate into the global economy. However, in the process of conducting the business, when different countries and different cultures encounter, there could be some differences, and even some collisions and conflicts. The majority of them are reflected in varied aspects, such as language, religion, social customs, philosophy, social structure and educated culture composing. The case is a failure event of international trade because of the religious difference.
In this case it was because that Qataris believed that this person was trying to defy the long- standing religious creed, so no matter him or his company, the result came that it was not suitable to contract with. Just with such an error on the cultural details, it leaded to the big loss of the trade contract. Apart from it, we can commonly see that some salesmen lack the knowledge of the difference between the religious cultures and on Christmas day, they send “Merry Christmas!” to the Arab clients. These are cultural practices that are offensive to other countries, and it will bring bad effects on their own business trade .
回答：
随着全球经济的迅速发展，跨国经营已经成为企业融入全球经济的必要途径。然而，在进行贸易的进程中，当不同的国家和文化相遇时，就可能产生差异，甚至碰撞和冲突。这一些文化差异、碰撞以及冲突大部分体现在语言、宗教、社会习惯、哲学、社会结构、教育文化构成等各个层面。下面就是一个由于宗教差异引起的国际贸易失败的案例。
这是因为卡塔尔人认为此人藐视源远流长的宗教信条，无论他或他的公司，结果都被视为不适合与之签约的。就是这样一个文化细节上的失误，导致了贸易合约的损失。还很常见的是有些业务员不懂得文化宗教的差异，在圣诞节时给阿拉伯国家的客户发“Merry Christmas!”，这些都是属于冒犯他国文化习俗的，必然会给他们之间的贸易带来不好的影响。
 
2．Answer:
Studies have shown that if the international businessmen don’t pay attention to the culture of overseas in time, the tragic consequences will occur both at market and in management.
This case shows if we neglect the differences of culture, it will lead to mistakes in the market and management. Besides, expending to global market and success of negotiation will also be impacted. This case was a good example to show that ignorance of cultural backgrounds and differences will bring out the loss of money and failure of management. In UK, workers are glad to enjoy afternoon tea for half an hour, but in America there is no such habit. So the American vice-president does not allow the British worker to have drinks while working. This violates the British habits which exit for long time.
Similar cases happen in international trade from time to time. Roughly to the view of trade literature, we can find many similar examples with serious mistakes. Wherefore, some anthropologists specialized in international companies try to explore how to improve in order to prevent such errors. Their aim is not just a statement of the reasonable doubt of the North American businessmen when they set up companies abroad and pointing out their absurdity. The purpose is to point out the world is changing much faster than we could estimate and measure. If an American businessman go to challenge the increasingly interdependent society, he must have a deeper understanding of how cultural change affecting international business. Between scholars and members of international trade organizations or society associations, a useful dialogue mechanism should be established to promote interaction and development.
回答：
研究表明若不注意文化背景和文化的差异，企业就会在市场上以及管理上导致失误。
这一案例说明忽略文化背景的差异会导致市场与管理上的失败。除了要扩大海外市场外，成功的沟通也很重要。下面就是一个能够说明忽视文化背景与差异将导致金钱与管理上失败的很好例子。在英国，人们习惯在下午有半小时的茶点时间，但美国人没有这个习惯。因此，美国副总裁不允许英国工人们喝下午茶。而这点正好违背了英国人的习惯。
这类只是因为忽略文化背景与差异而导致钱财损失的例子，在国际贸易中经常发生，还可找出很多其他有着类似严重错误的例子。为此，一些人类学家专门去探究国际性企业怎样去改进从而来防止这类失误出现。他们的目的并不仅仅是陈述北美商家在海外开设公司时对他们的任何合理的怀疑及指出他们的荒唐与迟钝。真正的目的在于指出世界变化的速度远远超过我们所能预估和计量的，倘若一个美国商人要去挑战这个日益互相依靠的社会，他必须对文化差异如何影响国际企业有更深的了解。在人类学者和国际贸易组织或社团的成员之间，实需要建立起一个健康与有益的对话机制，以促进相互之间的良性互动和发展。
3．Answer:
(1) No, it is not right for Company A to do like that.
