HI5015 Legal Aspects of International Trade & Enterprise Assessment
HOLMES INSTITUTE FACULTY OF HIGHER EDUCATION HI5015 Authorized Features of Worldwide Commerce & Enterprise Evaluation Particulars and Submission Pointers Trimester T1 2019 Unit Code HI5015 Unit Title Authorized Features of Worldwide Commerce & Enterprise Evaluation Kind Group Project Evaluation Title Analysis paper and presentation Function of the evaluation (with ULO Mapping) College students are required to analysis an Worldwide Regulation Case of your selection from the record under and clarify in a report format on the background of the dispute, information, authorized points, particular person events’ arguments, tribunal’s resolution and the significance of the case in worldwide regulation. Weight 30% of the full assessments Complete Marks 20 marks – analysis paper and 10 marks for presentation Phrase restrict No more than 2000 phrases Due Date Friday Week 10 – 11.59pm Submission Pointers  All work have to be submitted on Blackboard by the due date together with a accomplished Project Cowl Web page.  The task have to be in MS Phrase format, no spacing, 12-pt Arial font and a couple of cm margins on all 4 sides of your web page with applicable part headings and web page numbers.  Reference sources have to be cited within the textual content of the report, and listed appropriately on the finish in a reference record utilizing Harvard referencing type. Web page 2 of eight HI5015 Authorized Features of Worldwide Commerce & Enterprise Project 2 Specs Function: This task goals at making certain that college students have familiarised themselves with their chosen Worldwide Case regulation and are capable of clarify the background of the dispute, information, authorized points, particular person events’ arguments, tribunal’s resolution and the significance of the case in worldwide regulation. Particulars: Matters and presentation schedule: Please organise yourselves into teams of no more than 5 college students and never lower than three college students. The task consists of two components; A. Written report – value 20% and have to be submitted – Friday Week 10 at 11.59pm. 1. Choose a case from the record of Worldwide Regulation Instances under. 2. Advise your lecturer by electronic mail of your group members with pupil ID numbers and chosen case. Please word: your lecturer’s prior approval of your case is required. three. Choose the celebration you want to signify (ex. China within the “Philippines v. China within the South China sea” case; or Canada in “Canada v. Australia – Measures Affecting Importation of Salmon”). four. Analysis, learn and perceive your chosen case. 5. Put together and submit a written report discussing the next:  background of the dispute  transient information of the case  the authorized points offered  the person events’ arguments, with explicit emphasis in your chosen celebration’s arguments  the tribunal’s resolution  the significance or significance of the case in worldwide regulation (i.e. why the case is vital within the improvement of worldwide regulation). You may as well focus on some other developments following the courtroom or tribunal’s resolution. Project construction is to be written as a report format. It should embody;  Cowl web page  Government abstract  Desk of contents  Part headings  Paragraphing  Web page numbers  Reference record on the finish of the report Web page three of eight HI5015 Authorized Features of Worldwide Commerce & Enterprise B. Group Presentation – value 10% and will likely be offered / submitted in week 10. Strict adherence to the 10 minute restrict is anticipated. 1. Current and focus on the abstract of your report in 10 minutes. 2. The Presentation will likely be accomplished in school or video recording. Your lecturer will advise which is extra applicable. Whether or not in-class or video presentation, all members should current. The group will likely be marked down if not all members current. three. Video hyperlink have to be uploaded to a publicly-viewable video sharing platform (ex. Youtube, Dropbox, Google drive) and the video hyperlink uploaded on Blackboard. four. A video presentation consists of each photos and audio. Because of this, a plain Energy Level presentation exhibiting slides even with accompanying voice recording shouldn't be thought of a video and, therefore, not allowed. Vital Reminders: Lecturer approval of chosen case: 1. You should electronic mail your lecturer your record of group members and chosen case by week four. 2. You should receive approval by electronic mail out of your lecturer of your group and chosen case earlier than beginning work on it. You should NOT begin work in your group task till your lecturer approves your group and case. Please word: failure to acquire lecturer approval will lead to a failing mark for the complete group for this task. Submission: 1. All group report submissions have to be accomplished on-line and run by SafeAssign. No arduous copies are to be submitted. Just one group member must submit for the entire group. 