MIDTERM
,OT
How to structure a case presentation with the IRAC method
1. Name of the case:
2. Forum [Panel/Appellate Body/Court etc]
3. Facts:
4. Issue:
5. Rule
6. Application/ analysis [Reasoning]
7. Conclusion:
Facts
● The Statement of facts should be a short summary including only the essential facts
● Do NOT copy the ENTIRE factual statement from the text
● State procedural facts (who is suing whom in where, the cuase of action. the remedy
sought, the result in the lower courts
● Example
○ prior to 1979, Spain had classified all unroasted, non-deacfaffeinted ~
○
Unwashed Arabica
all now subjected to tariffs
ad. val.
ad valorem
● according to value 의 라틴어
Brazil is not happy abt this tariff
Spain’s imports of unroasted coffe from Brazil wer cosntituted of almost entirely
7 per cent ad. val.
tax levied on import
article 1 of the GATT 1947
● PPA
● MFN
○ major part of the rule for this case
-
, ● summary: spanish party was not bidn
Full text can be found
Issue
● The issue or question of law is the central or focal legal question in the case
○ what are parties fighting about, and what are they asking the court to decide?
● Note that there may be more than one issue
● Example
○ Whether various types of unroasted coffe (ie. “Columbian mild,” “other
mild,””unwashed Arabica”, “Robusta” and “toher”) wer liek products
● there will be other isseus as well
Brazil ) not aligned with GATT Article I
Example
● whether there is unroasted coffee
● unwashed arabica
● like products
● Article 1 of the GATT
● detail roles
● enter into chapter 6
● MFN - nondiscriminatory treatment
● if they are like products : they shouldn’t be treated differently
● if not, they can
Rule
● Determine what the relevant ruels of law are that the court uses to make its decisions
○ what legal principle does this case stand for?
● If there is more than one issue, there should be a rule for each issue
● Exampel
○ General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 1947
○ Article I: General Most-Favoured-Nation Treatment
Tariff: one of the custom duties
Application
● This may be the most important portion of the brief. Look for speciffic facts in the
case to justify the conclusion of the court
● what does the corut consider to be a relevant fact given in the rule of law? How does
the court interpret the rule
● SUmmarize the court’s rationale in your own words including plaintiffs and
defenedant’s arguments
● Example
○ Brazil’s argument
○ Spain’s argument
-
, ○ Panel’s finding
# Spain coffee TEXT
4.6 The Panel examined all arguments that had been advanced during the
proceedings for the justification of a different tariff treatment for various groups and
types of unroasted coffee. It noted that these arguments mainly related to organoleptic
differences resulting from geographical factors, cultivation methods, the processing of the
beans, and the genetic factor. The Panel did not consider that such differences were
sufficient reason to allow for a different tariff treatment. It pointed out that it was not unusual
in the case of agricultural products that the taste and aroma of the end-product would
differbecause of one or several of the above-mentioned factors.
4.7 The Panel furthermore found relevant to its examination of the matter that unroasted
coffee was mainly, if not exclusively,sold in the form of blends, combining varioustypes of
coffee, and that coffee in its end-use, was universally regarded as a well-defined and single
product intended for drinking.
4.8 The Panel noted that no other contracting party applied its tariff régime in respect of
unroasted, non-decaffeinated coffee in such a way that different types of coffee were subject
to different tariff rates.
4.9 In the light of the foregoing, the Panel concluded that unroasted, non-decaffeinated
coffee beans listed in the Spanish Customs Tariffs under CCCN 09.01 A.1a, as amended by
the Royal Decree 1764/79, should be considered as "like products" within the meaning of
Article I:1.
4.10 The Panel further noted that Brazil exported to Spain mainly "unwashed Arabica" and
also Robusta coffee which were both presently charged with higher duties than that applied
to "mild" coffee. Since these were considered to be "like products", the Panel concluded
that the tariff régime as presently applied by Spain was discriminatory vis-à-vis
unroasted coffee originating in Brazil.
