Bristol Law School had great successes at the annual Bristol Law Society Awards with a UWE student winning Student of the Year and the LiP Service team winning Team of the Year.
Brooke Lewis (LLB) won Student of the Year from a shortlist made entirely of UWE Bristol students. This is the first time the shortlist was made up of all UWE Bristol students. This is a spectacular achievement and speaks volumes for the standard of our students.
The LiP Service team which is part of the Pro-bono unit at the Bristol Law School won Team of the Year the awards.
The LiP Service team was founded after Lawyers from Bristol University, University of Law and UWE Bristol realised they were replicating work by all chasing the same aim. The LiP Service tries to explain the loss of Legal Aid and general access to justice; which has led to many people not understanding the legal justice process and reluctant to access it alone. The service assists litigants in person with orientation around the Bristol Civil Justice Centre and with information about how to conduct their cases.
The District Judge, Stephanie Cope, who supports the project is a UWE alumnus and involves the local Judiciary and Ministry of Justice staff in supporting the project.
The collaboration between Bristol Law School staff and students, and those from Bristol University and the University of Law is a shining example of a collaborative network between educational institutions, voluntary organisations and the Law Centres in Bristol.
Additionally, the Lawyer of Year award went to Bristol Law School alumnus Samantha Castle who studied her LPC at UWE Bristol in 2004.
Congratulations to all who won and were nominated at the awards!
This post (edited for publication) is contributed to our blog as part of a series of work produced by students for assessment within the module ‘Public International Law’. We offer this module in the second year of Bristol Law School’s LLB programme. It is led by Associate Professor Dr Noelle Quenivet. Learning and teaching on the module includes the use of online portfolios within a partly student led curriculum. The posts in this series show the outstanding research and analytical abilities of students on our programmes. Views expressed in this blog post are those of the author only who consents to the publication.
Author: Luc Edwards
As a trade route, the Strait of Malacca accounts for a quarter of the world’s traded goods, with over 94,000 vessels sailing through every year. The narrow stretch of water, located between Peninsular Malaysia, Singapore and Sumatra, Indonesia, has historically been particularly susceptible to pirate attacks. This is due to a combination of elements, ranging from its importance as a trade route to the geography of the waterway, compounded by the historical influence of piracy in the area. This blog aims to investigate, using the Strait of Malacca as an example, the effectiveness of legal regimes in combating maritime piracy.
One common misconception regarding maritime piracy is the belief that piracy is most prevalent in the waters surrounding Somalia and Guinea. However, between 1995 and 2013, the Strait of Malacca and the surrounding seas accounted for over 41% of the world’s pirate attacks – dwarfing that of the 28% staged in the Indian Ocean. This 18 year period also resulted in the reported loss of life for 136 seafarers – surpassing that of both the Indian Ocean and West African Coast combined.
Heather Jones / Time; Source: ICC CCS (reproduced here)
Under Article 101 of UNCLOS, piracy is defined as ‘any illegal act… …containing violence… …that takes place on the high seas’. This wording effectively renders the provision unenforceable in the area due to the definition of ‘high seas’ under Article 1 of Convention on the High Seas, as the Exclusive Economic Zones of the three littoral States, as per Article 55 of UNCLOS, encompass the entire waterway – meaning due to the partial assertion of State sovereignty, the Straits cannot be defined as such. The ineffectiveness of UNCLOS in this respect has led the littoral States to attempt to use other methods to combat the seemingly perpetual issue of piracy in the area.
The Regional Cooperation Agreement on Combating Piracy and Armed Robbery against ships in Asia (ReCAAP) offers us one example of State collaboration in the effort to prevent piracy in the Strait. There are 20 States party, including a host of Asian countries, such as Singapore and Vietnam, as well as those less proximate to the Strait itself, for example Norway. Malaysia and Indonesia, however, are notably absent. Since its entry into force in 2006, the ReCAAP Information Sharing Centre (ISC) was launched in Singapore, where it has since become recognised as an international organisation as of January 2007. Used mainly as a central platform for information exchange between signatories and their respective ReCAAP Focal Points – usually the partying State’s main outlet of combating piracy such as the Maritime Port Authority of Singapore – the ISC is also used to cooperate with other like-minded organisations, whilst simultaneously facilitating capacity building efforts in a bid to improve the capabilities of States party in fighting piracy.
