Cookies Policy
X

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.

I accept this policy

Find out more here

Inter-jurisdictional Co-operation in the MERCOSUR: The First Request for an Advisory Opinion of the MERCOSUR’s Permanent Review Tribunal by Argentina’s Supreme Court of Justice

No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
The full text of this article is not currently available.

Brill’s MyBook program is exclusively available on BrillOnline Books and Journals. Students and scholars affiliated with an institution that has purchased a Brill E-Book on the BrillOnline platform automatically have access to the MyBook option for the title(s) acquired by the Library. Brill MyBook is a print-on-demand paperback copy which is sold at a favorably uniform low price.

Access this article

+ Tax (if applicable)
Add to Favorites
You must be logged in to use this functionality

This comment discusses the request for an advisory opinion that originated in the case Sancor c/ Dirección General de Aduanas. This case emerged from the resolution of the Argentine Ministry of Economy which set export duties of 5% to certain milk products, without discriminating with regard to the destination of them, i.e. including members as well as non-members of the Southern Common Market (MERCOSUR). In this way, and after a long judicial process, in October 2009 Argentina’s Supreme Court of Justice (CSJN) requested an advisory opinion from the Permanent Review Tribunal of the MERCOSUR, ‐ Tribunal Permanente de Revisión ‐ asking the question “Does the Treaty of Asunción require Member States of MERCOSUR the obligation not to impose duties on exports of goods which are originated in one of them and which have another Member State as its final destination?” This article describes the historical circumstances surrounding the Argentine governmental measure, and then analyzes three specific issues related to the request of the advisory opinion by the Supreme Court: 1) the place of international law in the Argentine legal system; 2) the procedural legitimacy of the decision of the Court; and 3) some substantive issues involved in the requested advisory opinion.

Affiliations: 1: Universidad Autónoma de Madrid (UAM), Faculty of Law 28049 Madrid Spain, Email: carlos.esposito@uam.es; 2: Universidad Empresarial Siglo 21 Catamarca 895 1C, C.P. 5000, Córdoba Argentina Universidad Autónoma de Madrid (UAM) Spain, Email: ldonadio@uesiglo21.edu.ar

10.1163/157180311X582152
/content/journals/10.1163/157180311x582152
dcterms_title,pub_keyword,dcterms_description,pub_author
6
3
Loading
Loading

Full text loading...

/content/journals/10.1163/157180311x582152
Loading

Data & Media loading...

http://brill.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1163/157180311x582152
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1163/157180311x582152
2011-01-01
2016-12-08

Sign-in

Can't access your account?
  • Tools

  • Add to Favorites
  • Printable version
  • Email this page
  • Subscribe to ToC alert
  • Get permissions
  • Recommend to your library

    You must fill out fields marked with: *

    Librarian details
    Your details
    Why are you recommending this title?
    Select reason:
     
    The Law & Practice of International Courts and Tribunals — Recommend this title to your library
  • Export citations
  • Key

  • Full access
  • Open Access
  • Partial/No accessInformation