HOLMES INSTITUTE FACULTY OF HIGHER EDUCATION HI5015 Legal Aspects of International Trade &...

Question

HOLMES INSTITUTE

FACULTY OF
HIGHER EDUCATION

HI5015 Legal Aspects of International Trade & Enterprise
Assessment Details and Submission Guidelines

Trimester T1 2019
Unit Code HI5015
Unit Title Legal Aspects of International Trade & Enterprise
Assessment Type Group Assignment
Assessment Title Research paper and presentation
Purpose of the
assessment (with ULO
Mapping)
Students are required to research an International Law Case of your choice from the
list below and explain in a report format on the background of the dispute, facts, legal
issues, individual parties’ arguments, tribunal’s decision and the importance of the
case in international law.
Weight 30% of the total assessments
Total Marks 20 marks – research paper and 10 marks for presentation
Word limit Not more than 2000 words
Due Date XXXXXXXXXXFriday Week 10 – 11.59pm
Submission
Guidelines
 All work must be submitted on Blackboard by the due date along with a completed
Assignment Cover Page.
 The assignment must be in MS Word format, no spacing, 12-pt Arial font and 2 cm
margins on all four sides of your page with appropriate section headings and page
numbers.
 Reference sources must be cited in the text of the report, and listed appropriately
at the end in a reference list using Harvard referencing style.

Page 2 of 8
HI5015 Legal Aspects of International Trade & Enterprise

Assignment 2 Specifications

Purpose:
This assignment aims at ensuring that students have familiarised themselves with their chosen
International Case law and are able to explain the background of the dispute, facts, legal issues,
individual parties’ arguments, tribunal’s decision and the importance of the case in international
law.

Details:

Topics and presentation schedule:

Please organise yourselves into groups of not more than 5 students and not less than 3 students.
The assignment consists of 2 parts;

A. Written report – worth 20% and must be submitted – Friday Week 10 at 11.59pm.

1. Select a case from the list of International Law Cases below.

2. Advise your lecturer by email of your group members with student ID numbers and chosen case.
Please note: your lecturer’s prior approval of your case is required.

3. Select the party you wish to represent (ex. China in the “Philippines v. China in the South China sea”
case; or Canada in “Canada v. Australia – Measures Affecting Importation of Salmon”).

4. Research, read and understand your selected case.

5. Prepare and submit a written report discussing the following:
 background of the dispute

ief facts of the case
 the legal issues presented
 the individual parties’ arguments, with particular emphasis on your selected party’s
arguments
 the tribunal’s decision
 the importance or significance of the case in international law (i.e. why the case is important
in the development of international law). You can also discuss any other developments
following the court or tribunal’s decision.

Assignment structure is to be written as a report format. It must include;

 Cover page
 Executive summary
 Table of contents
 Section headings
 Paragraphing
 Page numbers
 Reference list at the end of the report

Page 3 of 8
HI5015 Legal Aspects of International Trade & Enterprise

B. Group Presentation – worth 10% and will be presented / submitted in week 10.
Strict adherence to the 10 minute limit is expected.

1. Present and discuss the summary of your report in 10 minutes.
2. The Presentation will be done in class or video recording. Your lecturer will advise which is more
appropriate. Whether in-class or video presentation, all members must present. The group will be
marked down if not all members present.
3. Video link must be uploaded to a publicly-viewable video sharing platform (ex. Youtube, Dropbox,
Google drive) and the video link uploaded on Blackboard.
4. A video presentation consists of both images and audio. For this reason, a plain Power Point
presentation showing slides even with accompanying voice recording is not considered a video and,
hence, not allowed.

Important Reminders:

Lecturer approval of chosen case:

1. You must email your lecturer your list of group members and chosen case by week 4.

2. You must obtain approval by email from your lecturer of your group and chosen case before starting
work on it. You must NOT start work on your group assignment until your lecturer approves your
group and case. Please note: failure to obtain lecturer approval will result in a failing mark for the
entire group for this assignment.

Submission:

1. All group report submissions must be done online and run through SafeAssign. No hard copies are to
e submitted. Only one group member needs to submit for the whole group.

2. Please fill in the “Group Report cover sheet” (available in Blackboard under “Assignments and Due
dates) and attach as a cover sheet to your group report and upload on Blackboard.

3. Each group must email to their lecturer a “Peer Evaluation of Individual Participation in Group
Assignment” sheet (available in Blackboard under “Assignments and Due dates).

