代写论文：欧洲共同体职责
除了对“科托努协定”的承诺之外，欧洲共同体（欧共体）大体上没有任何强有力的防御措施。欧共体认为，履行“科托努协定”是他们的道德义务，并且无论如何，它们都应该以两国实体商定的价格从非加太国家进口金枪鱼产品是合理的。这是相当明确的，并且在优惠关税要素出现之前是无可争辩的。欧盟委员会对所有来自泰国的金枪鱼产品征收24％的进口关税，但对ACP国家则没有。这显然无疑具有争议性和歧视性。公平待遇是由一个实体组成的，当他们没有合理的理由拒绝低标准的产品时，他们是不公平的。
代写论文：欧洲共同体职责
然而，欧盟委员会确实承认泰国和菲律宾表达的关切，但他们不愿意来辩护他们的发言并回答泰国关于歧视行为的指控。欧共体有义务遵守“科托努协定”规定的规则和关税条例。需要指出的是，欧共体代表了许多国家，这些国家有着不同的要求和不同的财务状况，最终导致关税征收混乱。然而，由于非加太国家出售廉价金枪鱼，出口成本低于泰国，欧共体诉诸泰国进口金枪鱼关税。欧共体有权降低其贸易成本，因为它合理地同意其合作伙伴，其中泰国无权干涉。有一个歧视问题，这使得欧共体的情况稍差。
代写论文：欧洲共同体职责
The European Community (EC), at large, did not have any strong defence apart from their commitment to the Cotonou Agreement. EC argued that it was their moral duty to honour the Cotonou Agreement and it was, by all means, justifiable for them to import tuna products from ACP countries at a price that agreed upon by the two entities. This was fairly clear and was indisputable until the preferential tariff element comes into picture. The EC imposed 24% import tariff on all tuna products coming from Thailand, but not on the ACP countries. This was clearly and undoubtedly disputable and discriminatory. Fair treatment is with one entity and unfair with other when there is no legitimate reason for rejection of products for their low standards.
代写论文：欧洲共同体职责
The EC did, however, acknowledge the concerns expressed by Thailand and the Philippines but they were hesitant to come to the table for defending their statement and answering Thailand’s allegation of discriminatory behaviour. The EC was under obligation to adhere to the rules and tariff regulations laid out in the Cotonou Agreement. It is to be noted that the EC represents many countries who have different requirements and different financial health, which culminates into a confused state of tariff imposition. However, since the ACP nations sold cheap tuna and the cost of export was low than coming from Thailand, the EC resorted to imposing tariff on tuna imported from Thailand. EC has the right to reduce its cost of trade as it justifiably agrees with its partners, in which Thailand has no right of interference. There is a discrimination question which makes the EC’s case a little weaker.
