Commission of Jurists to Consider and Report Upon the Revision of the Rules of Warfare, General Report.

1938 ◽  
Vol 32 (S1) ◽  
pp. 1-56
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
British Empire ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
Plenary Session ◽  
The United States ◽  
New Methods ◽  
General Report ◽  
Law Of Nations ◽  
The Hague

The Conference on the Limitation of Armament at Washington adopted at its sixth plenary session on the 4th February, 1922, a resolution for the appointment of a Commission representing the United States of America, the British Empire, France, Italy and Japan to consider the following questions:(a) Do existing rules of international law adequately cover new methods of attack or defence resulting from the introduction or development, since The Hague Conference of 1907, of new agencies of warfare?(b) If not so, what changes in the existing rules ought to be adopted in consequence thereof as a part of the law of nations?

Thinking About Scots Law

1996 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-24 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alan Rodger
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Nineteenth Century ◽  
British Empire ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Memorial Lecture ◽  
University Of Edinburgh ◽  
The University

This article is the revised text of the first W A Wilson Memorial Lecture, given in the Playfair Library, Old College, in the University of Edinburgh, on 17 May 1995. It considers various visions of Scots law as a whole, arguing that it is now a system based as much upon case law and precedent as upon principle, and that its departure from the Civilian tradition in the nineteenth century was part of a general European trend. An additional factor shaping the attitudes of Scots lawyers from the later nineteenth century on was a tendency to see themselves as part of a larger Englishspeaking family of lawyers within the British Empire and the United States of America.

Różne perspektywy dotyczące skutków art. 95 CISG

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Małgorzata Danuta Pohl-Michałek
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Nations ◽  
International Law ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
Democratic Republic ◽  
The United States ◽  
Private International Law ◽  
United Nations Convention ◽  
International Sale Of Goods ◽  
Conflict Of Law

The 1980 United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG) was adopted in order to provide uniform rules governing the international sale of goods. It has already been ratified by an impressive number of 92 Contracting States, with the major trading countries taking the lead. The CISG applies to contracts for the sale of goods between parties whose places of business are in different States, where the States are CISG Contracting States (Article 1(1)(a)). Moreover, it applies to contracts for the sale of goods when the contracting parties have their places of business in different States and when the rules of private international law lead to the application of the law of a CISG Contracting State (Article 1(1)(b)). However, at the time of ratification, the prospective Contracting States are given the possibility of making additional reservations, including one set out in Article 95 CISG, which limits the application of Article 1(1)(b) of the Convention. Although there are some CISG Contracting States that initially applied the reservation but have since withdrawn it, there are still a few Contracting States where the reservation remains[1], including the two largest trading countries – China and the United States. The paper presents various approaches regarding the interpretation of the effects of the reservation set out in Article 95 CISG, which in fact challenge the principle of the uniform interpretation and application of the Convention’s provisions. The author argues that the Article 95 CISG reservation leads to increased confusion and problematic conflict of law issues that bring more chaos than benefits.   [1] The remaining Article 95 CISG Reservatory States are: Armenia, China, the Lao People's Democratic Republic, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Singapore, Slovakia and the United States of America. Information is based on the official website: https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=X-10&chapter=10 (accessed: 9.12.2019).

scholarly journals Comparative Study of International Commercial Arbitration and International Law in Iran

2016 ◽  
Vol 9 (7) ◽  
pp. 242
Author(s):  
Soheila Hashemi ◽  
Nader Mardani
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
The United States ◽  
Islamic Republic ◽  
Commercial Arbitration ◽  
International Commercial Arbitration ◽  
Two Factors ◽  
International Trading ◽  
Islamic Republic Of Iran

Arbitration is one of the most important solutions to end enmity and replace judicial inquest. As international trading is extended, referring to judgment to solve the conflicts caused by commercial contracts has been rapidly rising which is a result of judgment benefits over justice authorities. Fastness and efficiency, law inquest cost, compromise nature of selecting the referees, and professional selection are among the most evident specifications of arbitration. Furthermore, Iran’s involvement in the most significant judgment case of the last century i.e. the lawsuits filed between the Islamic Republic of Iran the United States of America after the victory of the revolution would double the essentiality of knowing this organization. Judgment may be either individual or organic (permanent) and also the number of referees needs to be one or three. The most important issue in the judge’s inquest is to follow two factors including independence and impartiality from the beginning until the end of the inquest process. Violating these characteristics or the lack of one of both or other descriptions predicted in the arbitration contract would result in its violation by one side of the conflict or both of them. In the present paper, a comparison is conducted between the commonalty and distinction of Iran’s international commercial arbitration in 1376 and international law.

Netherlands-United States: Treaty on Mutual Legal Assistance

1982 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 48-57
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
The United States ◽  
Legal Assistance ◽  
Mutual Legal Assistance ◽  
Mutual Assistance ◽  
Department Of State ◽  
Statutory Authority ◽  
The Hague ◽  
Criminal Matters

With a view to receiving the advice and consent of the Senate to ratification, I transmit herewith the Treaty on Mutual Legal Assistance between the United States of America and the Kingdom of the Netherlands, together with a related exchange of notes, signed at The Hague on June 12,1981.I transmit also, for the information of the Senate, the report of the Department of State with respect to the treaty.The treaty is one of a series of modern mutual assistance treaties being negotiated by the United States. The treaty is self-executing and utilizes existing statutory authority.The new treaty provides for a broad range of cooperation in criminal matters. Mutual assistance available under the treaty includes: (1) executing requests relating to criminal matters; (2) taking of testimony or statements of persons; (3) effecting the production, preservation, and authentication of documents, records, or articles of evidence.

International Law in the American Courts – Khulumani v. Barclay National Bank Ltd.: The Decision Heard ‘Round the Corporate World

2008 ◽  
Vol 9 (5) ◽  
pp. 639-682 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kristen Hutchens
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
District Courts ◽  
Civil Action ◽  
Court Of Appeals ◽  
Corporate World ◽  
Law Of Nations ◽  
National Bank ◽  
Federal Jurisdiction

On June 30, 1980, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued Filártiga v. Peña-Irala. In this landmark case, the Paraguayan plaintiffs sought to hold Americo Norbeto Peña-Irala, a high-ranking Paraguayan police officer, liable for torture that led to the death of Joel Filártiga in Paraguay. They rested their main jurisdictional argument “upon the Alien Tort Statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1350, which provides: ‘The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action by an alien for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States.'” The Second Circuit held, “[D]eliberate torture perpetrated under color of official authority violates universally accepted norms of the international law of human rights, regardless of the nationality of the parties. Thus, whenever an alleged torturer is found and served with process by an alien within our borders, § 1350 provides federal jurisdiction.” It added that “Our holding today, giving effect to a jurisdictional provision enacted by our First Congress, is a small but important step in the fulfillment of the ageless dream to free all people from brutal violence.”

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document