On line sex chatting macedonia
Libya tried to nationalize the fields and refineries, so they went to the International Arbitration Court.The court said that UN resolutions are of varying weight. But Resolution 1803 of 1962 was a clear agreement that Libya would have to compensate Texaco.7 of the UN Charter, or (3) pre-UN rules of necessity & proportionality [the US and a few other countries assert this third principle from time to time].Treaties: International agreements are governed, not by contract law, but by the Vienna Convention on Treaty Law.So the 2d Circuit entered a judgment, and assessed compensatory & punitive damages.The defendant escaped the US before the judgment could be enforced, but if he or any of his property returns it is subject to jurisdiction. Communications between the agencies are not fantastic.)As result of this case, the Alien Tort Statute has been used more frequently.In the experience of professional diplomats, many if not most corporate lawyers are clueless about the realities of international law.Texacos lawyers put in the contract that the applicable law was Libyan law that was in accord with international law principles, and any blanks would be filled with international law, and disputes would be decided by international arbitration, not by the Libyan courts.
Now it is universally renounced.) Not only is this customary international law, but it is a fundamental principle that cannot be limited.
Under it, states can do anything they want to agree to, unless it violates a peremptory norm.
Albania, the most xenophobic country ever, with a pillbox every half mile in anticipation of an invasion that has never come, littered the Strait of Corfu with mines. Some British ships got blown up, and they also fired at British ships from shore batteries.
Failing to notify violates elementary considerations of humanity.
And yet, ICJ cases are cited over and over as representing international law. Under the 1789 Alien Tort Statute, under which only aliens may sue, for a tort in violation of the law of nations (international law).
Not because of stare decisis, however, but because it was a well-reasoned case that countries keep pointing to as evidence of international law. The District Court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, one of the first acts of the UN, and arguably one of the greatest documents of all time (unanimous, abstentions from South Africa, USSR and other SSRs, Yugoslavia, and Saudi Arabia), and which has been embellished over time.