Mixed arbitral tribunals & the agrarian reforms of the states of the Little Entente.
Read Online
Share

Mixed arbitral tribunals & the agrarian reforms of the states of the Little Entente.

  • 572 Want to read
  • ·
  • 89 Currently reading

Published by Printed by W.P. Griffith in London .
Written in English

Subjects:

Places:

  • Hungary

Subjects:

  • World War, 1914-1918 -- Claims.,
  • Hungary -- Claims vs. Romania.,
  • Hungary -- Claims vs Czechoslovakia.,
  • Hungary -- Claims vs. Yugoslavia.

Book details:

Edition Notes

Includes bibliographical references.

Classifications
LC ClassificationsJX678.R6 M5
The Physical Object
Pagination95 p. ;
Number of Pages95
ID Numbers
Open LibraryOL5964432M
LC Control Number65059621
OCLC/WorldCa11297918

Download Mixed arbitral tribunals & the agrarian reforms of the states of the Little Entente.

PDF EPUB FB2 MOBI RTF

3. Final arbitral determination would be possible only pursuant to a second arbitration agreement. See The Emmanuel Colocotronis [] 1 All E.R. (charter party terms incorporated into bill of lading), discussed below. 4. See, for example, Southern Pacific Properties Ltd v Arab Republic of Egypt, where an arbitral tribunal had toFile Size: KB.   Both international arbitral tribunals and mixed claims commissions have sometimes used the rate of interest prevailing in the respondent state, 40 but some have used the rate prevailing in the claimant’s state. 41 In many states, nominal interest rates do not accurately reflect commercial practice—for example, due to high inflation rates or Author: Aaron Xavier Fellmeth. Executive Summary. The overall investment climate in Azerbaijan continues to improve, although significant challenges remain. Over the past few years, the Government of Azerbaijan has sought to integrate the country more fully into the global marketplace, attract foreign investment, diversify its economy, undertake needed market economic reforms, and stimulate growth. Once the parties entrust the arbitral tribunal with the authority to rule, they—subject to a possible intervening settlement—relinquish control of the proceedings, the dispute, and its resolution to the arbitrators and—to a lesser extent—the administering arbitral institution. The recourse to arbitration is ordinarily consensual.

Briefly, it was the view of the Tribunal that the proceedings were "in regard to the agrarian reform" (Fr., à profios de la réforme agraire); that Article I of Agreement No. II covers all the proceedings brought by Hungarian nationals against the States of the Little Entente "in regard to the agrarian reform"; and that since the Paris. While adjudicating an investor claim concerning violent land dispossession in the context of agrarian reform, for example, an arbitral tribunal received, and declined to consider, a submission articulating human rights arguments, filed by organizations supporting prospective reform beneficiaries. 90 In several extractive industry arbitrations. Art. 16 of the Arbitration Act provides that the arbitral tribunal may rule on its own jurisdiction, including any objections with respect to the existence or validity of the arbitration agreement. For that purpose, an arbitration clause which forms part of a contract is to be treated as an agreement independent of the other terms of the contract. Two recent decisions of the Commercial Court have highlighted the power of the courts in relation to section 67 of the Arbitration Act (the “Act”). Section 67 of the Act allows a party to arbitration proceedings to challenge an award of an arbitral tribunal on the basis that the tribunal lacked substantive jurisdiction and to seek a declaration to set aside the award.

Canada and Ontario law permit the review of international arbitral awards only on the narrow grounds set out in the Model Law, which parallel those set out in the New York Convention. Thus, whether courts may set aside arbitral awards for reasons like “manifest disregard of the law” (an open question in the United States under the The Mixed Arbitral Tribunals, as organized for the purpose, were not to interpret article , on which the four states nearly concerned reserved their legal positions. Agreement III concerned the organization and working of Fund “A”, the capital of which was fixed at . By Carmen Núñez-Lagos and Javier García Olmedo In an award rendered on 31 January , an arbitral tribunal constituted under the UNCITRAL Rules declined jurisdiction over the claims brought by one of two claimants against the Plurinational State of Bolivia on the basis of the application of a denial of benefits clause in the US-Bolivia.   As per the S(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, (‘Act’), an Arbitral Tribunal shall decide on a plea on jurisdiction referred to in S (2) and S (3), and where it rejects such a plea, it has to continue with the arbitral proceedings, making an award.