| Judul | International Law Report vol: 55 06999 |
| Pengarang | Elihu Lauterpacht |
| Penerbitan | Cambridge Cambridge University Press 1979 |
| Deskripsi Fisik | xxlx23 cm |
| ISBN | 9780521464000 |
| Subjek | International Law Report |
| Abstrak | With this volume we schiave our aim of publising four volumes of the International Law Report in 1979. In fiftieth year of the series, we teke pride in being able to provide for our readers so lerge and varied a body of valuable decision. Bearing in mind the constant need to cath up with older material as well as to present new material, we have devoted a large part of this volume to a number of interesting decision from the courts of Australia, Canada, Ireland, Kenya, Lesotho, Malaysia, Papua and New Guinea,Sierre leono, singapore and souht Africa decided in the year 1969-1974. The collection of thies decision and the preparation of the summaries are the work of Mr Sidipto sarkar. Wehave also included a number of decision of the court of Japan and we are grateful to the International Law Association of Japa for kindly permiting us to use Englis translations wich originally appeared in the Japanese Annual of International Law. Much of the volume is taken up wich the orders and judgments of the International Court of Justice given in the various stages of the fisheries Jurisdiction case between the united kingdom and ice land in the period between 1972 and 1974. The next volume of thies report will countain the decision in the parallelcasebetween the federal republic of germany and iceland. After careful conciderations in full because, despit thr fact that there is much in common betweenw them, they also differ significantly. It was not possible, in a mener which would properly reflect the decision in the case brought by the Federal Republic of Germany, to print only those parts which differd from the decision in the case brought by the United Kingdom. |
| Bahasa | Inggris |
| Bentuk Karya | Tidak ada kode yang sesuai |
| Target Pembaca | Tidak ada kode yang sesuai |
| No Barcode | No. Panggil | Akses | Lokasi | Ketersediaan |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 00000006999 | 341/LAU/I | Dapat dipinjam | Perpustakaan Lantai 3 - Mahkamah Konstitusi RI | Tersedia
pesan |
| Tag | Ind1 | Ind2 | Isi |
| 001 | INLIS000000000002090 | ||
| 005 | 20200508201728 | ||
| 008 | 200508||||||||| | ||| |||| ||eng|| | ||
| 020 | $a 9780521464000 | ||
| 035 | 0010-0520002090 | ||
| 041 | $a eng | ||
| 082 | 0 | $a 341 | |
| 084 | $a 341/LAU/I | ||
| 100 | 0 | $a Elihu Lauterpacht | |
| 245 | 0 | 0 | $a International Law Report vol: 55 06999 |
| 260 | $a Cambridge $b Cambridge University Press $c 1979 | ||
| 300 | $a xxlx$c 23 cm | ||
| 520 | $a With this volume we schiave our aim of publising four volumes of the International Law Report in 1979. In fiftieth year of the series, we teke pride in being able to provide for our readers so lerge and varied a body of valuable decision. Bearing in mind the constant need to cath up with older material as well as to present new material, we have devoted a large part of this volume to a number of interesting decision from the courts of Australia, Canada, Ireland, Kenya, Lesotho, Malaysia, Papua and New Guinea,Sierre leono, singapore and souht Africa decided in the year 1969-1974. The collection of thies decision and the preparation of the summaries are the work of Mr Sidipto sarkar. Wehave also included a number of decision of the court of Japan and we are grateful to the International Law Association of Japa for kindly permiting us to use Englis translations wich originally appeared in the Japanese Annual of International Law. Much of the volume is taken up wich the orders and judgments of the International Court of Justice given in the various stages of the fisheries Jurisdiction case between the united kingdom and ice land in the period between 1972 and 1974. The next volume of thies report will countain the decision in the parallelcasebetween the federal republic of germany and iceland. After careful conciderations in full because, despit thr fact that there is much in common betweenw them, they also differ significantly. It was not possible, in a mener which would properly reflect the decision in the case brought by the Federal Republic of Germany, to print only those parts which differd from the decision in the case brought by the United Kingdom. | ||
| 650 | 0 | $a International Law Report |
Content Unduh katalog
Karya Terkait :