Suchergebnisse

Contiene: A practical preventive against venereal infections / Van der Smissen ; discussion Sacquépée. [et al.].-- Págs. 1033-1038.-- The antivenereal campaign in the Army

Abstract
The international legal framework for investment in Africa is complex, consisting of a large number of bilateral investment treaties (BITs) and regional investment agreements. This is in addition to a number of non-binding regional investment instruments and models that influence African countries' investment policy directions. Looking at the numbers, African countries have concluded over 860 BITs of which 160 are intra-African treaties. This represents around 28 percent of the BIT universe. For over 50 years African countries have been signing BITs that have core elements developed by third countries. Little attention has been given to the implications of these treaties on African countries' right and duty to regulate investment in their territories. The result is a web of legally binding and broadly formulated commitments on investment protection. Today, African countries are taking a more active approach in the formulation of their international investment commitments at the national, bilateral and regional levels. Africa is becoming a laboratory for innovative and sustainable development-oriented investment policymaking. While these reform efforts occur in parallel and sometimes overlap with one another, they all converge in their attempt to formulate a new approach to investment policies that aims at safeguarding the right and duty of African countries to regulate and to reflect emerging sustainable development imperatives. The challenge remains in the existing stock of outdated African BITs and in the investor–State dispute system. Tribunals have broadly interpreted BIT commitments in ways that were not foreseen by African countries. The system that was originally developed to foster legal predictability in investment relations between countries has today become a source of legal uncertainty, debate and controversy. So far, African countries have been observing proposals and discussions for the reform of the ISDS system, including through the establishment of a Multilateral Investment Court (MIC) from a distance. They have been allowed to raise concerns, propose ideas and suggestions, but were not included in the original construction of the concepts and structures of any of the proposed solutions.

This book challenges a central assumption of the international law of territory. The author argues that, contrary to the finding in the Frontier Dispute, uti possidetis is not a general principle of law enjoining states to preserve pre-existing boundaries on state succession. The book demonstrates that African state practice gave rise to customary rules of intangibility of inherited frontiers and respecting the territorial status quo that, respectively, regulate sovereign territory transfer in Africa on independence and beyond. It explains that those rules changed international law as it relates to Africa in many aspects, including the creation of norms of African jus cogens prohibiting secession and the redrawing of boundaries. The book examines in depth the phenomenon of secession in Africa, exploring extensive state practice. Finally, it advances a daring argument for a right to egalitarian self-determination, addressing domination in multi-ethnic states, to serve as an exception to the African rule against secession

U.S. INTERNATIONAL FOOD AID PROGRAMS BACKGROUND, ISSUES AND SELECT ASSESSMENTS -- U.S. INTERNATIONAL FOOD AID PROGRAMS BACKGROUND, ISSUES AND SELECT ASSESSMENTS -- Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data -- CONTENTS -- PREFACE -- Chapter 1 U. S. INTERNATIONAL FOOD AID PROGRAMS: BACKGROUND AND ISSUES* -- SUMMARY -- TABLE OF ACRONYMS -- BACKGROUND -- FOOD AID PROGRAMS -- Section 416(b)4 -- Food for Peace Act (FFPA) -- Since Mid-1980s, Title II Outlays Have Dominated -- Food Aid Consultative Group (FACG) -- Title I-Concessional Sales of U.S. Agricultural Commodities

The article emphasizes that the Arctic Council (AC) is a high level forum of cooperation, based on taking decisions by consensus that are carried out by member states on a voluntary basis and in accordance with their national interests. The AC does not meet the criteria of a classical international intergovernmental organization – IGO and may not be referred to as an international non-governmental organization – INGO due to its members. The high performance of the AC activity in the absence of a complex organizational structure, any executive body and a court is rooted in respect for national sovereignty of its member states. This informal international organization of new type became the core, around which a significant group of states, IGOs and INGOs, that received observer status at the AC, is created. Within the framework of its activity innovative tools of financing of ongoing programs have been developed. Participation of other member states of the AC in the anti-Russian sanctions does not become an obstacle for continuation of the close cooperation of all Arctic states in addressing the major problems of common concern in the Arctic. During the sanctions they established the Arctic economic council, signed the agreements on cooperation between coastal guards of all Arctic states, on scientific cooperation in the Arctic and on preventing unregulated fishing in the central part of the Arctic ocean. Negotiations on possible new agreements are going on between them. The model of informal international cooperation, demonstrated by the Arctic Council, is being successfully implemented also in the activities of the Nordic Council of Ministers, the Council of Barents/Euro-arctic Region, BRICS and other international organizations. This gave the authors the reason to conclude that this type of international organizations will be further developed in contemporary international relations.