Search for: "DOES I-XX"
Results 161 - 180
of 403
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
18 Feb 2013, 7:15 pm
Here’s why: GATT Article XX is a limited list of exceptions. [read post]
22 May 2013, 2:37 pm
But there is still a difference between a word that has an adequately clear meaning and one that does not. [read post]
2 Sep 2019, 5:08 am
It does not suffice if the measure, in effect, protects the local industry. [read post]
12 Apr 2013, 2:28 am
the declarant does not make while testifying at the current trial or hearing . . . [read post]
4 Sep 2018, 5:25 am
This isn't the first FTA to be updated, so I suspect there is a bit of WTO experience with this, but I don't know anything about it. [read post]
23 Dec 2010, 1:02 pm
But how does the situation compare to the past? [read post]
26 Feb 2007, 9:34 pm
I suspect that there is EC pressure to reduce the translation required because they are tying up too much of the facility - I can see no other reason.There are interesting issues over what happens when the classification is changed (i) when the change includes a change to the class heading, and (ii) when it does not". [read post]
16 Jan 2019, 4:36 am
And where does the burden of proof lie? [read post]
7 Feb 2008, 7:30 am
(keeing in mind that the client is likely still going to think that your 'real' fee is $yy, not $xx). [read post]
20 Oct 2010, 4:22 pm
I waylaid my subject, and started: “I much enjoyed your piece on ‘xx’,” and then proceeded to phase two: “I mean it was incredibly clever/original/funny/fascinating,” and from there to: “In fact it was by far the best thing that I’ve read in the newspaper – or anywhere – ever. [read post]
21 Mar 2018, 12:09 pm
The work your firm/company does with Y and Z is impressive and I’m very excited about the opportunity to join your team. [read post]
16 Aug 2023, 12:13 pm
The CBDR-RC requirement, even if defined loosely, expressly permits non-Annex I countries to have lower commitments than Annex I countries. [read post]
16 Aug 2023, 12:13 pm
The CBDR-RC requirement, even if defined loosely, expressly permits non-Annex I countries to have lower commitments than Annex I countries. [read post]
11 Oct 2021, 5:19 am
But you would still have to go through the full analysis under provisions such as GATT Articles III and I and the Article XX exceptions, rather than just assuming that a measure which treats carbon-intensive products differently from low-carbon ones leads to a violation. [read post]
11 Oct 2021, 5:19 am
But you would still have to go through the full analysis under provisions such as GATT Articles III and I and the Article XX exceptions, rather than just assuming that a measure which treats carbon-intensive products differently from low-carbon ones leads to a violation. [read post]
17 Nov 2009, 1:00 pm
I've often seen references to the 1957 Hawaiian court case Territory v. [read post]
25 Jul 2012, 3:21 am
Hardback, xx + 761pp. [read post]
15 Apr 2010, 4:42 am
What does “breach” mean? [read post]
26 Apr 2017, 11:25 am
Having explained above why imported steel does not currently impair national security, I would also like to comment on those two additional relevant factors. [read post]
26 Mar 2012, 7:21 am
What does sexual orientation have to do with gender identity? [read post]
