Suchergebnisse

Introduction Our first position in this opinion paper is that Veolia's activities in occupied Palestinian territories, and in particular a light rail line on occupied and annexed Palestinian land in East Jerusalem is illegal. The light rail follows mainly the Green Line. Land was confiscated in Shuafat. Additional land was confiscated in Shuafat to make way for a station and car parking. Of greatest concern is that the line connects illegal settlements with West Jerusalem, facilitating Israel's illegal settlements. Palestinians who nonviolently resist the theft of their land are met with further violations, including arbitrary arrest, detention without trial and even torture by the Israeli occupation forces. Our second, related position is that Veoia's involvement in these illegal activities trigger legal obligations in other countries that Veolia operates, including the country of Finland, and particularly in relation to criminal liability and public tendering. The land on which the light rail is constructed includes East Jerusalem, part of the West Bank, which Israel occupied in 1967. For more than four decades, Israel has been confiscating Palestinian land not for military purposes, effectively annexing West Bank land to expand its territory. This is a serious and direct violation of international humanitarian law. There are now more than 450,000 Israeli settlers in the West Bank, also a serious and direct violation of international humanitarian law, which forbids an occupier from transferring its civilian population to the territory it occupies. Israel has also committed serious and direct breaches of international humanitarian law by substantially altering the nature of the occupied territory in a way that does not benefit the local (occupied) population. The light rail project is part and parcel of this, as it is clearly infrastructure designed to benefit the illegal settlements that have been built on stolen Palestinian land.

Mit vorliegendem Gutachten wurde geklärt, ob (bzw. inwieweit) das für Deutschland gültige Antidiskriminierungs- und Sozialrecht vor Benachteiligung aufgrund chronischer Krankheit Schutz bietet (Teil 2). Untersucht wurden die einschlägigen Bestimmungen im internationalen Recht, im Unionsrecht, im Grundgesetz, im Allgemeinen Gleichbehandlungsgesetz (AGG), im Sozialgesetzbuch Neuntes Buch (SGB IX) und im allgemeinen Privatrecht. Des Weiteren wurde geprüft, ob der bestehende rechtliche Standard die Anforderungen eines grund- und menschenrechtlich fundierten Diskriminierungsschutzes erfüllt (Teil 1.C, Teil 2.D). Schließlich eruierte die Expertise überblickartig die Situation im Ausland, so insbesondere in Frankreich, Großbritannien und Kanada, in den Niederlanden und der Schweiz (Teil 3). Die Ergebnisse münden in Empfehlungen zuhanden der Auftraggeberin (Teil 4).

Article 1 – original version [Scope of application] --Article 1 – as amended [Scope of application] --Article 2 [Definitions and rules of interpretation] --Article 2A – as added [International origin and general principles] --Article 3 [Receipt of written communications] --Article 4 [Waiver of right to object] --Article 5 [Extent of court intervention] --Article 6 [Court or other authority for certain functions of arbitration assistance and supervision] --Article 7 – original version [Definition and form of arbitration agreement] --Article 7 – as amended [Definition and form of arbitration agreement] --Article 8 [Arbitration agreement and substantive claim before court] --Article 9 [Arbitration agreement and interim measures by court] --Article 10 [Number of arbitrators] --Article 11 [Appointment of arbitrators] --Article 12 [Grounds for challenge] --Article 13 [Challenge procedure] --Article 14 [Failure or impossibility to act] --Article 15 [Appointment of substitute arbitrator] --Article 16 [Competence of arbitral tribunal to rule on its jurisdiction] --Article 17 – original version [Power of arbitral tribunal to order interim measures] --(Articles 17 – 17J) – as amended [Interim measures and preliminary orders] --Article 18 [Equal treatment of parties] --Article 19 [Determination of rules of procedure] --Article 20 [Place of arbitration] --Article 21 [Commencement of arbitral proceedings] --Article 22 [Language] --Article 23 [Statements of claim and defence] --Article 24 [Hearings and written proceedings] --Article 25 [Default of a party] --Article 26 [Expert appointed by arbitral tribunal] --Article 27 [Court assistance in taking evidence] --Article 28 [Rules applicable to substance of dispute] --Article 29 [Decision making by panel of arbitrators] --Article 30 [Settlement] --Article 31 [Form and contents of award] --Article 32 [Termination of proceedings] --Article 33 [Correction and interpretation of award; additional award] --Article 34 [Application for setting aside as exclusive recourse against arbitral award] --Article 35 – original version [Recognition and enforcement] --Article 35 – as amended [Recognition and enforcement] --Article 36 [Grounds for refusing recognition or enforcement].

The introductory part of the article argues the relevance of continuing research on the conceptual and methodological problems of international comparisons of macroeconomic indicators due to begging of new round of the International Comparison Program (ICP) of GDP by Purchasing Power Parities (PPPs), designed to build unique science-based systems of statistical data on the world economy and the place of each country in it.The body of the article formulates the author's view of the basic methodological approaches to international comparisons of macroeconomic indicators; it also focuses on several areas for improving the quality of international statistics. It is argued that to improve the quality of international comparisons, there is a particular need to implement in the national statistical practice of individual countries the methodological procedures for measuring the following main economic transactions: research and development expenditure, government expenditure on the acquisition of weapons systems, imputed output of financial intermediation services, updated in the 2008 SNA. The paper explains the need for updating some purchasing power parities methodology provisions and postulates, especially those concerning non-market government services. According to the author, it would be beneficial to continue the debate on the merits and limitations of the Elteto, Koves and Szulc (EKS) method and the Geary – Khamis method.The conclusion is that the development of standards for international comparisons of PPP-based GDP will be in the interests of the governments across the world, national central banks, international organizations, and, of course, will contribute to solving modern problems in national socio-economic statistics and Russian statistics, in particular. ; Во вводной части статьи аргументируется актуальность продолжения исследований концептуальных и методологических проблем международных сопоставлений макроэкономических показателей в связи с началом подготовки новейшего этапа реализации Программы международных сопоставлений ВВП по паритетам покупательной способности валют, предназначенной для формирования уникальных научно обоснованных систем статистических данных о мировой экономике и месте каждой страны в ней.В основном разделе статьи формулируется авторский взгляд на ключевые методологические подходы к международным сопоставлениям макроэкономических показателей и указывается на ряд направлений в совершенствовании качества международной статистики. В частности, для повышения качества международных сопоставлений аргументируется особая необходимость реализации в национальной статистической практике отдельных стран обновленных в СНС 2008 методологических процедур измерения таких важных экономических операций, как расходы на научные исследования и разработки, расходы органов государственного управления на приобретение систем вооружения, условно исчисленный выпуск услуг финансового посредничества. Обосновывается доработка отдельных положений и постулатов методологии оценки паритетов покупательной способности валют, в частности, в отношении нерыночных услуг органов государственного управления. По мнению автора, было бы полезно продолжение дискуссии о преимуществах и ограничениях метода ЭКШ и метода Гири – Камиса.В заключении автором делается вывод о том, что освоение стандартов международных сравнений ВВП по паритету покупательной способности валют будет в интересах правительств стран мира, национальных центральных банков, международных организаций и конечно будет способствовать решению современных проблем в национальной социально-экономической статистике и российской, в частности.