Conclusion
● In one or two sentences, state ow the court answers the problem
● Example
○ Panel found that Spain’s classification based on geographical and cultivation
method was not legitimate. Unroasted and non-decaffeinated coffee beans
should be considered as like products, and thus Spain should take necessary
measure in order to make its tariff regime for unroasted coffe conform to Artile
I:1 of the GATT
In order to figure out whether they are like products or not
Panel examined about all arguments ~
wouldn’t be the distinguishable product by making them non-right product
-
,OT
How to structure a case presentation with the IRAC method
1. Name of the case:
2. Forum [Panel/Appellate Body/Court etc]
3. Facts:
4. Issue:
5. Rule
6. Application/ analysis [Reasoning]
7. Conclusion:
Facts
● The Statement of facts should be a short summary including only the essential facts
● Do NOT copy the ENTIRE factual statement from the text
● State procedural facts (who is suing whom in where, the cuase of action. the remedy
sought, the result in the lower courts
● Example
○ prior to 1979, Spain had classified all unroasted, non-deacfaffeinted ~
○
Unwashed Arabica
all now subjected to tariffs
ad. val.
ad valorem
● according to value 의 라틴어
Brazil is not happy abt this tariff
Spain’s imports of unroasted coffe from Brazil wer cosntituted of almost entirely
7 per cent ad. val.
tax levied on import
article 1 of the GATT 1947
● PPA
● MFN
○ major part of the rule for this case
-
, ● summary: spanish party was not bidn
Full text can be found
Issue
● The issue or question of law is the central or focal legal question in the case
○ what are parties fighting about, and what are they asking the court to decide?
● Note that there may be more than one issue
● Example
○ Whether various types of unroasted coffe (ie. “Columbian mild,” “other
mild,””unwashed Arabica”, “Robusta” and “toher”) wer liek products
● there will be other isseus as well
Brazil ) not aligned with GATT Article I
Example
● whether there is unroasted coffee
● unwashed arabica
● like products
● Article 1 of the GATT
● detail roles
● enter into chapter 6
● MFN - nondiscriminatory treatment
● if they are like products : they shouldn’t be treated differently
● if not, they can
Rule
● Determine what the relevant ruels of law are that the court uses to make its decisions
○ what legal principle does this case stand for?
● If there is more than one issue, there should be a rule for each issue
● Exampel
○ General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 1947
○ Article I: General Most-Favoured-Nation Treatment
Tariff: one of the custom duties
Application
● This may be the most important portion of the brief. Look for speciffic facts in the
case to justify the conclusion of the court
● what does the corut consider to be a relevant fact given in the rule of law? How does
the court interpret the rule
● SUmmarize the court’s rationale in your own words including plaintiffs and
defenedant’s arguments
● Example
○ Brazil’s argument
○ Spain’s argument
-
, ○ Panel’s finding
# Spain coffee TEXT
4.6 The Panel examined all arguments that had been advanced during the
proceedings for the justification of a different tariff treatment for various groups and
types of unroasted coffee. It noted that these arguments mainly related to organoleptic
differences resulting from geographical factors, cultivation methods, the processing of the
beans, and the genetic factor. The Panel did not consider that such differences were
sufficient reason to allow for a different tariff treatment. It pointed out that it was not unusual
in the case of agricultural products that the taste and aroma of the end-product would
differbecause of one or several of the above-mentioned factors.
4.7 The Panel furthermore found relevant to its examination of the matter that unroasted
coffee was mainly, if not exclusively,sold in the form of blends, combining varioustypes of
coffee, and that coffee in its end-use, was universally regarded as a well-defined and single
product intended for drinking.
4.8 The Panel noted that no other contracting party applied its tariff régime in respect of
unroasted, non-decaffeinated coffee in such a way that different types of coffee were subject
to different tariff rates.
4.9 In the light of the foregoing, the Panel concluded that unroasted, non-decaffeinated
coffee beans listed in the Spanish Customs Tariffs under CCCN 09.01 A.1a, as amended by
the Royal Decree 1764/79, should be considered as "like products" within the meaning of
Article I:1.
4.10 The Panel further noted that Brazil exported to Spain mainly "unwashed Arabica" and
also Robusta coffee which were both presently charged with higher duties than that applied
to "mild" coffee. Since these were considered to be "like products", the Panel concluded
that the tariff régime as presently applied by Spain was discriminatory vis-à-vis
unroasted coffee originating in Brazil.
Conclusion
● In one or two sentences, state ow the court answers the problem
● Example
○ Panel found that Spain’s classification based on geographical and cultivation
method was not legitimate. Unroasted and non-decaffeinated coffee beans
should be considered as like products, and thus Spain should take necessary
measure in order to make its tariff regime for unroasted coffe conform to Artile
I:1 of the GATT
In order to figure out whether they are like products or not
Panel examined about all arguments ~
wouldn’t be the distinguishable product by making them non-right product
-
