Suchergebnisse

209Sovereign immunity — Absolute and restrictive theories — Which theory applicable to actions in personam in England — Extent of restrictive theory — Whether permitting inquiry into meaning and effect of foreign State's legislation in case to which that State is a party — Act of State doctrineInternational law in general — Relation to municipal law — Whether customary international law part of the law of England — Whether doctrine of binding precedent applicable to decisions on international law — Irreconcilable decisions of Court of Appeal — The law of England

On February 9, 2022, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) handed down its reparations judgment in the Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda) case. This followed from its December 19, 2005 merits judgment, which found that Uganda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) had violated international law vis-à-vis each other and were obliged to make reparations to each other. The ICJ ultimately held that, over five annual instalments of US$65 million from September 1, 2022 until September 1, 2026, Uganda was to pay the DRC a total of US$325 million for damage to persons, damage to property, and damage related to natural resources.

Through oral history research in north eastern Congo, this book studies the migration of Anglicans and the subsequent reconfiguring of their Christian identity. It engages with issues of religious contextualisation, revivalism and the rise of Pentecostalism. It also demonstrates how religious affiliation aids a sense of belonging

States as international persons — Sovereignty and independence — In foreign relations — Relevance of international law requirements of validity to internal constitutional changes — Revolution Validity of 1966 Constitution of Uganda — The law of Uganda.States as international persons — Recognition — Of Governments Revolution — International law requirements of validity of constitutional change — Validity of 1966 Constitution of Uganda — Relevanceof affidavit by official of Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Uganda that recognition had been accorded the revolutionary Government by other States — Competence of courts to accord recognition — The law of Uganda.International law — Relation to municipal law — International requirements for validity of Constitution and Government of sovereign State — Revolution and coup d'état — Principle of effectiveness — Application of criteria of International law by municipal court — Validity of 1966 Constitution of Uganda — The law of Uganda.

Cover -- Contents -- List of Acronyms -- Executive Summary -- Action Plan -- Project Framework Summary -- I. Introduction -- II. Implementation of Previous Missions' Recommendations -- III. Collection and Compilation of Monetary Statistics for Other Depository Corporations -- A. Bank of Uganda -- B. Other Depository Corporations -- IV. Collection and Compilation of Monetary Statistics for Other Financial Corporations -- A. National Social Security Fund -- B. Private Pension Funds -- C. Insurance Companies -- D. Non-Deposit Taking Microfinance Institutions -- E. Investment Funds and Unit Trusts -- F. Uganda Development Bank -- G. Foreign Exchange Bureaus -- V. Monetary Aggregates, Interest Rates, and Stock Exchange Index -- A. Monetary Aggregates -- B. Interest Rates -- C. Stock Exchange Index -- VI. Intra-EAC Positions -- VII. Data Reporting to the IMF -- VIII. Data Dissemination -- IX. Training and Technical Assistance -- Appendices -- I. List of Officials Met by the Mission -- II. Status of Implementation of the Previous Mission's Recommendations.

On February 9, 2022, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) rendered its judgment on the reparations phase of the Armed Activities (DRC v. Uganda) case which related to the Democratic Republic of Congo's (DRC) claims against Uganda arising from the Second Congo War.1 The judgment concluded a case which had all the hallmarks of a landmark: an exceptionally large-scale, protracted, and complex armed conflict, a key actor as the respondent, and virtually unfettered material jurisdiction of the Court. As a reminder, in 1999, the Court was seised with DRC's claims against Uganda arising from the (then ongoing) Second Congo War. Similar claims against Rwanda and Burundi failed before reaching the merits stage. In 2005, the Court rendered its judgment on the merits declaring Uganda responsible for violating the principle of non-use of force and non-intervention by the acts of its own forces and by supporting armed groups in the DRC.2 The Court also found Uganda responsible for breaches of international humanitarian law and international human rights law, and for plundering DRC's natural resources.3 The Court concluded that Uganda had to make reparation to the DRC for the injury caused by its internationally wrongful acts and enjoined the parties to enter into negotiations for that purpose.4 After almost ten years of sporadic and fruitless discussions, in 2015, the DRC brought the case back to the Court for conclusive resolution.