Nehodí se? Vůbec nevadí! U nás můžete do 30 dní vrátit
S dárkovým poukazem nešlápnete vedle. Obdarovaný si za dárkový poukaz může vybrat cokoliv z naší nabídky.
30 dní na vrácení zboží
This study centers on the role of domestic courts in the application of international trade agreements through the experiences of the Brazilian and the European Union courts. It contrasts two main theoretical currents: the traditional perspective that fosters domestic courts enforcement of international law, with the rational choice theory in the law and economics approach that argues that the involvement of domestic courts does not advance international law. This comparative empirical study analyzes the differences, similarities and consequences of the Brazilian and European courts decisions in relation to the WTO agreements, which have a direct effect in Latin American emerging economies, but not in the EU and the US. It concludes that the traditional perspective is normatively undesirable in relation to Brazil. More specifically, it argues that the function and objective of international trade agreements and the principle of popular sovereignty and democratic self-government recommend declining direct effect of the WTO agreements. It suggests that the findings of this research may also be relevant to Mexico and Argentina.