Along with the introduction of ReCAAP, Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore have all increased efforts to eradicate piracy in the area. However, problems have arisen as a result of this due to factors such as allegations that Indonesia views Malaysia and Singapore as direct economic competitors as opposed to strategic allies – arguably supported by Indonesia’s absence from ReCAAP. The economic divide between the three aforementioned States also conceivably exacerbates the problem, as despite Indonesia’s relatively strong GDP, the difference in population results in Indonesia’s GDP per capita of $3,636 – with Malaysia and Singapore holding respective figures of $9,546 and $53,053. Naturally, those who have not reached a post-material existence may be more inclined to engage in criminal activity, for example, piracy – a simple solution considering Indonesia’s archipelagic coastline stretches for over 54,716km – with (Anderson, ‘It’s a Pirate’s Life for Some: The Development of an Illegal Industry in Response to an Unjust Global Power Dynamic’ (2010) 17 Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies 319) using Somalian piracy to illustrate the phenomenon.
Although piracy is still an issue in South-East Asia, the regional and international efforts to combat piracy in the Straits can be shown to have had at least some effect, as illustrated by the above graph. Whilst the same graph exhibits an increase in incidents following 2011, it is clear that the scale of piracy in the area has been reduced – notably so following 2004; undoubtedly due to the introduction of MALSINDO on a regional level alongside the international efforts under ReCAAP. This therefore shows that, despite the shortcomings of the relevant UNCLOS provisions, the legal regimes governing piracy in the Strait of Malacca can be deemed efficient.
This post (edited for publication) is contributed to our blog as part of a series of work produced by students for assessment within the module ‘Public International Law’. We offer this module in the second year of Bristol Law School’s LLB programme. It is led by Associate Professor Dr Noelle Quenivet. Learning and teaching on the module includes the use of online portfolios within a partly student led curriculum. The posts in this series show the outstanding research and analytical abilities of students on our programmes. Views expressed in this blog post are those of the author only who consents to the publication.
For many years states marginalised the problem of pollution caused by shipping. The International Maritime Organizationin the beginning of its work dealt mainly with maritime safety. In the 1950s, States started recognizing the issue of oil spills. The result was the International Convention for the Prevention of the Pollution of the Sea by Oil. The Convention established prohibited zones with limits of discharge. Still, pollution was a minor concern of the International Maritime Organization. Torrey Canyon, the biggest oil spill up to that time, raised the question about the necessity of further regulations. Accordingly, after the IMO’s extraordinary session, in 1973 the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) was adopted. My post aims to discuss how a State can control pollution caused by shipping using MARPOL and the United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the main focus being on pollution caused by oil (see video on the extent of the problem). The adoption of these two conventions was indeed the start of States properly addressing the issue of pollution. However because of the lack of cooperation between well developed countries with developing ones, full effective control of pollution still remains difficult (see eg the issue of the flag of convenience).
The Issue of Enforcement
Oil spills, which are less frequent than other causes of sea pollution, have nevertheless devastating effects. The consequences of this kind of incident are twofold: irreversible damage to marine life and very high costs of cleaning up the polluted area (see eg Exxon Case before the US Supreme Court). Annex I of MARPOL deals with the prevention of pollution by oil. This part of the Convention incorporates the oil discharge criteria, the requirements of the equipment and the mandatory obligation of the Oil Record Bookfor every cargo vessel. Each State is responsible individually for the implementation of domestic regulations which comply with the rules of the Convention. As the International Maritime Organization has however no power to enforce its rules (Szepes, ‘MARPOL 73/78: The Challenges of Regulating Vessel-Source Oil Pollution’ (2013) 2 Manchester Student Law Review 73, 87),it is very important for States to control pollution around their landmass by monitoring foreign flagged vessels around their territory. Even if there is no legal body to enforce MARPOL’s rules, it is yet necessary for the International Maritime Organization to be aware which vessels are the main causes of the pollution as this can lead to consultations with States which violate the Convention.
