阿拉善盟行政公署办公室关于转发《阿拉善左旗农牧区现役军人家属优待金统筹征收办法》的通知
内蒙古自治区阿拉善盟行政公署办公室
阿拉善盟行政公署办公室关于转发《阿拉善左旗农牧区现役军人家属优待金统筹征收办法》的通知
阿署办发〔2003〕16号
阿左旗政府，行署各部门，盟直各企业：
《阿拉善左旗农牧区现役军人家属优待金统筹征收办法》业经行署常务会议研究，现转发给你们，盟直各部门、企业可适用本《办法》，遵照执行。
二○○三年四月三日
阿拉善左旗农牧区现役军人家属优待金统筹征收办法
为了建立国家、社会、群众三结合，高效、务实的优抚体制，继续发扬我旗拥军优属光荣传统，确保家居农村牧区义务兵家属生活水平同当地人民群众生活同步提高，激励军人保卫祖国，献身国防事业，根据《中华人民共和国兵役法》、《军人抚恤优待条例》和《内蒙古自治区优待金统筹管理办法》的有关规定，在总结前两年工作经验的基础上，结合实际，特制定本办法。
第一条 优待对象：（一）家居农村、牧区及农林场、站义务兵家属；（二）单身入伍义务兵；（三）已享受定期抚恤补助，但基本生活仍有困难的优抚对象，可视其困难情况，适当予以优待。
第二条 优待标准：家居农村牧区、农林场站的义务兵家属优待标准每户每年不低于全旗农牧民上年人均纯收入水平，对生活特别困难者，优待标准可适当提高。
第三条 优待金统筹范围：优待金以旗为单位实行全民统筹等。凡本旗境内的国家机关、社会团体、企事业单位的工作人员、离退休人员及个体工商户均应参加优待金统筹。
第四条 征收标准及方式
（一）国家机关和事业单位（含自收自支）的在职人员、离退休人员，由所在单位统一代收。在职人员月工资1000元及以上者（含1000元），标准为每人每年15元，月工资在1000元以下者，标准为每人每年10元。离退休人员标准为每人每年10元。
（二）由社保部门发放离退休费的人员（不含享受遗属补贴），由社保部门统一代收，标准为每人每年10元。
（三）企业单位（包括民营和私营企业）的在岗人员，由所在企业统一代收，标准为每人每年10元。
（四）个体、工商户由工商和民政部门协商征收，标准为每户每年10元。
（五）按照费税改革政策，农牧民统筹部分由财政从转移支付中解决。
第五条 各单位代收的优待金务于每年8月底前上缴旗民政局优待金专户。
第六条 奖惩办法按有关条例及规定执行。
第七条 优待金由民政局负责专户储存统一管理，待义务兵退伍后一次性下拨义务兵所在苏木镇并发给其家属或本人。
第八条 本办法自发布之日起施行。
第九条 原办法同时作废。
第十条 本办法由旗民政局负责解释。
Expansion of Applicable Sphere: A way to Uniformity
——Compare and Contrast between UNIDROIT and UNCITRAL Conventions
By Dongsheng Lu, Chen Yan
I. Introduction
Financing is paramount for the promotion of commerce. It has been noted that “in developed countries the bulk of corporate wealth is locked up in receivables”. As the economy develops, this wealth increasing is “unlocked by transferring receivables across national borders”. With the prompt and great increases in international trade, receivables financing now plays a more and more important role. Yet under the law of many countries, certain forms of receivables financing are still not recognized. Even transactions are involved in countries where the form of receivables financing is permitted, determining which law governs will be difficult. The disparity among laws of different jurisdiction increases uncertainty in transactions, thus constitutes obstacles to the development of assignments of receivables. To remove such obstacles arising from the uncertainty existing in various legal systems and promote the development of receivables financing cross-boarder, a set of uniform rules in this field is required. The international community has made great efforts in adopting uniform laws. Among those efforts, the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) drafted, on 12 December, 2001, “United Nations Convention on the Assignment of Receivables in International Trade” (hereinafter referred to as the “UNCITRAL Convention”), with its aim to “establish principles and to adopt rules relating to the assignment of receivables that would create certainty and transparency and promote the modernization of the law relating to assignments of receivables”. UNCITRAL is not the first international organization attempting to resolve the problems associated with receivables. As early as in May 1988, the International Institute for the Unification of Private Law (UNIDROIT) has already adopted a convention known as the “UNIDROIT Convention on International Factoring” (hereinafter referred to as the “UNIDROIT Convention”).