2. Please fill within the “Group Report cowl sheet” (obtainable in Blackboard below “Assignments and Due dates) and connect as a canopy sheet to your group report and add on Blackboard. three. Every group should electronic mail to their lecturer a “Peer Analysis of Particular person Participation in Group Project” sheet (obtainable in Blackboard below “Assignments and Due dates). four. Non-submission of both the group report or video presentation hyperlink (if a gaggle is doing a video) on Blackboard/SafeAssign (if doing a video presentation) is equal to non-submission, which is able to benefit a mark of zero (zero) for the group task. 5. This can be a group task and is supposed to be labored on in teams. Teams of lower than three and extra 5 members will obtain a penalty of 10 marks (50%). 6. Studies have to be submitted by way of SafeAssign on Blackboard and present a similarity proportion determine. Any group report that doesn't present a SafeAssign similarity proportion won't be marked and be required to re-submit. 7. Late submissions will likely be topic to Holmes Institute coverage on pupil evaluation submission and late penalties (please discuss with topic define and Scholar handbook). Web page four of eight HI5015 Authorized Features of Worldwide Commerce & Enterprise Quotation and referencing: 1. The group report should have a minimal of 6 scholarly, educational references, that are applicable for a Masters Degree task. 2. Assignments are anticipated to look at correct referencing in accordance with a usually accepted system of quotation (ex, Harvard System). A correctly referenced task exhibiting in-text quotation is essential to passing and acquiring an excellent mark within the group task. SafeAssign similarity proportion: 1. Plagiarism in any type, form or method is unacceptable below any circumstances and will likely be dealt with based on Institute coverage on plagiarism. 2. Typically, for written experiences, a SafeAssign similarity proportion of 25% or under is appropriate. Whatever the similarity determine, all group experiences should use in-text quotation and observe correct referencing guidelines. INTERNATIONAL LAW CASES Please select from one of many following matters from the record (see under). Observe: The place potential, teams are anticipated to discuss with the texts of the unique instances and conduct further analysis. Don't rely merely on the case summaries as it isn't potential to put in writing a 2,000 phrase report based mostly solely on case summaries. 1. De Sanchez v. Banco Central De Nicaragua Textbook (August, Mayer & Bixby sixth ed): pp. 63-65 2. Chattin v. United Mexican States Textbook: pp. 93-96 three. three. Islamic Republic or Iran v. United Sates of America https://www.studyproessay.com/write-my-paper/icj-cij.org/en/case/79 four. Fee of the European Communities v. Federal Republic of Germany Textbook: pp. 51-53 . 5. Sandline Worldwide Inc. v. Papua New Guinea Textbook: pp. 73-76 6. The M/V Saiga Case (Deserves) Textbook: pp. 98-103 7. Within the matter of the Loewen Group Inc. and Raymond L Loewen vs USA Textbook: pp. 145-147 eight. Bumper Improvement Corp. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and Others Textbook: pp. 150-153 9. Abbott v. Republic of South Africa Textbook: pp. 163-167 10. Financial institution of India v. Gobindram Naraindas Sadhwani and Others Textbook: pp. 172-175 11. Jorge Luis Machuca Gonzalez et al. v. Chrysler Company et al. Textbook: pp. 177-179 12. Barcelona Traction, Mild and Energy Co. (Belgium v. Spain) Textbook: pp. 187-189 https://www.studyproessay.com/write-my-paper/icjcij.org/en/case/50 13. Metro Industries v. Sammi Corp. Textbook: pp. 200-205 14. United States v. Blondek, Tull, Citadel, and Lowry Textbook: pp. 225-229 15. Arab Republic of Egypt v. Southern Pacific Properties, Ltd., et al. Textbook: pp. 249-250 16. Brady v. Brown Textbook: pp. 257-262 17. Nissan Motor Mfg. Corp., U.S.A. v. United States Textbook: pp.264-266 18. The Bhopal Case – Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India Textbook: pp. 277-281 19. Batchelder v. Kawamoto Textbook: pp. 288-290 20. Wilson, Smithett & Cope, Ltd v. Terruzzi Textbook: pp. 315-319 21. Hunt et al. v. Alliance North American Authorities Revenue Belief, Inc. et