Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T07:50:02.239Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Editorial Note

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 July 2009

Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The 14th Telders International Law Moot Court Competition was held again in the Peace Palace in The Hague from April 4–6,1991. The Leiden Journal of International Law includes the cases put before the teams in her issues, and gives as follow-up the excerpts from the best memorials.

Type
Telders Moot Court Competition
Information
Leiden Journal of International Law , Volume 4 , Issue 2 , September 1991 , pp. 305 - 315
Copyright
Copyright © Foundation of the Leiden Journal of International Law 1991

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Reprinted in 69 AJIL 730 (1975).

2. Status as of December 1989, in Multilateral Treaties Deposited with the Secretary-General, at 73.

3. 1155 U.N.T.S. 331 (1980).

4. Seidl-Hohenfeldern, I., VölkerrechtlS (1987);Google ScholarVerdross, A., Simma, B., Univcrsellcs Völkerrecht: Theoric and Praxis454 (1984), Para 719.Google Scholar

5. Morvay, W., The Obligation of a Stale not to Frustrate the Object of a Treaty Prior to its Entry into Force, 27 ÕZöR 454 (1967).Google Scholar

6. Hassan, T., Good Faith in Treaty Formation, 21 VirJIL 469 (1981);Google ScholarCahier, P., L'obligation de ne pas priver un traité de son object et son but avant entrée en vigeur.Google ScholarI Méelanges, F. Delhousse 36 (1979).Google Scholar

7. The accession of Iran being as recent as December 1989, in Treaties deposited with the Secretary General, at 73.

8. Hassan, T., supra note 6, at 469–479.Google Scholar

9. Cahier, P., supra note 6, at 36;Google ScholarMorvay, W., supra note 5, at 461.Google Scholar

10. Cahier., P.Etude des Accords de Stige conclus entre les organisations inlernationales et les Etats oú elks résident 359 (1959);Google ScholarDahm, G., Delbriick, J., Wolfrum, R., Vōlkerreclu, Vol. 1/1, 301 (1989).Google Scholar

11. E. Denza, Diplomatic Law 159 (1976), Art. 31. Established practice of US Courts, see, Santa Cruz, Friedberg v., 274 App. Div. 1072,86 N.Y.S. 2d 369;Google Scholar City of Rochelle, v. Page-Shaip, New Rochelle City Ct.. 91 N.Y.S. 2d. 290;Google Scholar People von Otter, v., City Court of New Rochelle, 114 N.Y.S. 2d 295.Google Scholar

12. Of the 71 participating states, only nine voted in favor of this proposal. See, Kirgis, F.L., International Organizations in their Legal Setting 69 (1977).Google Scholar

13. Cf, An. 18(1) Unescoand Art. IS(b) ILO Headquarters Agreements; Murty., B.S.The International Law of Diplomacy 478 (1989);Google ScholarCahier, P., supra note 10, at 359;Google ScholarHardy, M., Modern Diplomatic Law 107 (1968).Google Scholar

14. Hardy, M., supra note 13, at 107–108.Google Scholar

15. va, Da Sil, 21 G YIL 20 (1978);Google ScholarLang, W., Das Wiener bereinkommen fiber die Verletziwg von Staaten in ihren Beiiehungen zu Internationalen Organisationen universellen Cliarakters, 37 ZaORV 78 (1977).Google Scholar

16. Whitney, R., Immunities from Territorial Jurisdiction; Representatives of States and Officials of International Organizations, 4 ColJ 78 (1965–1966);Google ScholarSzaz, P., International Organizations, Privileges and Immunities, 5 E.P.I.L. 156 (1983);Google ScholarHardy, M., supra note 13, at 144;Google Scholar Re Pisani Balesta di Mottola,Italian Court de Cassation (Criminal), 10.7.1969, reprinted in 71ILR 565 (1986); Office of Legal Affairs of the U.N. in U.N.J.Y. 222 (1965).

17. Denza, E., supra note 10, at 97;Google ScholarDahm, G., Delbriick, J., Wolfram, R., supra note 10, at 278;Google ScholarHardy, M.,supra note 13, at 278;Google ScholarPapaKostas, A., The Immunity from Jurisdiction of Diplomatic Agents, 19 RevHell 172–173(1966).Google Scholar

18. Dahm, G., Delbriick, J., Wolfrum, R., supra note 10, at 278.Google Scholar

19. U.S. Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran (USA v. Iran), Judgment of May 24,1980, ICJ Reports 1980,3, at 37.

20. Larschan, B., The Abisinito Affair: A Restrictive Theory of Diplomatic Immunity?, 26 ColJ 288 (1987–1988); II Y.B. Int'l L. Comm'n 151 (1958): observations by Mr. Zourek.Google Scholar

21. II Y.B. Int. L. Comm'n 12, Para. 3 (1969).

22. U.S. Diplomatic and Consular Staff inTeliran (USA v.Iran). Request forthe Indication of Provisional Measures, Order of December 15, 1979, 1979 I.C.J. Rep. at 21.

23. Vienna Convention on the Representation of States in their Relations with International Organizations of a Universal Character of March 14, 1975, reprinted in 69 AJIL (1975).

24. Art. 14 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, reprinted in 63 AJIL (1969).

25. Art. 89 of the 1975 Vienna Convention.

26. Art. 41 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations 1961.

27. Denza, E., Diplomatic Law - Commentary on the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations 151(1976).Google Scholar

28. Article 43(2.b) of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations 1963.

29. Badr, G.M., State Immunity – An Analytical and Prognostic View 101 (1984).Google Scholar

30. See. e.g.. Fundamentals of Civil Procedure in the Soviet Union and the Union Republics, Art. 61, Para.3; Argentine Decree-Law of Oct. 9, 1964; Chilean Decree-Law No. 2349 of Oct. 13, 1978, Art. 9;Hungrian Decree-Law No. 13 of 1979 on Private International Law, Section 17, Para. 2; Judgment of the Polish Supreme Court of Dec. 14, 1948; cited by Badr, G.M., supra note 30.Google Scholar

31. Art. V of the Headquarters Agreement.

32. Art. 41 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.

33. Art. 60(2.b) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.

34. Cf. Sinha, B.P., Unilateral Denunciation of Treaty because of Prior Violations of Obligations by Other Party 31 (1966).Google Scholar

35. Art. 60(3.a) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. See also, ICAO Council Case, 19721.C.J.Rep. at 46.

36. Art. 30, supra note 23, at 730.

37. Art. 18, supra note 24, at 875

38. Cahier, P., Le Droit Diplomatique Contemporain 247 (1964).Google Scholar