2 Independence of the Arbitration Clause in Iraq:
If the main contract is not valid or it becomes invalidated, in this case a question will arise as to whether an arbitration clause remains valid and effective. There is not any provisions in the Iraqi law about this matter. But, it can be assumed that the arbitration clause is independent from the main contract, and the invalidity of the main contract does not necessarily invalidate the arbitration clause. This assumption is based on article 139 of the Civil Code, which states that in case of an invalidity of a provision of a contract, such invalidity does not affect the rest of the contract, unless the invalid provision was the basis of the agreement.
5.2.3 Appointment of Arbitrators:
There are not any qualifications required for the arbitrators, but they must be impartial and must possess full legal capacity and Iraqi law stressed that in the event of multiple arbitrators to be odd number Also, there is no provision excluding the appointment of non-Iraqi arbitrators, The judge must not be arbitrator with...
determine that he was asleep, and six or seven calls to get his attention in the
“When war is thrust upon the nation, the President had not only the authority but the responsibility to ‘resist force by force.’” –U.S. Supreme Court ruling of the Prize Cases, 1862 (67 U.S. 6335).
The acceptance of fingerprint identification in the judicial system as scientific evidence has become like expert testimony. Advances in image processing have impacted how fingerprints can be lifted without being destroyed, which has led to fingerprint evidence becoming the silent testimony leading to more conventions. In the case of the United States v. Byron C. Mitchell Criminal Action No. 96-00407, fingerprints found in the car were the scientific evidence which identified Mitchell as a participant in an armored car robbery (Appellant Counsel for Appellee, 2003).
The Middle East has since time immemorial been on the global scope because of its explosive disposition. The Arab Israeli conflict has not been an exception as it has stood out to be one of the major endless conflicts not only in the region but also in the world. Its impact continues to be felt all over the world while a satisfying solution still remains intangible. A lot has also been said and written on the conflict, both factual and fallacious with some allegations being obviously evocative. All these allegations offer an array of disparate views on the conflict. This essay presents an overview of some of the major literature on the controversial conflict by offering precise and clear insights into the cause, nature, evolution and future of the Israel Arab conflict.
John Yoo’s defense of the Military Commission Act of 2006 is an implicit commentary on the Hamdan versus Rumsfeld decision of 2006. The case of Hamdan expresses unilateral executive power as unbounded in a very tangible manner. In this decision and defense it is evident that the unilateral powers the president holds seem to be unbounded. Yoo’s promotion and defense of the MCA of 2006 neglects the moral costs of prohibiting habeus corpus rights, the treatment of the detainees, and the danger of unilateral executive power.
The U.S. Constitution gives Congress and the president different responsibilities and duties over military powers, but there have long been disagreements about where one's war powers begin and the other's ends. The U.S. Constitution allows the president to wage wars as commander in chief while Congress has the power to declare and fund wars. Experts agree that presidents can order U.S. troops to fight when the country is attacked or attack appears probable but chief executives from both major parties often differ with Congress over their ability to initiate military force in other combat situations.
In early 2003, the threat of Saddam Hussein and the possibility of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq captured the attention and concern of the world. One nation decided to illegally act on these unsubstantiated claims, invading the country, violating the UN Charter and breaking several international laws in the process. The penalizations that were subject to the invading country, the United States, were never carried out. The United State’s role and influence over the UN and the Security Council, along with the nature of the unenforceable, politics and power-based international laws, allowed them to escape sanctions after their invasion of Iraq. The United States did not have a legitimate reason for invading, and their ability to repudiate international law would be unacceptable for any other country. Their decision to invade Iraq was one based on money and politics, and the US should be subject to penalties just as any other nation would have to face after unnecessarily waging war on a nation.
Facts: Two residents of Virginia, Mildred Jeter a colored woman and Richard Loving a white man, got married in the District of Columbia. The Loving's returned to Virginia and established their marriage. The Caroline court issued an indictment charging the Loving's with violating Virginia's ban on interracial marriages. The state decides, who can and cannot get married. The Loving's were convicted of violating 20-55 of Virginia's code.
As stated in the first paper; The Constitution of the United States was designed to be a framework for the organization of our country’s government. Many foreign countries also have constitutions, which outline the rights of individuals and the powers of the law; such as the Iraqi Constitution of 2005. I will compare the similarities and differences of the US and Iraqi Constitutions and discuss Articles 2, 36, 39, & 90 and women’s rights of the Iraqi Constitution.
What is a military tribunal? Has the U.S. used military tribunals in the past? Is the U.S. currently using military tribunals and, if so, what is their status?
Lewicki, R., Saunders, D.M., Barry B., (2010) Negotiation: Readings, Exercises, and Cases. 6th Ed. McGraw-Hill Irwin. New York, NY
An arbitrator’s function is usually to interpret the collective bargaining agreement between the parties, not to apply his or her standards of what is right in a given situation. The courts have sought to compel labour and management to a peaceful resolution of grievances through arbitration. The Supreme Court has given support to the arbitration process in a series of decisions, and judicial deferral to arbitration has become a basic tenet of national labour policy. Bibliography Byars, L. L. (1997). The.
International law has been regarded throughout history as the main system of rules regulating players of the international community, it applies to all states and imposes specific obligations and rights on nations, just as domestic law imposes them on individuals. Its purpose is similar to that of domestic law that is to eliminate chaos in the International community and set standards of behavior which states must follow in their dealings with each other.
The International Criminal Court (ICC), located in The Hague, is the court of last resort for prosecution of genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. Its founding treaty, the Rome Statute, entered into force on July 1, 2002. Over the last decade the court has made significant headway in putting international justice on the map. As of June 2015, the ICC had 123 states parties, had opened investigations in eight countries, and had issued three verdicts. But while the ICC is now responsible for international criminal accountability, its daunting mandate and world-wide reach have made the its flaws more visible. The court and its member countries face major challenges in meeting expanded expectations for the court in its second decade.
The Lotus case garners attention due to the fact that it was among the first cases dealing with whether jurisdiction was assumed in accordance with principles of international law. While the Lotus case was heard in the context of criminal jurisdiction over a collision in the high seas, the Lotus principle has been applied in a variety of other cases in varying contexts. For this reason, the judgment of the Permanent Court of International Justice is critiqued for specifically answering only the question in the special agreement as the continued application of the Lotus Principle as a general principle in other contexts such as anti-trust regulations may lead to ambiguous results.