Comparative Analysis of International Trade Law and Dispute Resolution in
Mongolia and the UK
Objective
This report will provide an in-depth comparative analysis of how Mongolian law addresses
international trade and resolves international disputes, contrasted with the legal approaches of the
United Kingdom. The focus will be on exploring the legal frameworks, mechanisms of dispute
resolution, and relevant case studies from both countries, emphasizing how international trade
law is applied and enforced in Mongolia compared to the UK.
Task Outline
1. Introduction to International Trade Law in Mongolia and the UK
•
Objective: Provide a clear introduction to the general legal frameworks governing
international trade in both Mongolia and the UK.
Research Points:
1. Mongolia:
o Analyze Mongolia’s international trade framework, including its adoption of
treaties like the WTO agreements and CISG (United Nations Convention on
Contracts for the International Sale of Goods).
o Examine the Law on Foreign Trade and Investment in Mongolia and how it
applies to companies engaging in cross-border commerce.
2. UK:
o Explore the UK's involvement in international trade treaties, including its
obligations under the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the CISG.
Highlight any specific post-Brexit changes to the UK's international trade policies.
o Investigate the UK Trade Act and its application to international trade, focusing
on customs, tariffs, and international trade regulations.
Deliverable: A comprehensive section of the report outlining the international trade legal frameworks of
Mongolia and the UK, focusing on treaties, laws, and agreements that govern cross-border commerce.
2. International Trade Dispute Resolution Mechanisms
•
Objective: Compare the dispute resolution mechanisms for international trade disputes in
Mongolia and the UK, focusing on the court systems, arbitration, and alternative
dispute resolution (ADR) processes.
Research Points:
1. Mongolia:
o Research the dispute resolution methods available for international trade disputes
in Mongolia. Focus on the role of the Mongolian courts, the Mongolian
International and National Arbitration Center (MINAC), and the use of
mediation and ADR.
o Analyze Mongolian laws governing arbitration, including the Arbitration Law of
Mongolia (2017), and how Mongolia handles foreign arbitral awards under the
New York Convention.
2. UK:
o Examine the UK’s dispute resolution mechanisms, focusing on arbitration under
the Arbitration Act 1996, court-based adjudication, and ADR methods like
mediation.
o Investigate how the UK courts enforce foreign arbitral awards under the New
York Convention, and explore the role of specialized courts like the London
Commercial Court in resolving international trade disputes.
Deliverable: A detailed section of the report comparing the arbitration laws, court systems, and ADR processes
in Mongolia and the UK. Include references to the New York Convention and its role in both countries.
3. Case Studies: International Trade Disputes in Mongolia and the UK
•
Objective: Present key case studies of how international trade disputes have been resolved
in both Mongolia and the UK, focusing on arbitration and court decisions.
Research Points:
1. Mongolia:
o Identify significant cases of international trade disputes resolved through the
Mongolian International and National Arbitration Center or Mongolian courts.
Examine how Mongolian courts have handled cross-border contract breaches or
disputes involving foreign parties.
o Highlight any landmark decisions that show how Mongolia enforces foreign
arbitral awards or applies international trade law in practice.
2. UK:
o Analyze landmark cases of international trade disputes resolved in the UK
Commercial Court or through arbitration in London. Include high-profile cases
that involve foreign parties or international companies operating in the UK.
o Examine how the UK Arbitration Act has been applied in these cases, particularly
focusing on enforcement of foreign judgments or arbitral awards.
Deliverable: A case study section of the report with detailed analysis of 2-3 key international trade dispute cases
from both Mongolia and the UK. Use court rulings, arbitration decisions, and legal commentaries as sources.
4. Differences in Legal Approaches to International Trade Dispute Resolution
•
Objective: Highlight and analyze the key differences in how Mongolia and the UK
approach international trade disputes, focusing on legal frameworks, arbitration
enforcement, and the role of the judiciary.
Research Points:
1. Mongolia:
o Explore how Mongolia’s civil law system influences the way international trade
disputes are handled compared to the UK’s common law system. Analyze
differences in procedural laws, the role of judicial review, and the flexibility of
Mongolian courts in interpreting international trade laws.
o Examine any challenges foreign businesses face when seeking dispute resolution
in Mongolia, such as issues with transparency or enforcement.