al. Textbook: pp. 344-345 22. Vishipco Line et al. v. Chase Manhattan Financial institution, N.A. Textbook: pp. 351-354 23. Finance Ministry v. Manifattura Lane Marz Otto, SpA Textbook: pp. 378-379 24. Canada v. Australia – Measures Affecting Importation of Salmon https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds18_e.htm Web page 5 of eight HI5015 Authorized Features of Worldwide Commerce & Enterprise 25. Japan—Taxes on Alcoholic Drinks Textbook: pp. 381-384 26. Duberg v. UNESCO Textbook: pp. 452-454 27. State v. Nagami (Japan 1968) Textbook: pp. 470-472 6 28. Spiess et al. v. C. Itoh & Co. (America), Inc. (US 1979) Textbook: pp. 480-482 29. Performing Proper Society Restricted v. Hickey Textbook: pp. 494-496 30. Amar Nath Sehgal v. Union of India Textbook: pp. 499-501 31. Starbucks and Ethiopia Dispute Espresso Trademark Points Textbook: pp. 513-515 https://www.studyproessay.com/write-my-paper/wipo.int/ipadvantage/en/particulars.jsp?id=2621 https://www.ictsd.org/bridgesnews/biores/information/ethiopia-and-starbucks-reachcoffee-agreement 32. Expertise Hendrix, L.L.C. v. Hammerton Textbook: pp. 516-521 33. Treibacher Industrie, A.G. v. Allegheny Applied sciences, Inc. Textbook: pp. 576-579 34. Chicago Prime Packers, Inc. v. Northern Meals Buying and selling Co. (US 2005) Textbook: pp. 595-598 35. M. Golodetz & co. v. Czarnikow-Rionda Co., Inc. (The Galitia) Textbook: pp. 62-632 36. Nice China Steel Industries Co. Ltd. v. Malaysian Worldwide Delivery Corp. Textbook: pp. 635- 639 37. Mair v. Financial institution of Nova Scotia (Jap Caribbean States 1983) Textbook: pp. 671-673 38. Far East Realty Funding, Inc. v. Court docket of Appeals et al. (Philippines 1988) Textbook: pp. 676-677 39. Trans Belief Sprl v. Danubian Buying and selling Co., Ltd. (UK 1952) Textbook: pp. 687-689 40. Sztejn v. J. Henry Schoeder Banking Corp. Textbook: pp. 695-696 41. Philippines v. China within the South China Sea https://pca-cpa.org/wpcontent/uploads/websites/175/2016/07/PH-CN-20160712- Award.pdf https://www.studyproessay.com/write-my-paper/straitstimes.com/asia/philippines-vs-china-in-the-south-china-sea-thedispute-so-far 42. Within the arbitration continuing between Fraport AG Frankfurt Airport Providers Worldwide (Claimant) and Republic of the Philippines: Worldwide Centre for Settlement of Funding Disputes, Washington, D.C.) https://www.italaw.com/websites/default/information/case-documents/italaw4114.pdf Marking standards Marking standards Weighting Written Report Introduction to chosen case four% Identification of authorized points 6% Tribunal’s resolution 6% Organisation or construction 2% Referencing 2% TOTAL 20% Presentation Dialogue on the content material of the subject three% General presentation readability three% General impression four% TOTAL 10% TOTAL Weight 30% Evaluation Suggestions to the Scholar: Web page 6 of eight HI5015 Authorized Features of Worldwide Commerce & Enterprise Marking Rubric – Written Report Glorious Very Good Good Passable Unsatisfactory Introduction of case, background and information of the case (four marks) Demonstration of thorough information of the chosen case (four marks) Demonstration of an excellent information of the chosen case (three.5 marks) Demonstration of an excellent information of the chosen case (2.5 marks) Demonstration of passable information of the chosen case (2 marks) Demonstration of little or no information of the chosen case and dialogue has little or no relevance to the case chosen. (1 mark) Identification of authorized points offered and particular person events’ arguments, with explicit emphasis on chosen celebration’s arguments. (6 marks) Precisely and succinctly recognized all of the problems and sub-issues confronting the events in order to resolve the drawback. (6 marks) Identification of all the points and sub-issues confronting the events in order to resolve the drawback. (5.5 marks) Identification of most however not all of the problems and sub-issues confronting the events in order to resolve the drawback. (four.5 marks) Identification of among the points and subissues confronting the events in order to resolve the drawback. (three.5 marks) Failure to determine any of the problems and sub-issues confronting the events in order to resolve the drawback. (<2 marks) Rationalization of the tribunal’s resolution and significance of the case in worldwide regulation (6 marks) Precisely and succinctly defined all of the tribunal’s resolution and the significance of the case in worldwide regulation. (6 marks) Defined all of the tribunal’s resolution and the significance of the case in worldwide regulation. (5.5 marks) Defined most however