ID # 19539787

I.

Larry A. DiMatteo, in his book, discussed that the WTO international trade
regime is based on the three fundamental GATT principles, namely:

(1) The most-favored-nation principle;

(2) The national treatment principle; and
(3) The principle of transparency.

The most-favored-nation principle states that when a country lowers a

trade barrier or opens up a domestic market, it has to do so for all of its trading
partners. An example of which is when two countries negotiate a lower tariff rate
between themselves. In this case, they must also provide the lower rate to all
other WTO countries. However, countries may enter into Free Trade Agreements
(FTAs) as an exception to the rule. FTAs allow two or more countries to form a
free trade area treated as a single country for purposes of complying with the
rule.

The national treatment principle prohibits discrimination between

imported goods and domestically produced goods. It states that once a product,
intellectual property right, or service enters a foreign market, it must receive the
same treatment given to domestically produced ones even though it can be
treated differently at the time of importation.

Lastly, the principle of transparency requires the WTO countries to make

their import and custom laws accessible to importing parties. The import
regulations should be stable and clear so that the importing parties will not be
confused as to the requirements for importation. There must be full disclosure of
the import policies and practices publicly, and changes to such policies and
practices mostly require formal notification of the WTO.

II.

Yes. The prevailing division of legal systems into particular “legal

families” cannot be abandoned and is still used today in the study of
relationships as a comparative law approach. As discussed, it implies a historical
relationship concerning family-related concepts and origin that influence other
legal systems.

In an Oxford handbook scholarly research review online written by

Jaakko Husa on Legal Systems and Comparative Law, Legal families are best
suited for describing and generalizing civil law, common law, and mixed legal
families. It cannot be separated distinctively as they are largely overlapping
although they have different areas of use. It can be said that none of these macro-
constructs are objectively better than the other as they are merely suited for
different scholarly purposes.
 The legal families and other legal traditions and systems do not replace
each other but are rather complementary as to their nature. It is still relevant
today as in legal culture; the law is more than just a set of rules or concepts. It is
also a social practice within a legal community. In a legal point of view,
understanding these current prevailing legal systems will aid the courts,
legislature and the development of comparative law as a source of law and tool
of legal method.

III.

The major traditions/legal families highlighted in class are the following:

(1) Civil law: France and Romanistic legal family;

(2) Civil law: Germany and the Germanic legal family;
(3) Common Law: England;
(4) Common Law: United States; and
(5) Mixed Traditions

In Civil law countries, legislation is seen as the primary source of law. Courts
base their decisions by directly referring to the codes and statutes Courts thus
have to reason extensively on the basis of general principles of the code, or by
drawing analogies from statutory provisions. In the Civil law, each court directly
interprets the code or statute without citing other court decisions.

French law, like its culture, is distinctive and belongs to a loosely defined civil
law system. It lies in the areas of values, legal procedure, form of legal rules and
attitude to law. It reasons from rights and its structure is described in terms of
concepts. French Legal tradition is more formalist in terms of procedure.
Furthermore, in a Romanistic tradition, there is centralization, revolution and
codification.

The Germanistic legal family is a system of principles of private law to be taught

and learnt. It is characterized by as a government of law (Rechstaat) and has to
cope with an equally unique trauma. It follows 3 foundational principles, namely:
the principle of democracy, the principle of rechstaat and the organization of the
state as a federation.

In the Common law system, cases are the primary source of law. The
courts rely heavily on other court decisions interpreting the relevant statute
rather than relying directly on the statute itself.

Common law in England is made by sitting judges who apply both statutory law
and established principles which are derived from reasoning and earlier
decisions. It has no comprehensive codification. Common lawyers are empiricists
who are not given to abstract rules of law. They think in pictures rather than in
abstract concepts and the like. They often follow the Doctrine of Precedent and
Ratio Decidendi. They apply legal theory and legal reasoning as well as statutory
interpretation and other remedies and rights.

Americans, on the other hand, are more litigious. They have a US Constitution
unlike that of the English parliament who is not bound by a written constitution.
It provides a hierarchically superior normative framework for legal difference.
There is a relative lack of codification, as US laws have never been codified to the
same degree as European Legal Systems. They contain broad areas of the law,
most notably those relating to property, contracts and torts. These are
traditionally part of the common law in the US. These areas of the law are mostly
within the jurisdiction of the states and thus state courts are the primary source
of common law.

Lastly, Mixed Traditions is when the law in force is derived from more
than one legal tradition and legal family. Each entity combines features of the
civil and common law systems. Examples of countries who have mixed traditions
are Scotland and South Africa.