http://www.worldlawdirect.com/forum/ Questions about international law issues. en Fri, 20 Nov 2009 22:31:11 GMT vBulletin 60 http://www.worldlawdirect.com/forum/images/vbseo_skin_2.0/misc/rss.jpg http://www.worldlawdirect.com/forum/ http://www.worldlawdirect.com/forum/international-law-issues/31810-ibc-trade-union-permit.html Fri, 20 Nov 2009 22:01:58 GMT I got contacted with one of the company base in UK. Person who in charge told me that within 2 days after payment, I will receive my orders. I paid... I got contacted with one of the company base in UK. Person who in charge told me that within 2 days after payment, I will receive my orders. I paid the goods via MoneyGram. After payment, he told me that he has a problem with my packages. I have to pay the custom and vat. He asked me to transfer money for it. I did it. After transfer done, again he told me that another problem occurred. He asked me a number of my International Buyer Card. Since I am a normal buyer, of course I don’t have it. I paid to him to make a card for me. Again for the third times, he told me my package is hold because they need my number of Trade Union Permit. Until now my order is stuck there in Nigeria.
I have my experiences buying goods via internet, and I never have the problem like these. I just paid my orders and shipping fees. After few days I received my orders.

As a buyer for my personal use and the orders is only 1 for each item;

1. Do those condition IBC and Trade Union Permit are required when I am buying something from internet?
2. Do those conditions IBC and Trade Union Permit are required when sending a package (Aramex) from Nigeria to UAE (Abu Dhabi)?.
With this case, what I have to do to solve my problem ]]> International Law Issues Unregistered http://www.worldlawdirect.com/forum/international-law-issues/31810-ibc-trade-union-permit.html http://www.worldlawdirect.com/forum/international-law-issues/31715-there-s-water-moon-but-who-owns.html Wed, 18 Nov 2009 17:30:04 GMT

Last week, NASA scientists discovered that the moon contains water, a “significant amount,” said Anthony Colaprete, who oversaw the Lunar Crater Observation and Sensing Satellite mission. He said NASA found enough water to fill a dozen two-gallon buckets. Click here for the WSJ story.

As far as stories go, this falls both in the “neat-o!” and “potentially important” categories, writes the Journal’s Jonathan Rockoff. The discovery means lunar scientists can move on to questions about the source of the water and its distribution on the moon, which could shed light on the history of the solar system. The discovery could also make further human exploration of the moon possible.

To others, the discovery heightens the possibility that we might be able to collect valuable resources from the moon. And it’s that possibility that gets the lawyers thinking, naturally, about rights and ownership.

Ownership of the moon? On the one hand, it sounds like something only a desperate legal academic might think about. But that’s not so, says Timothy G. Nelson, an international arbitration lawyer in Skadden’s New York office. Nelson says aerospace companies are already thinking about ways to make space exploration profitable. While it’s still decades away, Nelson says the possibilities are becoming more concrete all the time, and that it’s not too soon to think about the law and the moon.

We chatted with Nelson about the law — or lack thereof — that might govern private parties or nations once someone finds something of use up there (aside from the cheese). For those interested in the topic, click here, also, for a post we did on “space law” a couple years ago.

Hi Tim, thanks for taking the time. So who owns the moon? Or perhaps we should ask who owns any resources that ultimately get extracted from the moon.

The question is governed by international law, and some of the principles are actually fairly well developed.

At bottom, when one asks such a question, he’s really asking about the law concerning the extraction of resources in a place where there’s no sovereignty. Incidentally, the fact that there is no sovereignty is reflected in an international treaty in 1967 [often referred to as the Outer Space Treaty], which essentially said that no country shall make any sovereign claims to the moon.

And isn’t there a Treaty of the Moon, too?

There is. But the 1979 treaty has only been ratified by 13 states, none of which are space-faring nations, so it’s not exactly the most effective treaty out there. But the 1979 treaty says that the moon belongs to the “common heritage of all mankind.” In simpler terms, it means that the national resources of the moon are socialized. They belong to everyone, so, implicitly, you have to pay a sort of tax or obtain some sort of license from a central body in order to extract them.

But that treaty doesn’t really apply?

Not to the U.S. One’s instinct might be to look to two comparable precedents from international law to inform us further. On the one hand, we have a treaty on Antarctica. We also have a treaty that governs the extraction of resources from the deep sea bed. Both of those are analogous to the moon as they’re beyond the boundaries of any state and both have been proven to contain resources.

Thing is, in regard to Antarctica, there’s a 50-year moratorium on exploration. In regard to deep-sea exploration, a treaty exists. It was concluded in 1982 and is called the Law of the Sea Convention. One chapter of the Convention applies to the deep sea bed, that is, parts of the sea that extend beyond the continental shelf, beyond where oil exploration is happening, really. A treaty was needed to apply to the sea because it contains large deposits of manganese.

For now, the commodity prices haven’t gone high enough to justify putting a lot of money into deep-sea exploration, but when it does, it will be governed by Part XI of the Law of the Sea Convention. Under the Convention, there has been established an International Seabed Authority based in Jamaica, which has power to license the right to explore for and extract the manganese and collect a fee.

This caused a lot of controversy when it was negotiated. President Reagan was very hostile; his administration said it was an attempt to socialize these resources. The U.S. still hasn’t ratified the treaty, although the Clinton administration negotiated some adjustments to it. I think it’s only a matter of time before the U.S. ratifies it. There’s a feeling that the U.S. will have to once commercial exploitation of the deep sea bed becomes more viable.

