The Panama Canal Conflict between Great Britain and the United States of America: A Study. By L. Oppenheim M.A., LL.D., Whewell Professor of International Law in the University of Cambridge. Cambridge: University Press. 1913. pp. 57. - The Panama Canal Controversy: A Lecture Delivered before the University of Oxford on October 25, 1913. By Sir H. Erie Richards, K. C., K. C. S. I., B. C. L., M.A., Chichele Professor of International Law and Diplomacy, and Fellow of All Souls College. Oxford: The Clarendon Press. 1913. pp. 48.

1914 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 415-419
Author(s):  
John H. Latané
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Great Britain ◽  
International Law ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
The United States ◽  
Panama Canal ◽  
Cambridge University ◽  
University Of Oxford ◽  
University Of Cambridge ◽  
The University

International law 1908–1983

Legal Studies ◽  
1983 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 267-282
Author(s):  
Christine Gray
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Great Britain ◽  
International Law ◽  
Latin American ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
The United States ◽  
Great Powers ◽  
American States ◽  
The Family ◽  
Congo Free State

In 1908 international law governed relations between ‘civilised states’ only. It applied exclusively to those states within the Family ofNations - 45 fully sovereign states according to the first edition of Oppenheim's International Law. These 45 included the six ‘Great Powers’, Austria-Hungary, France, Germany, Great Britain, Italy and Russia, various lesser European states, the United States of America and 20 Latin American states. In Africa ‘The Negro Republic of Liberia and the Congo Free State were the only real and full members ofthe Family of Nations’, in Asia only Japan. The position ofsuch states as Persia, Siam, China, Korea and Abyssinia was doubtful; ‘These states are certainly civilised states, and Abyssinia is even a Christian state.

Thinking About Scots Law

1996 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-24 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alan Rodger
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Nineteenth Century ◽  
British Empire ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Memorial Lecture ◽  
University Of Edinburgh ◽  
The University

This article is the revised text of the first W A Wilson Memorial Lecture, given in the Playfair Library, Old College, in the University of Edinburgh, on 17 May 1995. It considers various visions of Scots law as a whole, arguing that it is now a system based as much upon case law and precedent as upon principle, and that its departure from the Civilian tradition in the nineteenth century was part of a general European trend. An additional factor shaping the attitudes of Scots lawyers from the later nineteenth century on was a tendency to see themselves as part of a larger Englishspeaking family of lawyers within the British Empire and the United States of America.

Różne perspektywy dotyczące skutków art. 95 CISG

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Małgorzata Danuta Pohl-Michałek
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Nations ◽  
International Law ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
Democratic Republic ◽  
The United States ◽  
Private International Law ◽  
United Nations Convention ◽  
International Sale Of Goods ◽  
Conflict Of Law

The 1980 United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG) was adopted in order to provide uniform rules governing the international sale of goods. It has already been ratified by an impressive number of 92 Contracting States, with the major trading countries taking the lead. The CISG applies to contracts for the sale of goods between parties whose places of business are in different States, where the States are CISG Contracting States (Article 1(1)(a)). Moreover, it applies to contracts for the sale of goods when the contracting parties have their places of business in different States and when the rules of private international law lead to the application of the law of a CISG Contracting State (Article 1(1)(b)). However, at the time of ratification, the prospective Contracting States are given the possibility of making additional reservations, including one set out in Article 95 CISG, which limits the application of Article 1(1)(b) of the Convention. Although there are some CISG Contracting States that initially applied the reservation but have since withdrawn it, there are still a few Contracting States where the reservation remains[1], including the two largest trading countries – China and the United States. The paper presents various approaches regarding the interpretation of the effects of the reservation set out in Article 95 CISG, which in fact challenge the principle of the uniform interpretation and application of the Convention’s provisions. The author argues that the Article 95 CISG reservation leads to increased confusion and problematic conflict of law issues that bring more chaos than benefits.   [1] The remaining Article 95 CISG Reservatory States are: Armenia, China, the Lao People's Democratic Republic, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Singapore, Slovakia and the United States of America. Information is based on the official website: https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=X-10&chapter=10 (accessed: 9.12.2019).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document