4. Non-submission of either the group report or video presentation link (if a group is doing a video) on
Blackboard/SafeAssign (if doing a video presentation) is equivalent to non-submission, which will
merit a mark of 0 (zero) for the group assignment.

5. This is a group assignment and is meant to be worked on in groups. Groups of less than 3 and more 5
members will receive a penalty of 10 marks (50%).

6. Reports must be submitted via SafeAssign on Blackboard and show a similarity percentage figure.
Any group report that does not show a SafeAssign similarity percentage will not be marked and be
equired to re-submit.

7. Late submissions will be subject to Holmes Institute policy on student assessment submission and
late penalties (please refer to subject outline and Student handbook).

Page 4 of 8
HI5015 Legal Aspects of International Trade & Enterprise

Citation and referencing:

1. The group report must have a minimum of 6 scholarly, academic references, which are appropriate
for a Masters Level assignment.

2. Assignments are expected to observe proper referencing in accordance with a generally accepted
system of citation (ex, Harvard System). A properly referenced assignment showing in-text citation is
critical to passing and obtaining a good mark in the group assignment.

SafeAssign similarity percentage:

1. Plagiarism in any form, shape or manner is unacceptable under any circumstances and will be dealt
with according to Institute policy on plagiarism.

2. In general, for written reports, a SafeAssign similarity percentage of 25% or below is acceptable.
Regardless of the similarity figure, all group reports must use in-text citation and observe proper
eferencing rules.

INTERNATIONAL LAW CASES

Please choose from one of the following topics from the list (see below).
Note:
Where possible, groups are expected to refer to the texts of the original cases and conduct additional
esearch. Do not rely merely on the case summaries as it is not possible to write a 2,000 word report based
only on case summaries.

1. De Sanchez v. Banco Central De Nicaragua Textbook (August, Mayer & Bixby 6th ed): pp. 63-65
2. Chattin v. United Mexican States Textbook: pp XXXXXXXXXX.
3. Islamic Republic or Iran v. United Sates of America http:
www.icj-cij.org/en/case/79
4. Commission of the European Communities v. Federal Republic of Germany Textbook: pp. 51-53 .
5. Sandline International Inc. v. Papua New Guinea Textbook: pp. 73-76
6. The M/V Saiga Case (Merits) Textbook: pp XXXXXXXXXX
7. In the matter of the Loewen Group Inc. and Raymond L Loewen vs USA Textbook: pp XXXXXXXXXX
8. Bumper Development Corp. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and Others Textbook:
pp XXXXXXXXXX
9. A
ott v. Republic of South Africa Textbook: pp XXXXXXXXXX
10. Bank of India v. Gobindram Naraindas Sadhwani and Others Textbook: pp XXXXXXXXXX
11. Jorge Luis Machuca Gonzalez et al. v. Chrysler Corporation et al. Textbook: pp XXXXXXXXXX
12. Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Co. (Belgium v. Spain) Textbook: pp XXXXXXXXXXhttp:
www.icj-
cij.org/en/case/50
13. Metro Industries v. Sammi Corp. Textbook: pp XXXXXXXXXX
14. United States v. Blondek, Tull, Castle, and Lowry Textbook: pp XXXXXXXXXX
15. Arab Republic of Egypt v. Southern Pacific Properties, Ltd., et al. Textbook: pp XXXXXXXXXX
16. Brady v. Brown Textbook: pp XXXXXXXXXX
17. Nissan Motor Mfg. Corp., U.S.A. v. United States Textbook: pp XXXXXXXXXX
18. The Bhopal Case – Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India Textbook: pp XXXXXXXXXX
19. Batchelder v. Kawamoto Textbook: pp XXXXXXXXXX
20. Wilson, Smithett & Cope, Ltd v. Te
uzzi Textbook: pp XXXXXXXXXX
21. Hunt et al. v. Alliance North American Government Income Trust, Inc. et al. Textbook: pp XXXXXXXXXX
22. Vishipco Line et al. v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A. Textbook: pp XXXXXXXXXX
23. Finance Ministry v. Manifattura Lane Marz Otto, SpA Textbook: pp XXXXXXXXXX
24. Canada v. Australia – Measures

