Austria’s Permanent Neutrality and the United Nations Organization

1956 ◽  
Vol 50 (1) ◽  
pp. 61-68 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alfred Verdross
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Great Britain ◽  
United Nations ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
The United States ◽  
Military Bases ◽  
Territorial Integrity ◽  
Military Alliance ◽  
Federal Constitution ◽  
Take All

In the Memorandum signed at Moscow, on April 15, 1955,1 the Austrian and Soviet Delegations came to an agreement binding the Austrian Delegation to carry out the following decisions and measures:1. Referring to the declaration made at the conference of Berlin in 1954 neither to join a military alliance nor to allow foreign military bases in its territory, the Austrian Government will make a declaration in a form which will obligate Austria internationally to practice in perpetuity a neutrality of the type maintained by Switzerland.2. After having ratified the State Treaty, the Austrian Government will submit this declaration to the Austrian Parliament for confirmation according to the Austrian Federal Constitution.3. The Austrian Government will take all suitable steps to obtain international recognition of this declaration.4. The Austrian Government will welcome a guaranty by the four Powers of the independence and territorial integrity of Austria.5. The Austrian Government will seek to obtain from the governments of France, Great Britain, and the United States of America such a guaranty.

1. Trusteeship Agreement for the Territory of Somaliland under Italian Administration, adopted by the Trusteeship Council January 27, 1950.

1950 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 347-356
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Great Britain ◽  
Northern Ireland ◽  
United Nations ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
The United States ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
Future Status

Whereas, Chapters XII and XIII of the Charter of the United Nations provide for an International Trusteeship System;Whereas, by Article 23 of the Treaty of Peace between the Allied and Associated Powers and Italy, signed in Paris on 10 February 1947, Italy renounced all right and title to the Italian territorial possessions in Africa;Whereas, under paragraph 3 of Annex XI of this Treaty, the General Assembly of the United Nations was requested to make recommendations regarding the future status of the territories referred to in Article 23 thereof;Whereas, under paragraph 3 of Annex XI of this Treaty, the Governments of France, of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and of the United States of America agreed to accept the recommendation made by the General Assembly of the United Nations in this matter;

4. Letter from the French Representative (Parodi) to the Security Council, September 29, 1948.

1949 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 210-211
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Great Britain ◽  
Northern Ireland ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Security Council ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
The United States ◽  
Soviet Government ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
The Government

I have the honour on behalf of the Government of the French Republic, in agreement with the Governments of the United States of America and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, to draw your attention to the serious situation which has arisen as the result of the unilateral imposition by the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics of restrictions on transport and communications between the Wester[n] Zones of Occupation in Germany and Berlin. Quite apart from the fact that it is in conflict with the rights of the French, United States and British Governments, this action by the Soviet Government is contrary to its obligations under Article 2 of the Charter of the United Nations and creates a threat to the peace within the meaning of Chapter VII of the Charter.

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).

Great Britain and the United States: Two nations divided by an attitude?

English Today ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 34 (4) ◽  
pp. 21-28
Author(s):  
Carmen Ebner
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Great Britain ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
The United States ◽  
British English ◽  
Doctoral Thesis ◽  
Linguistic Differences ◽  
The Us ◽  
Selection Of ◽  
Similar Search

Having studied attitudes towards usage problems such as the notorious split infinitive or the ubiquitous literally in British English as part of my doctoral thesis, I was intrigued by the sheer lack of scientific studies investigating such attitudes. What was even more intriguing was to discover that the same field and the same usage problems seem to have received a different treatment in the United States of America. While my search for previously conducted usage attitude studies in Great Britain has largely remained fruitless, besides two notable exceptions which I will discuss in detail below (see Section 3), a similar search for American usage attitude studies resulted in a different picture. Considerably more such studies seem to have been conducted in the US than in Great Britain. On top of cultural and linguistic differences between these two nations, it seems as if they also hold different attitudes towards studying attitudes towards usage problems. Now the following question arises: why do we find such contradictory scientific traditions in these two countries? In this paper, I will provide an overview of a selection of American and British usage attitude studies. Taking into account differences between the American and British studies with regard to the number of usage problems studied, the populations surveyed and the methods applied, I will attempt to capture manifestations of two seemingly diverging attitudes towards the study of usage problems. By doing so, I will provide a possible explanation for the lack of attention being paid to usage attitudes in Great Britain.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document