• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.37
• /
• pp.35-59
• /
• 2008

In most products liability cases, the only or principal defendant is the manufacturer that designed, manufactured, and marketed the product which injured the plaintiff. In this regards, most national laws and international convention stipulates the definition of the producer. But there is no rule about the definition of the producer in China. Yet parties in the product distribution chain other than ordinary manufacturers, notably retail seller, often profit from moving products from factories to consumers and so may bear some responsibility when product hazards injure consumers. The purpose of this paper is to clarify the definition of the "producer", "seller" who is responsible for products liability claims in China. This paper will contributes to help the Korean exporters, manufacturers to build up the proper countermeasures regarding products liability in China.

• Journal of Digital Convergence
• /
• v.13 no.1
• /
• pp.111-124
• /
• 2015

The economic growth in China takes the step of the Internet/Mobile revolution together. The high internet penetration provided the opportunity to increase the e-commerce market with fast speed. However, due to imbalance of the growth speed and preparation, the problems on various infrastructures and regulations were generated. Therefore, this study investigateed the current status of e-commerce market and sub-categories. This study also discussed about the problem of e-commerce logistics system, consumer protection, R&D investment, and human resources and provided the considerations for the future improvement. Finally, this study diagnosed the mobile payment and internet finance market and new e-commerce tax regulation, and then suggested institutional implications for the international standardization. This study is meaningful to provide the first implication to the Korean exporters after Chinese government had announced market open strategy for the 5 year e-commerce development plan.

• Korea Trade Review
• /
• v.44 no.1
• /
• pp.177-191
• /
• 2019

Global trade protectionism has increased further and U.S. priorities and protectionism have strengthened since Trump took office in 2017. Trump administration is actively implementing tariff measures based on U.S. domestic trade laws rather than the WTO rules and regulations. In particular, the American government has recently been imposing high tariffs due to national security and imposing economic sanctions on other countries' imports. According to the U.S. Trade Expansion Act Section 232, the American government imposed additional tariffs on steel and aluminum imports to WTO member countries such as China, India, and EU etc. on march 15, 2018. Thus, this study aims to investigate whether the U.S. Trade Expansion Act Section 232 is consistent with GATT/WTO rules by comparing the legal basis of US / China / WTO regulations related to Section 232 of the U.S. Trade Expansion Act, and gives some suggestions for responding to the Section 232 measure. As the Section 232 measure exceeded the scope of GATT's Security Exceptions regulation and is very likely to be understood as a safeguard measure. If so, the American government is deemed to be in breach of WTO's regulations, such as the most-favored-nation treatment obligations and the duty reduction obligations. In addition, American government is deemed to be failed to meet the conditions of initiation of safeguard measure and violated the procedural requirements such as notification and consultation. In order to respond to these U.S. protection trade measures, all affected countries should actively use the WTO multilateral system to prevent unfair measures. Also, it is necessary to revise the standard jurisdiction of the dispute settlement body and to explore the balance of the WTO Exception clause so that it can be applied strictly. Finally, it would be necessary for Chinese exporters to take a counter-strategy under such trade pressure.