not all of the tribunal’s resolution and the significance of the case in worldwide regulation. (four.5 marks) Defined some of the tribunal’s resolution and the significance of the case in worldwide regulation. (three.5 marks) Failure to clarify any of the tribunal’s resolution and the importance of the case in worldwide regulation. (<2 marks) General presentation and high quality of report (2 marks) Report is exceptionally structured with readability, use of paragraphs and subheadings. (2 marks) Report is nicely structured with readability, use of paragraphs and subheadings. (1.75 marks) Report is considerably structured with readability, use of paragraphs and subheadings. (1.5 marks)) Report is structured with some readability, and use of some paragraphs and subheadings. (1 mark) Poorly offered. Report shouldn't be structured with any readability, and doesn't use of paragraphs and subheadings. (zero.5 mark) Referencing (2 marks) Clear systematic referencing utilizing Harvard type for Clear systematic referencing utilizing Harvard Clear systematic referencing utilizing Harvard Restricted try at formatting references. Poorly offered, no obvious Web page 7 of eight HI5015 Authorized Features of Worldwide Commerce & Enterprise all sources. At least 6 related references had been used from good sources. All in-text referencing accomplished appropriately and related. (2 marks) type for all sources. At least 5 related references had been used from good sources. All in-text referencing accomplished appropriately and related. (1.75marks) type for all sources. At least four related references had been used from good sources. Most in-text referencing accomplished appropriately and related. (1.5 marks) References largely unrelated to the matter space. A minimum of three references had been offered. Most in-text referencing accomplished appropriately and related. (1 mark) construction. No use of Harvard referencing type. References had been unrelated to the subject space. Solely zero r 1 related reference given (zero.5 mark) Marking Rubric - Presentation Glorious Very Good Good Passable Unsatisfactory Dialogue on the content material of the subject (three marks) Glorious dialogue from all audio system. Dialogue was related and insightful in any respect occasions. (three marks) Very Good dialogue from all audio system. Dialogue was related and insightful most of the time (2.5 marks) Very Good dialogue from most audio system. Dialogue was related and insightful some of the time (2 marks) Passable dialogue from all audio system. Dialogue was related and offered no perception (1.5 marks) Little or no dialogue from audio system. Dialogue not related to the matter being mentioned. (1 mark) General presentation readability (three marks) Glorious use of visible aids. Presentation structured nicely to make sure that all matters had been lined equally. (three marks) Superb use of visible aids. Presentation structured nicely to make sure that all matters had been lined equally. (2.5 marks) Good use of visible aids. Presentation structured nicely to make sure that all matters had been largely lined equally. (2 marks) Passable use of visible aids. Presentation structured whereby most matters had been lined (1.5 marks) No visible aids used. Presentation had no construction and most matters weren't lined. (1 mark) General impression (four marks) Excellent impression left on viewers. Every speaker had an intensive information of the areas mentioned and contributed equally. Exceptionally skilled supply and viewers engagement. Adherence to the time constraints Superb impression left on viewers. Every speaker had a considerably thorough information of the areas mentioned and contributed considerably equally. Very skilled supply and viewers Good impression left on viewers. Every speaker had a considerably thorough information of the areas mentioned and contributed considerably equally. Skilled supply and viewers Passable impression left on viewers. Most audio system had some information of the areas mentioned and contributed considerably equally. Considerably skilled supply and viewers engagement. No impression left on viewers. Most audio system had little information of the areas mentioned and didn't contribute equally. No skilled supply or viewers engagement. No adherence Web page eight of eight HI5015 Authorized Features of Worldwide Commerce & Enterprise of 10 minutes (four marks) engagement. Adherence to the time constraints of 10 minutes (three.5 marks) engagement. Adherence to the time constraints of 10 minutes (three marks) Adherence to the time constraints of 10 minutes (2 marks) to the time constraints of 10 minutes (1 mark)