The American Journal of International Law, Volume 23James Brown Scott, George Grafton Wilson American Society of International Law, 1929 - International law The American Journal of International Law has been published quarterly since 1907 and is considered the premier English-language scholarly journal in its field. It features scholarly articles and editorials, notes and comment by preeminent scholars on developments in international law and international relations, and reviews of contemporary developments. The Journal contains summaries of decisions by national and international courts and arbitral and other tribunals, and of contemporary U.S. practice in international law. Each issue lists recent publications in English and other languages, many of which are reviewed in depth. Throughout its history, and particularly during first sixty years, the Journal has published full-text primary materials of particular importance in the field of international law. The contents of the current issue of the Journal are available on the ASIL web site. |
From inside the book
Results 1-3 of 87
Page 209
8 , 1923 , Opinions , pp . 21 , 31 , took a middle ground . Validity of Calvo Clause Upheld . ... The dissenting opinion of Commissioner Little in that case Moore's Arb . 3566 ; Report of the Commission , Washington , 1890 , p .
8 , 1923 , Opinions , pp . 21 , 31 , took a middle ground . Validity of Calvo Clause Upheld . ... The dissenting opinion of Commissioner Little in that case Moore's Arb . 3566 ; Report of the Commission , Washington , 1890 , p .
Page 213
The opinion by Bainbridge on the question of jurisdiction is not the opinion of the commission , which was rendered by the umpire , Barge . Bainbridge's opinion , however , appears not to have been contradicted by the umpire .
The opinion by Bainbridge on the question of jurisdiction is not the opinion of the commission , which was rendered by the umpire , Barge . Bainbridge's opinion , however , appears not to have been contradicted by the umpire .
Page 353
“ Marshall , Ch . J. , observed , that he had supposed that the former opinion delivered in these cases upon this point had been concurred in by four judges . But in this he was mistaken . “ The opinion was concurred in by one judge .
“ Marshall , Ch . J. , observed , that he had supposed that the former opinion delivered in these cases upon this point had been concurred in by four judges . But in this he was mistaken . “ The opinion was concurred in by one judge .
What people are saying - Write a review
We haven't found any reviews in the usual places.
Contents
GENERAL INTRODUCTION | 1 |
Nationality | 11 |
TEXT WITH COMMENT | 21 |
Copyright | |
14 other sections not shown
Other editions - View all
Common terms and phrases
accordance acquired adopted agreement alien amended American application arbitration arise ARTICLE authorities bays become born Britain British Chap citizens citizenship Civil claim coast Code Commission committed concerning confer considered Constitution contract convention Court damage December decision Decree denial of justice distance duty effect established Etat exercise existing extend fact February force foreign France Government held high seas individual injury international law Italy January July June jurisdiction League legislation limit March marginal sea marriage means measured Mexico miles Moore's Arb Nationality Law naturalization necessary obligations officers opinion origin parties passage Permanent person port practice present principle protection provisions question reason reference regard regulations relating remedies residence respect responsibility result rule Secretary ship shore sovereignty statute term territorial waters tion treaty tribunals United unless Venezuela vessel violation York