睦衡 asked in 社會與文化語言 · 2 decades ago

有人可以幫我翻譯這段文章嗎??會超感恩您的 送10點

The asbestos at issue in this case involves Canadian chrysotile exports to France. Prior to 1997, Canada was exporting up to 40,000 tons asbestos to France each year. Citing the health risk, France imposed a virtual ban on its manufacture, import, sale, use, subject to a few limited and temporary exceptions. The Canadian asbestos industry responded that chrysotile fibers can be used without incurring any detectable risk because the fibers become encapsulated in the hardened products into which it is made, such as heat-resistant cement blocks. Canada requested WTO dispute settlement. France claims that it can restrict asbestos both under GATT Article XX(b) (general provisions that a country may protect public health) and under similar provisions in the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade(the TBT). The Canadian government argued that the French law was not a “technical regulation” as permitted under the TBT, but a total prohibition. It also argued that under GATT Article lll4: (the general principle of nondiscrimination) a country may not treat imported products differently than “like products” of domestic origin. Canada maintained that the restrictions on asbestos discriminated against other less harmful substitute products made of glass or cellulous. Finally, Canada argued that the restrictions went beyond what was “necessary” to protect human health, as set forth in GATT Article XX(b) [see appendices to this text]. It claimed that less restrictive measures, such as “controlled use” of the product, were enough to guarantee safety. The appellate Body report upholds the French law, although for different reasons than those stated by the original panel

3 Answers

Rating
  • 北北
    Lv 7
    2 decades ago
    Favorite Answer

    在這個情況裡在爭論中的石棉與去法蘭西的加拿大人chrysotile退場門有關。 在1997之前,加拿大每年正退場門直到40,000公頓石棉到法蘭西。 引用健康危險,法蘭西把一項網上的禁令強加給它的製造,進口,銷售,使用,以一些有限和暫時的例外為條件。加拿大石棉工業回答chrysotile纖維可以被使用而沒有招致任何能發現的危險, 纖維被在它被做的被變硬的產品內密封,例如耐熱水泥塊。加拿大請求WTO 爭論解決。法蘭西聲稱它在關貿總協定第XX條(b)下能兩個都限制石棉  (總則一個國家可以保護公共衛生)  並且在在關於技術貿易壁壘(TBT)的協議裡的相似的規定下 . 加拿大政府辯論法蘭西法律不是在TBT,而是一項總禁令下允許的echnical regulationas。  它也在關貿總協定文章lll4下辯論那︰ (非歧視性的總則)  與ike productsof 國內起源相比較,一個國家可能不不同對待進口的產品。  加拿大主張對石棉的限制歧視由玻璃或者cellulous做成的其他不那麼有害的代替者產品。 最後,加拿大表明限制超過是ecessaryto的保護人健康,象在關貿總協定第XX條(b)方面闡述的那樣  [對這份正文看見附錄 ].  聲稱不那麼限制度量標準,例如ontrolled useof這種產品,足夠保證安全。  上訴報告支援法蘭西法律,雖然比規定的那些以原先的小組的由於不同原因

  • 2 decades ago

    翻譯機用來查單字好像比較有用?

  • Anonymous
    2 decades ago

    辯論石棉包括這個情況加拿大為法國溫暖的石棉出口。19, 97 前面, 加拿大對法國出口最高40, 000 噸石棉每年。給健康風險, 法國3 被限制了2 在虛構的禁止是, 製造和進口和銷售用途被強迫的臨時例外前提之下。加拿大的石棉產業, 因為那被做被硬化的產品(例如, 抵抗熱???), 不幸的膠囊, 因此紡織品纖維許諾了您說溫暖的石棉纖維不能並且需要發現危險任何移動使用。如果成為和解, 世界貿易組織詳盡闡述了加拿大請求。法國G A T T 因此, (b) (不被保護在X x 由全國公共衛生並且) 的保護普通的供應下由T e.c. h n i c 每l B r r.i. e r s 為T r d e (T B T) A g r e e m e n 在t 相似的供應裡面位置可能限制石棉。加拿大政府T B T, 但, 由完全禁止允許了裡面, 主張了法國的法律不是"技術規則" 。那是G A T T l l 4 基地詳盡闡述那的l: 國家, "由家庭起源類似了產品" 是不同的, 被處理進口不是的產品(的普通的原則不區別) 。主張了加拿大落寞對待由玻璃能完成不能完成其它不有害替換關於石棉極限細胞的產品。限制最後加拿大G A T T X x (b) 看附錄類似敘述, 主張了為監護人的健康橫渡"是根本的" 問題的這篇原文。主張了雖然極限處理(例如, 控制") 的產品" 用途被保證安全但那的程度是足夠。為了比較對由繼續嘗試y 報告支持法國人法律原型揉的板的呼籲事件B o d 決定了這些不同的原因雖然但,

    Source(s): 抱歉 翻譯機 就只能翻出簡字
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.