Jurisdiction of a Coastal State and its Need for Cooperation
Ships are able to be a subject of more than one system of law, which can be national, regional and/or international. The example set by Torrey Canyon showed that the application of domestic law by an injured State over its territorial waters alone is not enough to control the emission of pollution by foreign flagged vessels. As a matter of fact, the disaster revealed an issue regarding the operation of the law around a coastal state. Initially, the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea gave a coastal state the power to enforce its national legislation only within its territorial waters (Article 2 UNCLOS). As a result of the French and British reactions to the Torrey Canyon disaster, a coastal state can now enforce domestic law within its exclusive economic zone (Article 56 UNCLOS). UNCLOS extended the jurisdiction of a coastal state over its exclusive economic zone but only when a vessel which violated law in the Exclusive Economic Zone, entered that State’s port (Article 220(1) UNCLOS).Coastal state is also empowered in special situations to arrest and detain a vessel which violated its law (Article 220(6) UNCLOS). The degree of a coastal state’s power seems to be high but without the cooperation of flag states, being successful in controlling pollution is not possible. The jurisdiction of a coastal state within its exclusive economic zone is limited and applies only when the violation is serious. In all scenarios where an infringement is not significant a coastal state depends on the flag states’ jurisdiction(Szepes, ‘MARPOL 73/78: The Challenges of Regulating Vessel-Source Oil Pollution’ (2013) 2 Manchester Student Law Review 73, 94-96). On the high sea, jurisdiction always shifts to the flag state and it is rather alarming that only a small percentage of investigations result in convictions and fines (Szepes, ‘MARPOL 73/78: The Challenges of Regulating Vessel-Source Oil Pollution’ (2013) 2 Manchester Student Law Review 73, 91).
MARPOL and UNCLOS are the most important treaties that define the legal framework governing States’ ability to control pollution. When properly implemented by their parties, they can be successful instruments of control of pollution. The problem is that because of economic convenience, owners of world’s merchant tonnage do not register their vessels in States where environmental protection is an important matter. A high percentage of representatives of the world’s trade industry argues that the costs related to the registration of vessels in developed countries are too high and thus reduce their ability to make profits. For many States, applying high standards of environmental protection is still difficult and the only way to be successful in this area is to cooperate and support developing countries. Small steps, like increasing environmental awareness in developing countries, can help with the improvement of the control of pollution; without it, the world might be in the near future be faced with the problem of the mass extinction of certain marine species.
Whilst at UWE Bristol, students studying within the Bristol Law School and Bristol Business School have the opportunity to get involved in a variety of projects from supporting local residents in dealing with community issues to providing free legal advice and assistance to members of the public.
UWE’s Pro Bono work has also helped communities in Uganda and the United States, as well as making a large impact on communities and businesses in the Bristol region.
Undergrad and postgrad students provide all manner of unpaid assistance to businesses, and individuals who have limited access to legal help.
Associate Head of Department – Pro Bono and Law Lecturer Marcus Keppel Palmer commented:
“In this day and age, with the lack of governmental help, Universities who can assist are expected to do so. We have a repository of knowledge, expertise, and students who are keen to acquire experience.”
The numerous voluntary activities, which are led and developed by the students themselves, include the following:
Courts
Offered to individuals with no legal representation, the Law Court Clinics involve Bar students providing on-the-spot assistance to those with no prior knowledge of court proceedings. For two days a week, the postgraduates provide the service alongside a charity at the Bristol Civil Justice Centre. In the same vein, LIP Service (referring to ‘litigants in person’), which UWE Bristol is a part of, raises awareness for those representing themselves, in advance of their hearing. Undergraduates offer training on what to expect in court, what defendants can and cannot ask/do during proceedings, and how to present a case.
Welfare/ Benefits support
In collaboration with a number of charities and organisations, student volunteers help individuals with the wording in their claims forms to maximise success in receiving or retaining benefits. Legal advice is also provided if an appeal is required, following an unsuccessful claim.
“If your disability benefits are cut, then you can’t afford a lawyer to challenge that, let alone access legal aid because it’s been cut in this area,”
Marcus Keppel Palmer
This work on appeal claims yields almost 100% successful.
Mentoring and Street Law
With a view to helping school pupils learn more about studying Law, first year students from the Law department provide mentoring at schools and colleges in the Bristol area. Pupils can also attend mock trials held at the Bristol Business School’s court rooms.
“This Pro Bono activity provides UWE students with additional skills such as public speaking or team work,” says Keppel-Palmer.
Private clients – Elder Law
Teaming up with charities such as Paul’s Place, undergraduate students from Bristol Business School’s law department offer assistance on matters concerning wills, probate and power of attorney.
