Search for: "WATER POWER v. Human Rights" Results 241 - 260 of 617
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
18 Jun 2012, 2:54 pm by David Hart QC
Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS Related posts: The air that we breathe UK’s failure on air pollution: who enforces? [read post]
CALIFORNIA WATER RIGHTS AND SUPPLY California WaterFix Extends Public Comment Period To Respond To Pandemic. [read post]
3 Apr 2014, 12:30 pm by Abbott & Kindermann
The court held that the ordinance was a police-power regulatory action to which the categorical exemptions applied. [read post]
4 Nov 2010, 12:53 am by chief
Cochrane predated the coming into force of the Human Rights Act 1998, but in McLellan the CA held that the IT scheme was compatible with art.6 of the Convention. [read post]
4 Nov 2010, 12:53 am by chief
Cochrane predated the coming into force of the Human Rights Act 1998, but in McLellan the CA held that the IT scheme was compatible with art.6 of the Convention. [read post]
14 Oct 2011, 4:02 pm by admin
The plaintiffs alleged that the power companies are the five largest emitters of carbon dioxide in the country, and their greenhouse gas emissions are significantly contributing to global warming and thus impinge on public rights by threatening human health and safety. [read post]
11 Jun 2010, 8:17 pm
So here's an excerpt about a kooky little copyright case called Strachborneo v. [read post]
24 Dec 2011, 9:25 am
Though there is a conflict of judicial opinion about the power of a court to grant anticipatory bail, the majority view is that there is no such power under the existing provisions of the Code. [read post]
27 Apr 2011, 3:56 am by David Hart QC
Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS Related posts: Aarhus breaches all round? [read post]
29 Jun 2010, 10:43 am by Abbott & Kindermann
Public Right Exception Allows Plastic Bag Producers to Challenge Negative Declaration for Environmental Ordinance. [read post]
9 Jul 2014, 9:34 am by Abbott & Kindermann
The court held that the ordinance was a police-power regulatory action to which the categorical exemptions applied. [read post]