hi5015-group-assignment-t1-20194-qeyd0cwr.pdf

Preeti · Accepted Answer

Law Question: Starbucks and Ethiopia Dispute Coffee Trademark Issues
Executive Summary
Ethiopian government and Starbucks controversy over trademark rights to Ethiopian coffee brands gained huge attention in the industry. The long-running dispute between both parties headed for a resolution through signing an agreement where Ethiopia’s ownership over its premium coffee brands is recognised by trademark and licensing scheme. The announcement is considered as potential victory of the impoverished East African country which has putting heavy efforts for rewarding coffee producers to earn tens of millions of dollars extra each year. The officials from both parties agreed to sign a licensing, distribution and marketing agreement which recognises the brand value and integrity of Ethiopia’s specialty coffee produces-Harrar, Sidamo and Yirgacheffee. 
Table of Contents
4Background of the case
4Brief facts of the case
6Legal issues
7Individual parties’ arguments
8Tribunal decision
9Importance or significance of the case in international law
11References
Background of the case
The case has its roots in the Ethiopian economy which is heavily dependent on the export of its primary products. Ethiopian economy is characterised by quite complicated weather and climatic conditions led economy to produce limited tradable goods, among which coffee beans is considered as highest income generator. It is estimated that around 60% of Ethiopia total export earning depends on coffee, making the product closely tied and integrated with overall culture practice of the economy (Ford, 2007). 
A study showed that around 15 million Ethiopian people are directly or indirectly involved in the production and manufacturing of coffee. Ethiopia is recognised for its world famous finest coffee brands, such as Harrar, Sidamo and Yirgacheffee. These three coffee brands are quite unique in flavour and aroma making it distinguishable from other coffee of Ethiopia as well as coffees of other countries. The three coffee brands are considered as heritage coffees of the African nation, scoring good retail price in national and international market. 
Unfortunately, farmers of Ethiopian do not get real price of coffee, they are just getting only five to ten percent of the coffee’s real price. The distributors and market middlemen share majority of profits, for example, a cup of cappuccino is sold at US$4 in developed and wealthy countries, but coffee growers in Ethiopia are earning less than a dollar a day. The coffee growers in Ethiopia are not earning adequate returns on coffee production which led them to abandon or retrain themselves from involving in coffee production due to low returns earned on it. The poor farmers of Ethiopia started searching more profitable narcotic plants plantation and production in lieu of earning more profits (Faris, 2007). 
Brief facts of the case
For producing a pound of organic sun-dried coffee, farmers of Ethiopian village spend more than six pounds in their fields for producing coffee. The coffee production require farmers to invest high amount energy and time for preparing coffee, it takes around 15 days to sun the fruit, stirring high amount time and hours to ensure uniform dryness, then shuck the shells. This investment of high amount time is also not equated with the price received by farmers. It is found that Ethiopian farmers are getting an average of $1.45 on their coffee produce. This figure is quite less on comparing with the cost of generator fuel, bank interest, labour and transportation costs spread across Ethiopia’s dusty roads. Therefore, farmers are getting net price of $1 on coffee produce. While the same cup of coffee receives higher price of $26 in the US and other developed countries (Grain, 2007). 
This price differential factor evidenced that country’s farmers are not been able to capitalise coffee produce and trade to its fullest, which led country to call for intellectual property rights. Ethiopia’s speciality coffee beans are sold abroad at the ordinary price, which should at least three times of the ordinary price. The officials at Ethiopia’s intellectual property office argued that higher rates should not be simply the product of investments made in roasting, packaging, marketing and distributors; rather it should be the result of differential quality, flavour and aroma. These differential factors should not be same with any coffee distributors; it is uniquely present as like in Ethiopian coffee. The intangible or extra value present in Ethiopian coffee justifies the ground of selling it at higher price abroad and in international market, but it’s not being captured in real sense in the country (Seager, 2007).
For narrowing down the gap between retail price of coffee in international market and those which return to the producers, Ethiopian government is using and implementing a range of intellectual property rights (IPRs) for differentiating coffee in the market place, earning higher returns thereby justifying hard work and efforts of farmers. In 2004,

HOLMES INSTITUTE FACULTY OF HIGHER EDUCATION HI5015 Legal Aspects of International Trade & Enterprise Assessment Details and Submission Guidelines Trimester T1 2019 Unit Code HI5015 Unit Title Legal...

Solution

Answer To This Question Is Available To Download

Related Questions & Answers

Submit New Assignment