Okay. And you think something akin to the Deep Sea Treaty would develop for the moon, if and when exploitation became viable?

I do. That’s probably the kind of system that would develop on the moon. Of course, getting resources from the moon will take an enormous capital investment, and the trick in setting up a treaty will be to make it feasible to get private capital involved. If you don’t do that; if it’s something that’s overly regulated by a centralized U.N. framework, it won’t work. You have to make it such that private investors could sensibly commit the funds to go ahead and do the exploitation.

And you think this is something worth thinking about now?

I do. It’s never too soon, and executives at aerospace companies certainly don’t think it’s too early to think about. It’s interesting to note that although this as a reality is however many decades in the future, there are people at large companies whose job it is to help plan and shape policies and as technology improves, it could be that they play a large role going forward and that the policy debates will surrender to the commercial necessities. It’s one of those areas that might sound like a novelty area, but it feeds into real issues, real commercial issues, and feeds into a fairly sophisticated body of law.

Okay, granted, the body of law sounds sophisticated in some regards. But in others, you’ve got this 1979 moon treaty that nobody follows. Any chance others will join the 1979 treaty rather than reworking something from scratch?

It’s possible, but it’s more likely that the 1979 treaty will whither on the vine. I just don’t see people jumping into the moon treaty, a neglected and moribund treaty.

I suspect what you’ll have is a fresh regime and it will only be a serious regime if it’s led by the larger nations. Until the Chinese, the U.S., the European nations, and perhaps the Japanese and Indians get involved, we’re probably not going to have movement.

But you’re right. I think something new is going to need to be written out. And at this point, you take what worked from previous treaties, and dump out what didn’t work. It’s not as if you don’t have anything to go on.

Interesting stuff. Thanks much for taking the time.

Happy to.





]]> International Law Issues WSJ_law_blog http://www.worldlawdirect.com/forum/international-law-issues/31715-there-s-water-moon-but-who-owns.html http://www.worldlawdirect.com/forum/international-law-issues/31685-overseas-bribery-cases-beware-execs-doj-wants-your-fancy-cars.html Tue, 17 Nov 2009 23:10:09 GMT Image: http://online.wsj.com/media/breuer_CV_20091113164051.jpg The Department of Justice recently has targeted executives and other employees...

The Department of Justice recently has targeted executives and other employees of allegedly corrupt corporations with gusto as it pursues overseas bribery cases. Now, the executives’ fancy cars and boats may also be at risk.

Lanny A. Breuer, the assistant attorney general of the DOJ’s criminal division, said at a gathering of FCPA lawyers in Washington D.C., on Tuesday that his unit will focus on asset forfeiture as punishment for violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.

“Whether we’re talking about kleptocracy or those who benefit from bribery, we’re going to pursue it and pursue it aggressively,” Breuer said. “When we can prove the case we’re absolutely going to seize their profits and their land and their fancy cars and boats. We’re committed to doing it.” Click here for a transcript of Breuer’s comments.

Breuer also said that as DOJ pursues FCPA cases, it will frown upon companies that don’t have robust compliance programs in place to root out bribery.

“We recognize the issue of costs to companies to implement robust compliance programs . . . and to forgo certain business opportunities to avoid the taint of corruption,” he said. “The cost of not being FCPA compliant however can and will be much, much higher.”

DOJ’s Mark Mendelsohn, a deputy chief in the criminal fraud section, offered a new round of stats sure to fuel the compliance-consulting business for years to come. DOJ currently has 130 ongoing FCPA investigations, he said. The Justice Department has so far this year targeted 12 individuals with FCPA enforcement actions, and Mendelsohn offered ominous warnings that the number would be higher by year’s end.

Mendelsohn said he anticipates the recession and resulting government-led stimulus efforts will trigger more corruption cases in the future as governments across the world pour money into infrastructure projects that historically have been corruption magnets.

Separately, in his remarks Breuer noted that Mendelsohn, who has overseen part of the biggest ramp up of FCPA prosecutions since the measure was enacted in the 1970s, “is beginning to explore options for the next phase of his career.”





]]> International Law Issues WSJ_law_blog http://www.worldlawdirect.com/forum/international-law-issues/31685-overseas-bribery-cases-beware-execs-doj-wants-your-fancy-cars.html http://www.worldlawdirect.com/forum/international-law-issues/31670-china-cyber-attacks.html Tue, 17 Nov 2009 19:46:57 GMT Alan Paller, director of research at SANS Institute, a computer-security organization, said Monday that a major law firm in New York was hacked into... Alan Paller, director of research at SANS Institute, a computer-security organization, said Monday that a major law firm in New York was hacked into in early 2008 in an attack that originated in China.

FBI officials did not immediately return messages for comment on the China connection. The FBI advisory was dated Nov. 1, 2009.

U.S. officials have been cautious about publicly linking cyber attacks to China. But recent government reports have described computer attacks believed to have originated in China, although it is unclear if the intrusions were conducted by, or with the endorsement of, any element of the Chinese government.

More...

The Associated Press: FBI says hackers targeting law firms, PR companies ]]> International Law Issues forum_admin http://www.worldlawdirect.com/forum/international-law-issues/31670-china-cyber-attacks.html