Suchergebnisse

Introduction: "Anforce the law, or the world will be destroyed" is an appropriate expression for environmental law enforcement. Many treaties have regulated the environment, mainly deforestation, and many countries have ratified these treaties. However, implementing these regulations did not necessarily stop countries from deforesting.Purposes of the Research: Furthermore, in this research, steps that could be implemented to tackle deforestation internationally were given.Methods of the Research: This research was normative juridical research that examined an international law regulation, using qualitative analysis, and using secondary data.Results of the Research: Based on international data, many countries still carried out desertification, which amounts to thousands of hectares per year. One of the reasons for the weak implementation of treaties relating to environmental protection was the absence of coercive power from international conventions over the State's sovereign authority in forest management.Weak international environmental enforcement is caused by inadequate supervision and control as well as strong authority based on state sovereignty over forest management and utilization which depends on government policies, and the system of settlement and imposition of fines that still originate from a lawsuit

Russland treffen die Auswirkungen der internationalen Finanzkrise und fallender Energiepreise zu einem ungünstigen Zeitpunkt: In den kommenden zwei Jahren muss Russland internationale Kredite in erheblicher Höhe bedienen. Aktuell zeigt sich eine deutliche Abnahme der Währungsreserven sowie der kräftige Wertverlust des Rubel gegenüber dem US-Dollar. Zugleich reduzieren die gesunkenen Energiepreise die Einnahmen aus Energieexporten. Diese haben bislang wesentlich zur Finanzierung des Staatshaushaltes und zur gesamtwirtschaftlichen Dynamik beigetragen. Die wirtschaftliche Entwicklung Russlands dürfte sich daher künftig deutlich abschwächen. Die Verschleppung von wichtigen Strukturreformen kann ebenfalls dazu beitragen, dass sich die russische Volkswirtschaft auf dauerhaft geringere gesamtwirtschaftliche Zuwachsraten einstellen muss. Dies gilt insbesondere dann, wenn eine Abkehr von der aktuellen Energielastigkeit der Exporte nicht gelingt.

The first extraordinary session of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Assembly was convened at headquarters in Montreal from June 19 to 21, 1961, at the request of twelve of the contracting states, to consider increasing the size of the ICAO Council. The delegate of the United Kingdom proposed a change in article 50(a) of the ICAO convention to provide for 27 members of the ICAO Council instead of 21, and delegates of Venezuela, Cameroun, and South Africa immediately supported the increase. Among arguments advanced for expanding the Council were the following: 1) a Council of 21 no longer adequately represented the membership of the organization, which had reached 86; 2) adequate geographic representation was of paramount importance since international routes covered most of the world; 3) the increase would facilitate the participation in the Council's work of the more than twenty states that had achieved independence in the past few years; 4) the practice of holding an Assembly session only every three years placed greater responsibilities on the Council; and 5) all the specialized agencies except ICAO and the Intergovernmental Maritime Consultative Organization had increased the size of their executive bodies. Although there was some debate as to whether the increase ought to be to 25 or 27 members, the United Kingdom motion for the latter number prevailed, along with a proposal sponsored by the Italian and Venezuelan delegations stating that it was highly desirable for the amendment to the convention to come into force before the next Assembly session. Consequently, all contracting states to the convention were urged to ratify the amendment as soon as possible.

The 39th session of the Council of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) extended from January 27 to April 14, 1960, during which time the Council considered several questions on air navigation, air transport, and technical assistance, as well as administrative and legal matters. In the field of air navigation, the two subjects that aroused the most interest were Amendment 35 to Annex 10 (Aeronautical Telecommunications), proposing new specifications for distance-measuring equipment, and the Secretariat's reports on investigations of major deficiencies in air navigation facilities and services on the main international air routes. After a debate in which the United States, the Netherlands, and the Federal Republic of Germany strongly supported the aforementioned amendment, with Australia, Canada, the Union of South Africa, and the United Kingdom opposing it, the following were adopted, to be approved or rejected by member states by September 1, 1960: 1) the new Standard making VOR (omnidirectional radio range) the standard aid for air traffic control and other operational purposes en route as well as in terminal areas; 2) the new Standard requiring the installation of DME (distancemeasuring equipment) as a complement to VOR where, for operational or air traffic control reasons, there was need for more precise navigation service than that provided by VOR; and 3) amendments relating to the "protection date" for VOR and DME. To determine whether joint financing might be a possible remedy for specific deficiencies in air navigation facilities and services, the Council established a working body to study the Secretariat's reports and present its findings to the June session of the Council.

ApplicationsAerial Incident of October y, 1952 (United States v. Soviet Union): On June 2, 1955, the United States filed with the International Court of Justice an application instituting proceedings against the Soviet Union, on the grounds of certain willful acts said to have been committed by Soviet fighter aircraft against a United States Air Force B-29 aircraft andits crew off Hokkaido, Japan, on October 7, 1952. The United States claimed that a Soviet fighter aircraft, unlawfully overflying the territory of Japan at the instigation of the Soviet government, had without any provocation attacked and destroyed the United States Air Force B-29, causing it to crashinto the sea at a point between Yuri Island and Akiyuri Island in territory rightfully belonging to Japan; that the crew of eight, all members of the United States Air Force and nationals ofthe United States, had failed to return, and that the Soviet government had concealed from the United States government information as to the fate of the crew, and had notmade provision for the prompt return of any crew members whom it might still be holding or of whose whereabouts itwas informed. The United States application stated that the Court's jurisdiction for the purposes of this case was accepted by the United States. The damages the United States claimed to have suffered and for which it claimed the Soviet Union to beliable were specified in a note annexed to the application; the United States claimed that the actions withwhich it charged the Soviet government constituted serious violations of international obligation for which it demanded monetary and other reparation.

Case of the Monetary Gold Removed from Rome in 1943: On June 15, 1954, the International Court of Justice rendered a judgment on the preliminary question raised by Italy in the case of the monetary gold removed from Rome in 1943. Italy had asked the Court to declare itself incompetent to determine the first question raised by Italy in its application instituting proceedings; namely, whether or not the United States, United Kingdom, and France should deliver to Italy rather than Albania any share of the monetary gold which might be due to Albania under the Paris Act of January 14, 1946, in partial satisfaction for the damage caused to Italy by the Albanian law of January 13, 1945. Italy felt that the Court could not decide this question without passing judgment upon the international responsibility of Albania to Italy as a result of the Albanian law in question; Italy felt that the Court could not adjudicate such a question without the consent of Albania. Neither the United States nor France deposited formal submissions to the Court on the preliminary question; the United Kingdom, the third defendant in the case, argued that in view of Italy's objection to the competence of the Court, its application instituting proceedings of May 19, 1953, no longer conformed to the conditions or intentions of the tripartite Washington statement of April 25, 1951, and was, therefore, invalid and void. As an alternative, the United Kingdom argued that the action of the Italian government in raising the preliminary question constituted in fact a withdrawal or cancellation of its application.