2. UK:
o Discuss how the UK’s common law system allows flexibility in the interpretation
of international trade disputes. Focus on the precedential value of UK case law
and the proactive role of UK judges in enforcing international arbitration awards.
o Highlight any post-Brexit changes in the UK’s international trade dispute
resolution mechanisms, particularly in relation to European and global trade
partners.
Deliverable: A comparative section of the report outlining the key differences in legal approaches between
Mongolia and the UK. Include analysis on procedural differences, the role of judges, and arbitration
enforcement.
5. Impact of International Trade Agreements on Dispute Resolution
•
Objective: Examine how international trade agreements, such as WTO agreements,
Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs), and regional trade agreements, influence dispute
resolution in Mongolia and the UK.
Research Points:
1. Mongolia:
o Investigate Mongolia’s participation in WTO dispute resolution mechanisms, its
obligations under bilateral trade agreements, and the impact of these agreements
on domestic dispute resolution practices.
o Explore how foreign investors use Mongolia’s BITs to resolve disputes and
whether Mongolian arbitration bodies are well equipped to handle such disputes.
2. UK:
o Analyze the UK’s involvement in international trade agreements and how these
agreements influence the resolution of trade disputes. Focus on the UK's role in
o
WTO dispute resolution and the implications of Brexit on the UK’s international
trade dispute landscape.
Research how BITs involving the UK are used to resolve disputes and the influence
of investment arbitration on UK courts.
Deliverable: A section on international agreements, detailing how treaties and international agreements
influence trade dispute resolution in Mongolia and the UK. Provide specific examples from WTO cases or
investment arbitrations.
Submission Requirements
•
•
•
Format: The final report should be professionally formatted, with Harvard or APA
citations.
Word Count: The total report should be 6,000 to 7,000 words, covering all five tasks.
Research Sources: Use at least 40 academic and legal sources, including international
trade law reports, case studies, and government publications from Mongolia and the
UK.
AI and plagiarism requirements
To meet your requirements, the final report will be structured in a way that prioritizes originality
and ensures minimal AI-generated and plagiarized content, keeping within the 20% limit. This
involves a clear focus on in-depth research, proper citation of sources, and carefully
synthesized analysis from international legal frameworks and case studies.
Each section of the report will be based on thoroughly researched materials from Mongolian and
UK legal databases, government publications, academic journals, and case law. By blending
well-researched content with your own analysis, the report will maintain a high standard of
originality.
To further reduce plagiarism and AI content percentages:
1. Direct quotes will be limited and fully referenced.
2. Paraphrasing of legal sources will be done thoughtfully, ensuring that each idea is
expressed in original terms.
3. Case law and legal provisions from both Mongolia and the UK will be heavily emphasized,
with a focus on interpretation and application rather than mere reproduction.
Team-Based Report Guidelines
Team Formation
•
•
•
•
•
Maximum Team Size: 4 students per team.
Team Leader: The class leader is responsible for forming the teams.
Teacher Approval: The teacher must approve the team lineup.
Deadline for Teaming Up: Team formation must be completed within 2 days after the
assignment is given.
Team Leader Responsibility: The class leader will submit the team list to the teacher for
approval within the set deadline.
Grading Criteria
The report will be evaluated based on the following grading criteria:
1. Depth of Research (30%)
•
•
•
The report demonstrates extensive research from international and national legal sources.
In-depth analysis of Mongolian and UK legal frameworks, treaties, case law, and
dispute resolution mechanisms.
Use of at least 40 sources across the report, including academic journals, government
publications, legal databases, and case studies.
2. Comparative Analysis (25%)
•
•
•
Clear comparison between Mongolian law and UK law in international trading and
dispute resolution.
Effective identification of key differences and similarities between the two jurisdictions.
Insightful interpretation of case studies from both Mongolia and the UK.
3. Structure and Organization (15%)
•
•
•
Logical flow and coherent structure of the report.
Clear headings, subheadings, and sections that follow the outlined tasks.
Proper introduction, analysis, and conclusion for each section.
4. Originality and Citations (20%)
•
•
•
Adherence to the plagiarism and AI percentage limit of 20%.
Originality in writing and analysis, with proper paraphrasing of research material.
Correct and consistent use of APA or Harvard referencing style throughout the report.
5. Team Collaboration and Presentation (10%)
•
•
•
Evidence of teamwork and equal contribution by all team members.
Each section reflects collaboration and is integrated into a cohesive final report.
Presentation: The final presentation of the report will also be graded based on clarity,
participation, and understanding during the class review or defense session (if
applicable).