When compare and contrast between the UNIDROIT Convention and the UNCITRAL Convention, one might see a lot of inconsistency in detailed regulations, e.g. sphere of application, relations between parties, priorities, and choice of law, etc. Given the limited space available in this article, the author may only focus on the difference in “sphere of application” of these two conventions, as sphere of application is perhaps the most fundamental issue of a convention.
The purpose of an international convention is to create uniformity in its covered matter, thus the broader a convention’s sphere of application is, the higher could uniformity reach. This article will try to make compare and contrast the sphere of application between the UNIDROIT Convention and the UNCITRAL Convention, illustrate the differences exist between these two conventions, and demonstrate the expansion of sphere of application in the UNCITRAL Convention and its progress on the way to uniformity.
II. Sphere of Application: Subject Matter
As its title indicates, the subject matter of the UNIDROIT Convention is of course international factoring. Article 1(1) says, “this Convention governs factoring contracts and assignments of receivables as described in this Chapter.”
For “factoring contract”, the UNIDROIT Convention provides the following 4 characteristics:
(1) purpose of the contract is to assign receivables;
(2) receivables to be assigned arises from contracts of sale of goods made between the supplier and its customers (debtors), other than those of sale of goods bought primarily for personal, family or household use;
(3) the factor is to perform at least two of the four functions: (i) finance for the supplier; (ii) maintenance of accounts (ledgering) relating to the receivables; (iii) collection of receivables; and (iv) protection against default in payment by debtors;
(4) notice of the assignment of the receivables is to be given to debtors.
As about “assignments of receivables as described in this Chapter”, article 2 (1) describes assignments of receivables as assignment of receivables pursuant to a factoring contract.
Factoring is just a subset of the receivables financing, and perhaps the oldest and most basic one. Besides factoring, receivables financing still entail the following forms,
(1) Forfeiting, similar to factoring, involves the purchase or discounting of documentary receivables (promissory notes, for example) without recourse to the party from whom the receivables are purchased;
(2) Refinancing, also known as secondary financing, involves the subsequent assignment of receivables. In its basic form, one bank or financier will assign to another bank its interest, with the potential for further assignment;
(3) Securitization, in which both marketable (for example, trade receivables) and non-marketable (consumer credit card receivables) asset cash flows are repackaged by a lender and transferred to a lender-controlled company, which will issue securities, sell and then use the proceeds to purchase the receivables;
(4) Project Finance, in which repayment of loans made by banks or financiers to project contractors for the financing of projects are secured through the future revenues of the project.
The first draft of the UNCITRAL Convention has stated to cover factoring, forfeiting, refinancing, securitization and project finance. Somehow, the working group decides that rather than emphasize the form in which the receivables appear, it would instead concentrate on the way in which the receivables might be transferred (contractual or non-contractual) and the purpose of the transaction (for financing or non-financing purposes). It decides the contractual receivables and assignment made to secure financing and other related services would be covered. The non-contractual receivables such as insurance and tort receivables, deposit bank accounts, or claims arising by operation of law seems are not within the ambits of the UNCITRAL convention.
III. Sphere of Application: Special Requirements
Both of the conventions contain a series of requirements. Only when those requirements are satisfied, could the convention be applied. The higher and stricter the requirements are, the smaller the chance to apply the convention is.
a) Internationality requirement
Both the two conventions indicate their sphere of application is of internationality requirement, but the same word in these two conventions has different legal meaning. The internationality requirement of UNIDROIT Convention is exclusively based upon the parties to the underlying contract, i.e. the contract of sale of goods (the supplier and the debtor) having their place of business in different countries. In other words, where the receivables arise from a contract of sale of goods between a supplier and a debtor whose places of business are in the same State, the UNIDROIT Convention could not apply, no matter the following assignment of receivables is to assignee in the same or different State. Thus leaving the international assignment of domestic receivables untouched. The problem, at its simplest, is twofold: first, inconsistency. For instance, in the case where a bulk assignment is made and where part of the receivables are domestic (supplier and debtor are in the same State) and part are international (supplier and debtor are in different State), if the supplier assigns the receivables to a party which is located in another State, the bulk assignment between the same supplier and the same assignee will be governed by two sets of laws and regulations: the portion of international receivables may be governed by the UNIDROIT Convention while the domestic one will be left to the jurisdiction of certain domestic law.
Secondly, leaving the international assignment of domestic receivables to the jurisdiction of various law systems of different States can make “commercial practice uncertain, time-consuming and expensive”. The assignee of receivables from a foreign State may not know which State’s law governs the transaction, and, if the law of the assignor’s State applies, the assignee’s rights would be subject to the vagaries of that foreign law. This no doubt would greatly impede the development of such transaction.