Businesses
The business school’s Business Advice Clinics involves students providing basic one-to-one accountancy, marketing and legal support for graduate start-ups in Launch Space, UWE Bristol’s graduate incubation space. One accountancy and four law firms assist with this activity.
“This provides top quality advice to the Launch Space incubators and, for students, networking opportunities with the firms,” says Keppel-Palmer.
Pro Bono business activities also extend to helping musicians get a foothold in the music industry, where legal knowledge carries weight. BMAS is a system of clinics and one-to-ones run by law students who meet with budding musicians and other creatives from all over the world. The free legal service includes advice on publishing deals, contracts etc.
Crime
Pro Bono work has also enabled volunteers to work with countries in East Africa. With a focus on Kenya and Uganda, the African Prisons Project encourages prisoners to study Law to understand their legal rights. The service enables inmates to be in a stronger position to challenge their cases.
The Anti Death-Penalty Group is aimed at students interested in crime and criminology. This activity enables them to raise awareness about death row by working with a law firm in Virginia (US), where undergraduates can also attend a five-week summer placement. Some have worked on cases involving Guantanamo Bay.
“They often come back transformed after meeting death row inmates,” says Keppel-Palmer.
Community Asset Transfer
Closer to home, postgraduate law students offer free legal assistance in projects involving the takeover of public assets by charities. These are long-running projects and the University usually takes on one a year.
“All these activities provide incalculable benefits for students,” says Keppel-Palmer. “Many find themselves more confident and find that they get jobs out of them. There are also massive amounts of good will generated through the work that is done and that makes people feel good in themselves.”
To find out more about the Pro Bono work that takes place within the Bristol Law School and Bristol Business School please contact Marcus Keppel Palmer :Marcus.Keppel-Palmer@uwe.ac.uk
This post (edited for publication) is contributed to our blog as part of a series of work produced by students for assessment within the module ‘Public International Law’. We offer this module in the second year of Bristol Law School’s LLB programme. It is led by Associate Professor Dr Noelle Quenivet. Learning and teaching on the module includes the use of online portfolios within a partly student led curriculum. The posts in this series show the outstanding research and analytical abilities of students on our programmes. Views expressed in this blog post are those of the author only who consents to the publication.
In recent years, freedom of expression on university campuses has been a hot topic. Political figures, prominent journalists and spirited students have waged into the heated discussion, fanning the flames of the debate and polarising opinion.
On the surface, UWE appears to be compliant with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), defining the extent of free speech in the Freedom of Speech Policy. However, I will be arguing that there are numerous flaws within university policies and practices that hinder their ability to fulfil key societal roles.
‘Freedom of expression is a fundamental British value…’ (see video) and a qualified right found in Article 10 of the ECHR. This includes the freedom to hold opinions and receive and impart information; each element is crucial to the functioning of higher education facilities.
However, I believe that in the modern day universities have lost sight of their role in society. They should be institutions that secure free speech, expand public knowledge, stimulate ideas and develop global leaders for the future. This is being compromised by limitations on free speech.
In my view, UWE’s policy raises several concerns, thus reducing the extent to which the university complies with Article 10 of the ECHR. The most controversial section of the policy is paragraph 6 (2) which states that reasons for refusing access to premises ‘…include, but are not limited to…’ the list within paragraph 6, and at the discretion of senior members of staff (paragraph 10). This suggests that, although unlikely, UWE has the potential to not allow any events, regardless of the potential offence caused. Despite Article 10 (2) permitting restrictions to freedom of expression in a democratic society that relate to ‘public safety’ and ‘prevent disorder or crime’, I feel that UWE’s document lacks clarity. Consequently, the extent of compliance is muffled by the level of ambiguity. Moreover, the Court’s jurisprudence (see eg Özgür Gündem v Turkey, 16 March 2000, paragraph 43) displays the vital importance of free expression for the well-functioning of democratic societies.
