To save this undefined to your undefined account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your undefined account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure email@example.com is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
On December 1st, 1986, an important change took place in Dutch arbitration law. Until then, the old provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure dating from 1838 had governed arbitrations conducted in the Netherlands. In spite of judicial attempts to adapt those rules to modern commercial circumstances, many of them had clearly become obsolete. The present state of arbitration law could only be understood in the light of a body of caselaw, which did little to promote the attractions of a Dutch arbitral forum to international business. This became an increasing source of concern in the Netherlands as international commercial arbitration was expanding and came to offer an alternative to court litigation in many branches of trade and industry. By modernising their arbitration law various other Western European States had taken steps to enhance their chances of being selected as the arbitration host country.
The system of dissenting and separate opinions is said to be essential to the success of the World Court and through it, of international law. On that basis international law seems to be enjoying unprecedented prosperity, for, by contrast with the Permanent Court of International Justice, separate and dissenting opinions currently exceed the judgments of the International Court of Justice (hereinafter the Court) by a considerable margin in terms of the number of pages, a new record being set by Judge Schwebel's dissenting opinion in the judgment of the Court of 27 June 1986. Of course, this situation may be less indicative of the success of international law than to the fact that its scope and content are becoming increasingly open to question. In any event, international law may derive more rather than less strength from the fact that dividing lines are not drawn automatically between judges from North and South or East and West. Even the judgments in the by now famous cases of the American hostages in Tehran and the (para)military activities in and against Nicaragua are widely supported by judges hailing from the main forms of civilisation and the principal legal systems.
Following the worst industrial accident in history, the leak of poisonous methyl isocyanate gas in Bhopal, India and the deaths of more than 2,000 people with injuries to more than 200,000, suits were soon brought in the United States against Union Carbide Corporation, the owner of a little over 50 percent of the stock in Union Carbide India Limited, the owner and operator of the disastrous plant. The American suits were consolidated in one action before the United States Federal District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Federal District Court, however, dismissed the action on the grounds of forum non conveniens, deciding that the Bhopal case would be more properly litigated in India. The District Court's opinion was endorsed by the Federal Circuit Court for the Second Circuit, also concluding that India, not the United States, was the appropriate situs for the trial.
Parental authority has never been a matter of ‘peaceful possession’. During the course of this century a number of developments have occurred which, according to their content and timing, can be divided into four entirely distinct strands.
The advent of the information society necessitates a review of the existing rules and regulations governing telecommunications facilities. The old legal framework, which in most countries dates from the turn of the century, is in need of replacement. Modern information technology dictates reform.
Information Concerning the Hague Conventions on Private International Law
Information* Concerning the Hague Conventions on Private International Law**
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 May 2009, pp. 237-261