No CrossRef data available.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 February 2017
1 Though Wellens is very cautious in providing explanations for this shortcoming, the reader may take up the hint found in a UN General Assembly resolution mentioned by Wellens. In that resolution, the Assembly “expressed deep concern about the increase in pending procurement-related claims instituted against the organization.” GA Res. 53/217 (Apr. 7, 1999).
2 Questions of Interpretation and Application of the 1971 Montreal Convention Arising from the Aerial Incident at Lockerbie (Libya v. UK; Libya v. U.S.), Provisional Measures, 1992 ICJ Rep. 3 (Apr. 14).
3 45 Annuaire de L’Institut de Droit International 298 (1954 II)Google Scholar; International Law Association, Report of the 47th Conference 104 (1956)Google Scholar; 1976 Digest of United States Practice in International Law 650.
4 Janis, Mark, Individuals and the International Court, in The International Court of Justice: Its Future Role After Fifty Years 205 (Muller, A. S., Raic, D., & Thuránskyeds, J. M.., 1997)Google Scholar.
5 There are also some technical errors in the book; for example, the plain tiffin the case that Wellens refers to as Mendoza v. World Bank (p. 124) was Mendaro, not Mendoza.