First, the offer sets a deadline. That’s to say it is an irrevocable offer. Second, Company B issued the relevant L/C as required, which indicates that Company B has taken substantive actions to begin with the transaction. This shows that the offer is irrevocable. If the offer is sent out and the other party makes commitment, the contract relationship arises.  
(2) There is business relationship between the two sides.
回答：
（1）A公司的做法不对。
首先，其在发盘中规定了一个期限。那么就说明这个要约是个不可撤销要约，其次，B公司又按照要求开立了信用证，说明其已经采取了实质的行为，也表明此要约的不可撤销性。要约发出并且对方作出来承诺，那么这个合同关系就产生了。
（2）双方合同关系已经产生。
4．Answer:
(1) The Chinese manufacturer could accept the buyer’s requirement.
To use Norwegian customer’s trademark on the hairpins belongs to EOM. Not to use “Made in China” is because in some countries some foreigners do not like the China-Made goods. So the customers don’t want to show the words “Made in China” on the goods as the trademark. This requirement is reasonable for the customers.
(2) Since there is customer’s own brand on the goods, once the goods are refused to take delivery by the customers, the Chinese manufacturer can’t sell the goods to other clients in the same place. Otherwise there will be infringement.
回答：
（1）中国厂商可以接受客户的条件。
发夹上改用挪威客人的商标属于使用买方定牌，包装上不注明“中国制造”是因为某些外国人不喜欢中国货，所以客户不要求显示，这些都是买方合理的要求。
（2）既然产品上有客户自己的商标，所以一旦该货买方拒收，中国厂商不能将该批货物直接销售给同一地区的其他客户，以免造成侵权。
5．Answer:
The buyer’s problem: It was stipulated in the contract that the buyer should pick up the goods at the named port within May 25th~31st, but the buyer did not do so within the stipulated time. He did not response to the seller’s urging, either. Until June 7th the goods were still not picked up at the named port by the buyer. For the buyer, he breached the contract without any cause. 
The seller’s problem: Without the consent of the buyer, the seller sold the goods to another new buyer without any notification. The seller could solve the problem by consulting with the buyer, or the seller could apply for arbitration to settle the problem.
In this case, both the seller and the buyer have to face the problem of breaching the contract. 
In my opinion, the buyer should take more responsibility.
回答：
买方存在的问题：合同中规定买方在5月25日至31 日之间到指定的目的地提货，买方并没有在指定的时间到达，对卖方的催促没有作出任何的反应。买方直至6月7日依然没有到指定额目的地提货，无故违约。
卖方的问题：在未征得买方同意的情况下，擅自将货物易主销售。
针对上述案例，买卖双方都存在违约的问题，卖方可以通过与买方的协商来解决问题，如若不然，可以向仲裁机构申请仲裁。
但就此问题，我个人认为买方的责任比较大。
6．Answer:
American agricultural producers and capital-and-technology-intensive owners possess respectively the key elements of land, capital and technology. But land, capital and technology are scarce factors for American labors. In China, although the majority of workers in production industry are not necessarily the owners of these elements, these production factors in China are relatively concentrated on the production sector. According to Stopa-Samuelson theorem, the rising price of trade abundant essential factor or the declining price of scarce essential factor will increase the income of the owners of abundant essential factors. In other words, through free trade it will make the American agricultural producers, as well as owners of capital-and-technology-intensive industry get higher income, but the income of those workers who do not have these factors declines. It is the same to our country. In China, the income for production industry workers will increase. Therefore, the influence on the owners with different factors leads to different attitudes towards trade.
回答：
美国的农业生产者、以资本和技术密集型行业的所有者分别拥有土地、资本和技术这些生产要素，而土地、资本、技术对美国劳动者而言，则是稀缺要素。在中国，制造业的广大的劳动者虽然不一定是这项要素的拥有者，但这些生产要素在中国相对主要集中在制造业。根据斯托帕－萨谬尔森定理，一国贸易富裕要素价格上升和稀缺要素价格下降将使富裕要素所有者的实际收入水平提高，稀缺要素所有者的实际收入水平下降。也就是说，通过自由贸易，会使美国的农业生产者以及资本和技术密集型行业的所有者的实际收入水平上升，不拥有这些要素的劳动者的实际收入下降。同样，在中国会使制造业部门的实际收入增加。因此，对要素所有者收入的不同影响导致了他们对贸易的态度不同。