Question

急 急 急 求助哪位好心的大哥大姐帮我翻译一下，非常感谢。（机器翻译的不行）

In order to assess whether proximity-of-interest to the environmental concern should be the determining factor in whether a measure fits into paragraph (b) or (g), this article will now examine relevant Article XX case law.

A. Paragraph XX (b)
In Tuna I, the GATT panel ruled that paragraph XX(b) does not cover measures necessary to protect human, animal, or plant life or health outside the jurisdiction of the party taking the measure. This interpretation is consistent with my proximity-of-interest proposal. However, the panel went on to say that, if paragraph XX(b) were interpreted to permit extra-jurisdictional protection of life and health, the party invoking the exception would have to demonstrate that it had exhausted all options reasonably available to it to pursue its protection objectives through measures consistent with the GATT, in particular through the negotiation of international cooperative arrangements. This obiter dictum would be inconsistent with my proposal regarding the interpretation of paragraph XX(b). The Tuna I ruling was never adopted by the GATT parties.

The Tuna II panel, whose ruling also was not adopted by the GATT, employed a different analysis than Tuna I but reached the same result. It applied a three-prong test to both paragraph XX(b) and XX(g). The first prong considered whether the American regulations qualified as measures to conserve "exhaustible natural resources" under paragraph XX(g), or "to protect human, animal or plant life or health" under paragraph XX(b). The panel held that neither paragraph specifically limited the location of the resource or animal in question. The panel reasoned that other provisions in Article XX did not exclude measures aimed at actions outside a contracting party's territorial jurisdiction and that international law permitted states to regulate the conduct of their nationals outside their territory. This reasoning is consistent with my proximity-of-interest proposal insofar as its application to paragraph XX(g) but not with respect to paragraph XX(b).

In the Thai Cigarettes case, Thailand sought to justify a virtual ban on imported cigarettes under paragraph XX(b). The GATT panel's report accepted that smoking endangers human health and that measures designed to reduce cigarette consumption were therefore permissible under paragraph XX(b). Similarly, in Asbestos, the Appellate Body stated: we observed ... that"the more vital or important common interests or values" pursued, the easier it would be to accept as"necessary" measures designed to achieve those ends. In this case , the objective pursued by the measure is the preservation of human life and health through the elimination, or reduction, of the well-known, and life-threatening, health risks posed by asbestos fibres. The value pursued is both vital and important in the highest degree.

Answer 1

.................，那么多，要翻译多久啊..................................

Answer 2

法律相关饶舌文。这么长 200分帮你可以哦

Answer 3

同感....