Convention Between the United States of America and Italy, Montenegro, Russia, Argentine Republic, Houmania, Servia, Belgium, Salvador, Portugal, the United Mexican States, Luxemburg, the Swiss Confederation, Persia, Japan, Ecuador, Bulgaria, Denmark, Spain, France, Sweden, the Netherlands, Greece, Uruguay, Germany, Cuba, Austria-Hungary, Norway, Egypt, Great Britain, Guatemala, Ethiopia, Nicaragua, Brazil, Costa Rica, Chile, Peru, China, Paraguay, and Turkey, Providing for the Creation of an International Institute of Agriculture.

1908 ◽  
Vol 2 (S4) ◽  
pp. 358-362 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Great Britain ◽  
Costa Rica ◽  
The Netherlands ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
The United States ◽  
International Institute ◽  
Argentine Republic ◽  
Swiss Confederation ◽  
The Creation

Twenty-five years of Norwegian sovereignty in Svalbard, 1925–50

Polar Record ◽  
1951 ◽  
Vol 6 (42) ◽  
pp. 179-184
Author(s):  
Anders K. Orvin
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
South Africa ◽  
New Zealand ◽  
Great Britain ◽  
The Netherlands ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
The United States ◽  
White Island

By a treaty signed in Paris on 9 February 1920, Norway was given the sovereignty of Svalbard, comprising all the islands situated between longs. 10° and 35° E. and lats. 74° and 81° N., thus including Spitsbergen, Bjørnøya (Bear Island), Hopen (Hope Island), Kong Karls Land, and Kvitøya (White Island). The treaty, which has since been recognized by a number of other states, was signed by the United States of America, Denmark, France, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Great Britain and Ireland, the Dominions of Canada and New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, India, and Sweden. The U.S.S.R. recognized Norway's sovereignty of Svalbard in 1924 but did not sign the treaty until 1935; Germany signed the treaty in 1925. On 14 August 1925, Norway formally took possession and the Norwegian flag was hoisted in Longyearbyen. Since then, twenty-five years have elapsed, and in honour of the occasion the anniversary was celebrated at Longyearbyen in 1950.

An Agreement Establishing the South Pacific Commission, Signed February 6, 1947, in Canberra, Australia.

1947 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 419-428 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
New Zealand ◽  
Great Britain ◽  
Northern Ireland ◽  
The Netherlands ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
South Pacific ◽  
The United States ◽  
The United Kingdom

The Governments of Australia, the French Republic, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, New Zealand, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the United States of America, (hereinafter referred to as “the participating Governments”),

The “Protocole Additionnel” to the International Prize Court Convention

1912 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 799-829
Author(s):  
George C. Butte
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Great Britain ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
De Novo ◽  
The United States ◽  
International Court ◽  
Argentine Republic ◽  
The Hague ◽  
The Way

On September 19, 1910, at The Hague, plenipotentiaries of the following nations: Germany, United States of America, Argentine Republic, Austria-Hungary, Chile, Denmark, Spain, France, Great Britain, Japan, Norway, Netherlands and Sweden, signed an instrument entitled Protocole Additionnel á la Convention XII de la Haye du 18 Octobre, 1907. The protocol is by its own provisions (Art. 8) to be considered as forming an integral part of the Convention creating the International Court of Prize; and the acceptance of the protocole additionnel is likewise made a sine qua non to the acceptance of the original convention.The protocole additionnel seeks to create a different remedy and a modified procedure par dérogation to Articles 28 (paragraph one), 29 and 45 (paragraph two) of the Prize Court Convention and by eliminating Article 8 of the convention entirely and substituting therefor a method preserving the appearance of an action de novo in the International Court and confining its judgment to the ascertainment of the damages to be allowed an injured claimant. It is the practical embodiment of the voeu adopted by the London Naval Conference in 1909 at the instance of the delegation of the United States (acting under instructions from their government); and is intended to offer a means whereby certain nations named as parties to the protocol may obviate constitutional difficulties in the way of their ratifying the original convention.

Great Britain and the United States: Two nations divided by an attitude?

English Today ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 34 (4) ◽  
pp. 21-28
Author(s):  
Carmen Ebner
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Great Britain ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
The United States ◽  
British English ◽  
Doctoral Thesis ◽  
Linguistic Differences ◽  
The Us ◽  
Selection Of ◽  
Similar Search

Having studied attitudes towards usage problems such as the notorious split infinitive or the ubiquitous literally in British English as part of my doctoral thesis, I was intrigued by the sheer lack of scientific studies investigating such attitudes. What was even more intriguing was to discover that the same field and the same usage problems seem to have received a different treatment in the United States of America. While my search for previously conducted usage attitude studies in Great Britain has largely remained fruitless, besides two notable exceptions which I will discuss in detail below (see Section 3), a similar search for American usage attitude studies resulted in a different picture. Considerably more such studies seem to have been conducted in the US than in Great Britain. On top of cultural and linguistic differences between these two nations, it seems as if they also hold different attitudes towards studying attitudes towards usage problems. Now the following question arises: why do we find such contradictory scientific traditions in these two countries? In this paper, I will provide an overview of a selection of American and British usage attitude studies. Taking into account differences between the American and British studies with regard to the number of usage problems studied, the populations surveyed and the methods applied, I will attempt to capture manifestations of two seemingly diverging attitudes towards the study of usage problems. By doing so, I will provide a possible explanation for the lack of attention being paid to usage attitudes in Great Britain.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document