二、Two States, F and W, have a dispute concerning the violation by F of a commercial treaty concluded in 1980 and entered into force on 26 June 1980. They have decided to submit their case to the International Court of Justice. F is a member of the United Nations. W is not a member of the U.N.. But W is a party to the Statute of the ICJ and participates to pay the expenses. Both of these states have made optional clause declaration in conformity with Article 36 paragraph 2 of the ICJ Statute. Please verify the competence of the ICJ to hear this dispute. (25 points)

三、Taiwanese B recruits Filipino A through B’s local agent in the Philippines to work as a domestic helper in Taipei, Taiwan. A and B executed a standard employment contract designed by the Philippine Overseas Workers Administration (POEA) for overseas Filipino workers in the Philippines. It provided for her employment at a salary of US$1,000.00 a month during the employment period. It was submitted to and approved by the POEA. However, when A arrived in Taipei and set domicile in Taipei, A was asked to sign another contract by B, which reduced A’s salary to only US$400.00 a month. Having no other choice, A reluctantly signed the contract. However, B has not paid any salary for six months after starting employment. A sued against B and its local agent for the full monthly salary of US$1,000.00 for totaling US$6,000.00. Both B and its local agent claimed that the second contract is valid under the laws of R.O.C., and therefore binding on A. Assuming there is no express agreement of the applicable law in the two contracts. How does the applicable law in this case apply? What are “public order” principles? Is there any application of public order principle in this case? Is B’s allegation correct or reasonable? (25 points)

相關申論題

相關試卷