Corea bergenser smith (3 Ergebnisse)
- Softcover
Anbieter: Ria Christie Collections, Uxbridge, Vereinigtes KönigreichRia Christie Collections
Verkäufer/-in kontaktierenVerkäufer/-in mit 5 SternenZustand: Neu
EUR 15,65
EUR 13,91 VersandVersand von Vereinigtes Königreich nach USAAnzahl: Mehr als 20 verfügbar
Zustand: New. In.
- Softcover
Anbieter: moluna, Greven, Deutschlandmoluna
Verkäufer/-in kontaktierenVerkäufer/-in mit 5 SternenZustand: Neu
EUR 22,08
EUR 48,99 VersandVersand von Deutschland nach USAAnzahl: Mehr als 20 verfügbar
Zustand: New. KlappentextrnrnOn 9 July 2004, the International Court of Justice issued an Advisory Opinion on the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, finding that Israel s construction of a security fence al.
Sprache: Englisch
Verlag: British Library, Historical Print Editions Dez 2012 2012
- Softcover
Anbieter: AHA-BUCH GmbH, Einbeck, DeutschlandAHA-BUCH GmbH
Verkäufer/-in kontaktierenVerkäufer/-in mit 5 SternenZustand: Neu
EUR 26,00
EUR 60,38 VersandVersand von Deutschland nach USAAnzahl: 2 verfügbar
Taschenbuch. Zustand: Neu. Neuware - On 9 July 2004, the International Court of Justice issued an Advisory Opinion on the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, finding that Israel's construction of a security fence along the seam zone between Israel and the West Bank is illegal u…nder international law. That same day, a spokesperson for the United States State Department, declared that the opinion is non-binding and that the United States does not support the Court's decision. A main concern was that the opinion is too political and inconsistent with the roadmap to peace process in the Middle East. Hot of the press, legal scholars from around the world critically studied the case and many of articles were published on this very controversial opinion. One especially controversial issue was the Court's almost flippant conclusion that Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, dealing with a state's right to invoke its right to self-defense in response to an armed attack, is irrelevant to this issue.