Looking at paragraph 6 of the UWE Free Speech Policy in more depth uncovers further areas of controversy. For example, paragraph 6 (2) iii explains that UWE refuses access to premises where events are ‘…likely to give rise to an environment in which people will experience, or could reasonably fear…’ abuse, violence and/or intimidation. The case of Ceylan v Turkey (8 July 1999, paragraph 34) supports the argument that UWE’s policy complies with the Court’s interpretation because ‘a wider margin of appreciation’ is said to be given to States if expressions incite violence. However, the Court has continually reiterated that Article 10 protects expressions ‘…that offend, shock or disturb.’ (Handyside v UK, 7 December 1976, paragraph 49). Students Unions banning pop song Blurred Lines throughout 2013 epitomizes the result of inconsistencies in the interpretation of Article 10 by the Court, and the extent to which receiving and imparting information in universities has been restricted (see here). Nevertheless, UWE is only compliant with the Court’s interpretations of Article 10 where access to facilities for events is denied due to genuine risks to public safety and possibilities of disorder or crime.
As a consequence of questionable policies and practices, many students claim a ‘right’ not to be offended. From a legal perspective this strongly conflicts with securing freedom of expression, an opinion supported by Baroness O’Neill. As a panellist at Theos Annual Lecture in 2015, O’Neill explained that there cannot be a human right ‘not to be offended’ because ‘offence’ is subjective (see here). Echoing O’Neill’s opinion, I oppose the Safe Spaces and No Platform policies that UWE is subject to as a member of the NUS, as explained by current NUS president in this video.
I feel that the Safe Spaces policy is an example of the NUS crumbling under government pressure to protect Britain against the rising threat of extremism and terrorism. This has unfortunately occurred at the expense of freedom of expression. The Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 (Section 31) adds further legal responsibilities to an extensive list of statutes that influence university policies (see diagram below). The 2015 Act encourages universities to interact with the Prevent Strategy, referenced by paragraph 2 of UWE’s policy. However, government reasoning is flawed because although statistics show that one third of Islamism-related terrorist offences between 2005-2015 were committed by graduates, this is in line with the proportion of the general population that have attended higher education institutions (see here, paragraph 10).
I will always condemn expressions that cause offence, and I am sympathetic towards universities as they are under pressure to provide safe, comfortable learning environments. However, I feel that universities should be facilitating debate, equipping students during their studies with skills that enable them to confidently combat hate speech. Therefore, despite being largely compliant with Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and its interpretation, because UWE is subject to numerous laws and policies, students and academics are overprotected to the extent that the residues of free speech are constrained.
Bristol Business School and Bristol Law School invite you to their Research Showcase on Wednesday 11 October at the Bristol Business School.
The showcase will celebrate the breadth of research within both schools in Leadership, Operations, Economic Analysis, Law, Legal Policy and Reform, Marketing, Enterprise, Entrepreneurship and Human Resource Management.
Throughout the showcase there will be 16 workshops taking place that will demonstrate the ways our leading edge researchers achieve real world impact, advanced knowledge, inspire people and transform futures.
Improving health and wellbeing through leadership and behaviour change – Bristol Leadership and Change Centre. In order to attend please register via Eventbrite.
Creating Connections: The Entrepreneurial Mind-set and Ecosystem – Bristol Collaborative Entrepreneurship Research Group. In order to attend please register via Eventbrite.
Rights, Citizenship and Nationality – Centre for Applied Legal Research. In order to attend please register via Eventbrite.
Financial Crime – Centre for Applied Legal Research. In order to attend please register via Eventbrite.
The Changing Terrain of Employability and Careers – Human Resources, Work and Employment Research. In order to attend please register via Eventbrite.
Delivering Value – How new technology continues to drive Business Model evolution – Innovation, Operations Management and Supply. In order to attend please register via Eventbrite.
Working Effectively With Marketing Agencies – Applied Marketing Group; Rigorous Research, Impact on Practice. In order to attend please register via Eventbrite.
Five things you should know about modern financial systems and the economy – Bristol Centre for Economics and Finance. In order to attend please register via Eventbrite.
Workshop 2 (16:35 – 17:05)
Digital marketing: what everyone needs to know? – Applied Marketing Group; Rigorous Research, Impact on Practice. In order to attend please register via Eventbrite.
Creative approaches to leadership and organisation development – Bristol Leadership and Change Centre. In order to attend please register via Eventbrite.
Entrepreneurial Approaches to ‘Wicked’ or Intractable Problems – Bristol Collaborative Entrepreneurship Research Group. In order to attend please register via Eventbrite.
Criminal Justice – Centre for Applied Legal Research. In order to attend please register via Eventbrite.
