71 research outputs found

    In Brief

    Get PDF
    Table of Contents: Masthead The Dean Reports From 1892 to 2000: The Law School Prepares for Another Century New Health Law Professors (Hoffman and Berg) Class of 1999 Employers Moot Court Team Wins Trip to National Competition Law School Welcomes Shimon Shetreet Michael Heise, Equal Educational Opportunity for the Next Millennium: New Remedies for an Old Problem Kostritsky and Sharpe Named to Endowed Chairs Faculty Approves Curriculum Committees\u27 Recommendations Society of Benchers Inducts Nine New Members Fall 1999-Spring 2000 Lecture Series Speakers Commencement 1999 Richard North Patterson, \u2770, Commencement Address Alumni Awards and Honors Past Award Recipients Law Alumni Association Canada-U.S. Law Institute Conference LL.M. in U.S. Legal Studies: From 4 to 46 LL.M. Reunion 2001 Professor Katz Visits Middle East Alums Faculty Notes In Memoriam (faculty) AlumNotes In Memoriam (alumni) CWRU Law Alumni Association CWRU School of Law Visiting Committee Calendar of Events Alumni Weekend 2000https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/in_brief/1072/thumbnail.jp

    La conférence de Bali

    No full text
    Analyse de la conférence des Parties à la Convention cadre sur les changements climatiques, Bali 2007, COP 1

    La transition Ă©cologique : histoire juridique d'un concept d'avenir

    No full text
    National audienc

    LES ALÉAS DU DÉBIT DE L’EAU FACE À LA RIGUEUR FINANCIÈRE DU PROTOCOLE ADDITIONNEL À LA CONVENTION RELATIVE À LA PROTECTION DU RHIN CONTRE LES CHLORURES : ARBITRAGE SUR LA LIQUIDATION DES COMPTES OPPOSANT LES PAYS-BAS ET LA FRANCE

    No full text
    La sentence arbitrale du 12 mars 2004 rĂ©sout une divergence d’interprĂ©tation nĂ©e entre la France et les Pays-Bas lors de l’application du Protocole du 25 septembre 1991 additionnel Ă  la Convention du 3 dĂ©cembre 1976 relative Ă  la protection du Rhin contre la pollution par les chlorures. Ce Protocole, prĂ©vu pour la pĂ©riode allant de 1991 Ă  1998, a notamment permis aux diffĂ©rents riverains du Rhin de financer rĂ©guliĂšrement les mesures Ă  prendre par la France (stockage Ă  terre) pour Ă©viter qu’elle ne rejette des chlorures au-delĂ  d’un certain seuil dans le fleuve. Ce litige surgit en 1999, au moment de l’apurement des comptes, c’est-Ă -dire lors du solde dĂ©finitif de ceux-ci. La France a stockĂ© moins que prĂ©vu et elle doit restituer les sommes perçues en trop et versĂ©es par les États parties Ă  cette convention. Une divergence d’interprĂ©tation du Protocole sur les modalitĂ©s de calcul Ă  retenir pour dĂ©terminer le montant de la restitution conduit l’affaire devant l’arbitrage. L’interprĂ©tation selon les moyens de la Convention de Vienne sur le droit des traitĂ©s mettra en exergue les articles 31 et 32, considĂ©rĂ©s comme Ă©tant complĂ©mentaires par le Tribunal arbitral. Il ressortira de la sentence que les parties ont imaginĂ© un systĂšme dominĂ© par des considĂ©rations financiĂšres, dans lequel les fluctuations du dĂ©bit du Rhin n’ont pas Ă©tĂ© suffisamment prises en compte, et ce, de façon dĂ©libĂ©rĂ©e. La rĂšgle « pacta sunt servanda » trouve ainsi une illustration dans cette affaire oĂč la France est tenue par les termes du Protocole qu’elle a nĂ©gociĂ© avec les autres parties et auquel elle a adhĂ©rĂ©. Le Protocole est certes imparfait dans sa conception, puisque les circonstances de son application ne correspondront pas aux prĂ©visions faites, surtout dans le cas de la France, mais il demeure la loi des parties. La France devra donc restituer les sommes conformĂ©ment au coĂ»t stipulĂ© dans le Protocole sans que l’on puisse considĂ©rer explicitement cette solution comme Ă©tant dĂ©raisonnable.The March 12th, 2004 arbitral award resolved a divergence that arose between France and the Netherlands concerning the interpretation of the Additional Protocol of September 25, 1991 to the Convention of December 3, 1976 on the Protection of the Rhine against Pollution by Chlorides. This Protocol, covering the period from 1991 to 1998, allowed different waterside residents of the Rhine to finance, on a regular basis, measures to be taken by France (soil storage) in order to counteract any dumping of chlorides above a certain concentration limit in the river. This litigation arose in 1999, at the time the accounts were being settled, i.e. when the final balances were determined. France had stored less than was anticipated, and had to refund the amounts that were overpaid from the States who were party to this Convention. The said divergence with respect to the interpretation of the Protocol in terms of the methods of determining the amount of restitution subsequently led to arbitration. An interpretation, taken in light of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, brings to the forefront articles 31 and 32, considered by the arbitral tribunal to be complementary. It appears obvious, when reading the award, that the parties apparently envisaged a system which was predominated by financial considerations, in which the fluctuation of the Rhine river’s output (flow) was not adequantely taken into consideration, seemingly in a deliberate fashion. The “pacta sunt servanda” rule is thus illustrated in this matter, where France is held to the terms of the Protocol which it negotiated with the other concerned parties and a pact to which it adhered. The Protocol was certainly imperfect with respect to its conception, since the circumstances of its application do not correspond with projections, especially in the case of France ; yet it remains the law binding these parties. France will thus have to refund the amounts in conformity to the Protocol without question

    Commentaire d'arrĂȘt CEDH, affaire PY contre France, Etude sur les restrictions Ă  l'exercice du droit de vote en Nouvelle CalĂ©donie

    No full text
    International audienc

    Les certificats d'économie d'énergie: nature hybride d'un outil de l'Etat piloté par les acteurs économiques,

    No full text
    International audienc
    • 

    corecore