Search for: "United States v. ICC"
Results 221 - 240
of 280
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
20 Aug 2015, 10:08 am
Forty-one of the 47 state members of the HRC nevertheless voted to accept it; the sole negative vote came from the United States, while the five abstentions came from India, Kenya, Ethiopia, Paraguay and Macedonia. [read post]
9 May 2022, 8:51 am
But the time has not arrived to consider or discuss such a question.[15] But this legislative history, which concededly “carefully differentiated” the FTC’s power from the ICC’s power[16] was “utterly unhelpful” to Judge Wright, who somehow could not square synonymous assurances that the FTC would have “no power to prescribe methods of competition” and would exercise “in no sense a legislative function. [read post]
20 May 2022, 9:30 am
” April 4: The Speaker of the Albanian Parliament Lindita Nikolla states: “The mass killings of innocent people in Bucha and other regions of Ukraine show that the violence of the Russian army is escalating into forms of genocide. [read post]
16 Mar 2017, 7:42 pm
Simmons, 543 U.S. 551, 577 (2005): “It is fair to say that the United States now stands alone in a world that has turned its face against the juvenile death penalty. [read post]
19 Jan 2020, 10:45 am
The case is called Wortman v. [read post]
2 Jul 2023, 8:52 am
Biden, the Court upheld Roger Severino’s removal from the Council that supervises the Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS). [read post]
12 Dec 2007, 7:36 am
Family Voices Coordinators have met with their state legislators and with state ICC Council members many times this yea, and have sent Family Voices information to over 10,000 families in the state. [read post]
1 Jun 2017, 10:51 am
Adoption Law in Turkey and the United States. [read post]
23 Sep 2011, 3:17 am
(Laurence Kaye on Digital Media Law) United States US Patents A trio of post-Bilski cases fail to clearly define the meaning of ‘abstract’ (Electronic Frontier Foundation) Google calls on Big Blue again; SEC filing reveals speed of Motorola patent due diligence (IAM) US Patents – Decisions CAFC: Computer programs and patentable subject matter: Ultramercial, LLC v. [read post]
28 Jun 2022, 10:17 am
It was a very significant case concerning allegations of genocide by one state against another. [read post]
13 Jan 2012, 7:21 am
Human rights by the 1970s (on what must be accounted a revisionist view to the dominant narrative) represents a retreat to an individualistic ethic of rights against states. [read post]
27 Apr 2013, 11:00 am
Wells noted details from a New York Times account of an initial hearing in United States v. [read post]
7 Feb 2011, 2:58 am
Khan v. [read post]
17 Oct 2015, 7:21 am
Tim Edgar examined the Schrems v. [read post]
7 Mar 2012, 12:12 pm
Boris Kasolowsky/Magdalene Steup: “Dallah v Pakistan – Umfang und Grenzen der Kompetenz-Kompetenz von Schiedsgerichten” – the English abstract reads as follows: The UK Supreme Court and the Paris Cour d’appel have recently confirmed, in connection with the ICC arbitration involving Dallah and Pakistan, that the national state courts are not bound by any determinations made by an arbitration tribunal with regard to the existence of a valid… [read post]
20 Jun 2023, 5:58 am
These doubts were erased, though, by the Supreme Court’s decision in ICC v. [read post]
12 Jun 2012, 5:29 am
United States, involving similar issues. [read post]
14 Sep 2023, 6:00 am
No matter how much authority over all the parameters of railroad competition the ICC was granted—and such authority was considerable[2]—the system of railroad regulation proved susceptible to industry capture and political influence. [read post]
31 Aug 2011, 10:27 am
In particular, because of the Supreme Court’s recent opinion in AT&T Mobility LLC v. [read post]
7 Mar 2019, 7:02 am
Along the same lines, one could argue that veto powers have been used politically by developing countries leading to the failure of many negotiating rounds – by doing so, they paid no heed to any systematic concern for the WTO as a whole - so why should the United States’ exercise of veto be limited? [read post]