Delivering Value – How new technology continues to drive Business Model evolution – Innovation, Operations Management and Supply. In order to attend please register via Eventbrite.
Law, Vulnerability and Protection – Centre for Applied Legal Research. In order to attend please register via Eventbrite.
Applying research to address policy issues – Bristol Centre for Economics and Finance. In order to attend please register via Eventbrite.
Contemporary issues in reward management – Human Resources, Work and Employment Research. In order to attend please register via Eventbrite.
More information about the event and registration can be found here.
This post (edited for publication) is contributed to our blog as part of a series of work produced by students for assessment within the module ‘Public International Law’. We offer this module in the second year of Bristol Law School’s LLB programme. It is led by Associate Professor Dr Noelle Quenivet. Learning and teaching on the module includes the use of online portfolios within a partly student led curriculum. The posts in this series show the outstanding research and analytical abilities of students on our programmes. Views expressed in this blog post are those of the author only who consents to the publication.
The above mentioned article, written while Trump was still president-elect, discusses which protectionist measures he might implement during his administration to strengthen the US economy.
This video outlines the basic concepts of protectionism. It is possible to protect one’s industry ‘as long as doing so does not violate any commitments they have made in the WTO Agreement’ (Herdegen, Principles of International Economic Law (OUP 2013) 196). Protectionist measures are heavily restricted under the WTO Agreement; if they were not so, stronger economies would make better use of them to the detriment of weaker economies.
In this blog, I will discuss how Mexico can enforce restrictions to defend its car industry against two protectionist measures Trump might implement: imposing tariffs and lowering the corporate tax rate.
Restrictions
The principle of non-discrimination ‘ensures equal conditions in competition on national markets’ (Herdegen, Principles of International Economic Law (OUP 2013) 55). This has two ramifications:
1) The most favoured nation (MFN) clause, protected under article I GATT, guarantees that if one party to a treaty is afforded special benefits, other parties should also be afforded such.
2) National treatment, protected under article III GATT, ensures that imported like products are taxed the same as domestic products, and directly competitive and substitutable products are similarly taxed (Japan – Alcoholic Beverages II).
Imposing Tariffs
Imposing tariffs on imported cars might tempt American companies to move production back to the US to avoid such.
The US and Mexico are parties to the free trade agreement, NAFTA; therefore, when it comes to tariffs, the US will be subject to that agreement rather than GATT (NAFTA, article 103(1). ‘Member states can impose tariffs on goods, but only to the extent of the rate they have agreed upon’ (Qureshi and Ziegler, International Economic Law (Sweet and Maxwell 2011) 355). Under NAFTA, there are no tariffs on car imports whose parts are of at least 62.5% North American origin (annex 302.2 and article 403(5) NAFTA), therefore, if this requirement is satisfied, Trump cannot impose tariffs.
If Trump were to impose tariffs on Mexico after walking away from NAFTA, the only realistic option Mexico would have to safeguard its economy would be to return the favour and impose tariffs on US imports. This is not to be confused with countervailing duties which can only be implemented to offset the effects of subsidisation (article VI GATT). Though this option might soften the blow, it is still unsatisfactory as Mexico is more dependent on the US than the US is on Mexico, therefore, as Mexico imports more of its goods to the US than vice versa, it will naturally suffer a greater detriment. One might suggest that Mexico could raise its tariffs to neutralise this detriment but that is not possible. Firstly, like the US, Mexico has to afford the most favoured nation treatment when imposing tariffs; therefore, it is restricted by the MFN rate current in Mexico. Secondly, as imposing tariffs is not a form of subsidisation, Mexico would not be at liberty to countervail such so as to completely offset any detriment. Regardless, even if it were possible to completely offset any detriment, no one would be better off; if anything, things would get worse as the increase in car prices would result in lower sales, a decrease in share prices and higher unemployment.
Lowering the Corporate Tax Rate
Unlike imposing tariffs, lowering the corporate tax rate is an incentive for companies to return to the US, hoping they will create more jobs and boost GDP. The problem is lowering the corporate tax rate could be construed as an indirect form of subsidisation.
Subsidies exist where there is ‘any form of income or price support … and a benefit is thereby conferred’ (article 1 ASCM). Although funds are not positively conferred, lowering tax would qualify as a form of price support as companies would be saving money, therefore, a subsidy would exist.
