Suchergebnisse

We identify those sectors of the South African economy in which the country exhibits a comparative advantage. This is accomplished through the development of an index of Regional Revealed Comparative Advantage, based in the work of Richardson and Zhang (2001). South Africa's comparative advantage is associated with products servicing producers and high in capital intensity.The pattern of comparative advantage in South Africa differs from those patterns found to be typical of "developing countries in general, and from those describing the "flying geese" dynamic changes of East Asian NICs as well as other Asian countries.An important contribution of this paper is a demonstration of a high degree of compatibility of projected shifts in competitiveness patterns developed utilizing (solely) trade data and RRCA methodology with patterns developed (solely) utilizing relative unit labor measures.

The "Guide to the International Archives and Collections at the IISH, Amsterdam" (GIA), edited by Atie van der Horst and Elly Koen, was first published in 1989. Since 1990, a description of recently acquired archives and collections as well as major accruals to archives received by the IISH has been published annually in the IRSH to keep this survey up to date. From 1994 on, a list of microfilms of archives or collections held in other repositories, of which the IISH has received a copy, was added to this survey.In September 1999, a new edition of the GIA will be published by the IISH. The recently acquired archives and collections as well as major accruals to archives received by the IISH over 1998 are included in this new edition. Therefore, no GIA supplement over 1998 is published in this volume. Information on this new GIA edition can be obtained from Stichting beheer IISG, Cruquiusweg 31, 1019 AT Amsterdam, The Netherlands; tel: + 31 20 668 58 66; fax: + 31 20 665 64 11; e-mail: st.beheer@iisg.nl.

Abstract
Article 38(1) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice (ICJ Statute) instructs the Court to 'apply … the teachings of the most highly qualified publicists'. This raises the question of how to decide who these 'publicists' are and how to rank them. This article suggests four factors that the Court's judges apparently use when assessing the weight of 'teachings': the quality of the work, the expertise and official positions of the author(s) and agreement between multiple authors. Judges may invoke these factors because it can make their opinions more authoritative and saves time, and in order to conform with Article 38 of the ICJ Statute. Counting the authors and teachings that judges have highlighted as having high quality, being experts and holding prestigious official positions provides a list that is different from the lists of writers who are cited most often and by the most judges. While this gives a rough idea of who 'the most highly qualified publicists' may be, it also shows that a final, conclusive ranking cannot be given.