ミランダ、素晴らしいドラフトを送ってくれてありがとう。20条の主張に関しては、付け足すことがありません。10条に関しては相手側が主張責任を負いますが、こちらの反論を用意しておく必要はないでしょうか？以下のような内容になると思います。
1 アスベスト禁止法は貿易法10条に反しない。
1.1 「アスベスト」と「代替製品」は、「同種の産品」に該当しない。
1.2 カナダ産製品について「差別的取扱い」がなされているとはいえない。
Rating
52
Translation / English
- Posted at 06 Aug 2013 at 12:46
Thank you for sending me a great draft, Miranda. As for the assertion relating to the Article 20, I have nothing to add. The other party will be liable for asserting regarting the Article 10, but I think that it would be better for us to prepare a counter-statement. How is your opinion? It would as follows:
(1) The Asbestos Prohibition Act is not in violation of the Article 10 of the Trade Act.
(1)-1 Asbestos and its substitutes do not fall in the same type of products.
(1)-2 It cannot be deemd that products made in Canada is teated in discriminatory manner.
(1) The Asbestos Prohibition Act is not in violation of the Article 10 of the Trade Act.
(1)-1 Asbestos and its substitutes do not fall in the same type of products.
(1)-2 It cannot be deemd that products made in Canada is teated in discriminatory manner.
★★★★★ 5.0/1
Rating
50
Translation / English
- Posted at 06 Aug 2013 at 12:37
Miranda, thank you for sending your wonderful draft. We have nothing to add on the 20th article. Our opponent will argue the 10th article, so shouldn`t we prepare a counterargument? I think it will be as follows:
1.Asbestos Prohibition Law is not against the 10th article of the trade law.
1.1 `Asbestos` and `substitute product` is not considered as `Like products`
1.2 We cannot say the Canadian product is receiving `discriminatory treatment`
1.Asbestos Prohibition Law is not against the 10th article of the trade law.
1.1 `Asbestos` and `substitute product` is not considered as `Like products`
1.2 We cannot say the Canadian product is receiving `discriminatory treatment`
![[deleted user]](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/695023b4efd563721d13716b1457bc73.png?d=identicon&mode=crop&r=PG&s=42)
Rating
52
Translation / English
- Posted at 06 Aug 2013 at 12:55
Hi, Miranda. Thank you for sending us the excellent draft. Regarding the arguments for the provision of the Article 20, we do not have any additional comments. Regarding the Article 10, although the opponent shall be responsible for providing the arguments, shall we not need to prepare the counter arguments? If so, we will provide the counter arguments regarding the followings;
1 The ban on the use of asbestos does not violate the provision of the Article 10.
1.1 The “asbestos” and the “asbestos substitution” are not considered to be the “similar products and materials”.
1.2 There is no proof on the “discriminately treatment” between Canadian products and the others.
1 The ban on the use of asbestos does not violate the provision of the Article 10.
1.1 The “asbestos” and the “asbestos substitution” are not considered to be the “similar products and materials”.
1.2 There is no proof on the “discriminately treatment” between Canadian products and the others.