Again, Mexico could defend itself by imposing countervailing duties on US imports (article VI GATT). This would set off the effects of a lower corporate tax rate and hopefully persuade American companies to continue the production in Mexico as moving production back to the US would make them no better off and the cost of doing so would make them lose more money than they would save. The problem is that the US is Mexico’s largest trading partner; therefore, the Mexican economy is heavily dependent upon the US market. Although countervailing duties would set off the effects of lowering the corporate tax rate, companies in the US could earn more profit by increasing trade with markets which have not imposed countervailing duties and decreasing trade with those which have which could seriously impair the Mexican economy.
In summary, there is very little Mexico can do to defend itself against protectionist measures implemented by the US, the world’s largest economy, without harming itself.
This post (edited for publication) is contributed to our blog as part of a series of work produced by students for assessment within the module ‘Public International Law’. We offer this module in the second year of Bristol Law School’s LLB programme. It is led by Associate Professor Dr Noelle Quenivet. Learning and teaching on the module includes the use of online portfolios within a partly student led curriculum. The posts in this series show the outstanding research and analytical abilities of students on our programmes. Views expressed in this blog post are those of the author only who consents to the publication.
What are the (dis)similarities between a Free Trade Area and a Customs Union?
Author: Karen Kisakye
Introduction
Though there are not that many, the (dis)similarities between a free trade area and a customs union are very clear. In this post I will focus on the internal and external elements, taking a broad approach to their application.
I have derived the definitions of a free trade area and a customs union from the World Trade Organization (WTO) as it is the largest organization that regulates trade today across most, if not all, States. The definitions are contained in Article XXVI (8)(a) and (b) of GATT 47.
Both a free trade area and a customs union have no borders within their blocks (ie among the Member States). This is the internal element. However, all Member States of a customs union have a common external tariff against third parties. This is the external element (see Herdegen, International Economic Law (OUP 2013) 274).
Using these elements, this blog will explore the effectiveness of a free trade area versus a customs union. The effects of these (dis)similarities will highlight their (dis)advantages which I shall use to show their irrelevance in regards to both developing and developed countries today.
Achievements
The rules that govern free trade areas and customs unions are contained in what forms them, ie a free trade agreement (see table below). Though each free trade agreement may be slightly different from one another, the WTO Trading Overarching Fundamental Principles govern them. With these principles, the common aim of free trade areas and customs unions is to increase trade and boost economic growth through the reduction or elimination of tariffs and I believe they have achieved this (see video on Free Trade v Protectionism).
The effectiveness of free trade areas and customs unions is better explored through their (dis)advantages. The main advantage of both is increased economic growth. How is this achieved?
The internal element earlier addressed enables block Members to trade with lesser or no tariffs. This boosts sales and profits as well as domestic competitiveness.
However, the lack of a common external tariff in a free trade area means that member States of such a block will be free to charge different tariffs on non-member States. This enables them to protect growing domestic industries; however, it creates an uneven playing field as non-member States will import to States with the lowest tariffs (Herdegen, International Economic Law (OUP 2013) 274) only or if not, at least first. This diverts trade (at 3 para 1) and begins to crack the economic system of the free trade area block, thereby not really increasing trade (fairly). Consequently, States tend to change their free trade area into a customs union (see eg CARICOM in Herdegen, International Economic Law (OUP 2013)275).
However, customs union members are not allowed to negotiate individual trade deals with third countries. This makes it impossible for a State to benefit from strong State alliances with non-members and can thus lead to a State being unable to target economic growth accordingly.
Relevance
However, while the advantage of increasing trade has been proven in practice, it is argued that the system of free trade agreements in the form of free trade areas and customs unions has been exhausted.
Due to the overwhelming evidence before us, it is generally assumed that free trade equals economic growth. That obviously seems to be true for the developed States today. However, I disagree with this assumption when it comes to developing States today.
I do not disagree with the fact that free trade that takes place through these blocks does indeed promote economic growth. Rather, free trade areas like MERCOSUR (at 1, para 1) and the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (consisting of developing member States), have only achieved this in part and in fact have not managed to fully reflect the economic growth of the developed States today. Why is it so?
First, today’s developing environment is different from the one when the developed countries were developing. Developing States today face different challenges or factors than yesterday’s developing and now developed countries (Lester, World Trade Law: Text, Materials and Commentary (Hart 2012) 27).
Free trade areas and customs unions may promote economic growth but in today’s political and economic environment, for developing countries, letting borders down for free trade means anything from sacrificing protection of weak industries to risking security, both of goods and persons.
I stand with the free traders who argue that the developed countries of today, historically did not rely on free trade areas or customs (see videos Free Trade Does not Make Countries Richer and Ha-Joon Chang on IMF, WTO, World Bank and Protectionism) to develop their industries and are now denying developing countries the same courtesy (Lester, World Trade Law: Text, Materials and Commentary (Hart 2012) 26, 41-51).
Secondly, the WTO does not provide enough protection for the industries of developing countries through Articles XII, XI:2, XII OR XIII:B of GATT 47 or other means (see eg European Union–Developing Country FTAS, 1563)
In conclusion, the key similarity is the elimination of internal borders and the promotion of trade and the difference is the absence or existence of a common external tariff. This is dependent on States abiding by the rules which they do not always do and is also subject to restrictions that States do not fancy.
Consequently, these cracks, together with the minimal or slow progress in the economic growth of developing countries, reflect the need for a new system. Different era means different issues and challenges and thus different mechanisms.
The University of the West of England has risen three places to 57th position in the Times Good University Guide.
UWE Bristol is ranked fifth in the South West in the annual guide. The university is also top in the South West for student experience and second for teaching excellence based on the outcome of the National Student Survey figures for 2017.
Responding to the improvement in the rankings Professor Steve West, UWE Bristol President and Vice-Chancellor, said, “We are very pleased to see that we are moving forward in the right direction. Staff and students have strived over the past year to work towards making UWE Bristol an even greater place to study.
“We are among the top rated modern universities in the league table. We have invested heavily in our learning environment and seen the launch of two major buildings including the Bristol Business School and new animation and film-making studios in the past year.
“At UWE Bristol we pride ourselves on our employability results. Earlier this year the Higher Education Statistical Agency (HESA) showed we were ahead of all West Universities for employment and further study of students who graduated in 2016.
“We want to be a top 50 University by 2020 and our ambitious strategy to become the best university for practice based learning is absolutely taking shape. I would like to say a big thank you to our incredibly hard working staff who have helped us to move forward towards this goal.”
The Times and The Sunday Times Good University Guide 2018 published on 24 September, provides students and their parents with an invaluable first reference point on the path to finding a university place. It contains full profiles of all universities. The league table is made up of nine indicators including student satisfaction with teaching quality and their wider student experience, research quality, graduate prospects, entrance qualifications held by new students, degree results achieved, student/staff ratios, service and facilities spend, and degree completion rates.
The LiP Service team which is part of the Pro-bono unit at the Bristol Law School has been nominated for Team of the Year at the Bristol Law Society Awards. In addition to that, three Bristol Law School students have been nominated for student of the year.
The LiP Service team was founded after Lawyers from Bristol University, University of Law and UWE Bristol realised they were replicating work by all chasing the same aim. The LiP Service tries to explain the loss of Legal Aid and general access to justice; which has led to many people not understanding the legal justice process and reluctant to access it alone. The service assists litigants in person with orientation around the Bristol Civil Justice Centre and with information about how to conduct their cases.
The District Judge, Stephanie Cope, who supports the project is a UWE alumnus and involves the local Judiciary and Ministry of Justice staff in supporting the project.
The collaboration between Bristol Law School staff and students, and those from Bristol University and the University of Law is a shining example of a collaborative network between educational institutions, voluntary organisations and the Law Centres in Bristol. This is a great example of Universities and the Courts coming together to benefit the local community. The teams’ hard work has not gone unnoticed and they have been shortlisted for the Team of the Year in the Bristol Law Society Annual Awards.
There are also three students from Bristol Law School that have been shortlisted for the Law Student of the Year Award. This is the first time no student from University of Law, BPP or Bristol University have made the shortlist. This is a spectacular achievement and speaks volumes for the standard of our students.
The three students are:
Rachel Chapman (BPTC)
Brooke Lewis (LLB)
Tish Weavor – Marron (LLB)
The awards will be announced on the 19th October at a Gala dinner. Congratulations to Rachel, Brooke, Tish and the LiP Service team on this great achievement.
