DOCSLIB.ORG

Eli E. Hertz Eli E

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Eli E. Hertz Eli E Even the most sacred precepts of international law can be manipulated to R e pervert the truth. In its Advisory Opinion of 9 July 2004, the UN's Interna- p tional Court of Justice ruled that Israel's security fence to protect civilian l y populations from barbarous terror was in violation of international law. The ICJ ruled that the inconvenience of the fence for Palestinians was more serious than the lives of COURT OF JUSTICE TO THE INTERNATIONAL ADVISORY OPINION, 9 JULY, 2004 Jewish children systematically murdered by Palestinian terrorists. An informed “Reply” to this jurisprudential mockery by the World Court has been prepared by Eli Hertz of New York City. Not a lawyer, Hertz applied his considerable intellectual talents to a meticulously researched and academically refined rejoinder - one that should be read not only by the members of the Court and other UN officials, but also by the broader community of international law scholars. Eli Hertz has prepared an important and valuable document for all who would seek justice and fairness in our corrupted legal universe. It deserves a wide and very careful reading. Louis Rene Beres (Ph.D., Princeton University, 1971, International Law) Professor of International Law, Purdue University TO: THE ADVISORY OPINION OF 9 JULY 2004 The ICJ advisory opinion on Israel's security fence was a legal travesty denying the people of Israel their IN THE MATTER OF THE inherent right to self-defense and, at the same time, ignoring their historical national rights that the UN and the League of Nations once readily recognized. Eli Hertz has done an enormous service by providing a cogent LEGAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE point-by-point rebuttal and, by doing so, not letting this terrible document stand without a reply. CONSTRUCTION OF A WALL IN THE OCCUPIED PALESTINIAN TERRITORY Ambassador Dore Gold Former Permanent Representative of Israel to the United Nations AS SUBMITTED BY THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE About the author Eli Hertz is the President of Myths and Facts, Inc. a nonprofit organization devoted to research and publica- tion of information regarding U.S. global interests - particularly in the Middle East. Hertz published and No distinction rests between genocide and sponsored books and articles regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict. Most notably are “Partners for Change, How U.S.-Israel Cooperation Can Benefit America” (1993), “Myths and Facts, a Guide to the Arab-Israeli conflict” the undoing of the State of Israel by the (September, 2001 edition), and “Who is Humiliating Whom.” A new volume on the Arab-Israeli conflict International Court of Justice at the Hague. “Negotiating Over Quicksand - A Realistic Look at the Arab-Israeli Conflict,” is scheduled for release shortly. To suggest denying Israel’s right for self- Hertz is also a recognized pioneer in the personal computer industry. He has authored and published many defence in favor of Palestinian terrorism, is a technology-related articles and books. Marketing Computers, an ADWEEK magazine, stated “Hertz is a barometer for the future.” Hertz is actively involved in numerous international, industry and community crime against humanity. associations and panels, and devotes a great deal of time and resources to charity. Eli E. Hertz E. Eli Eli E. Hertz This publication uses Internet links extensively. If you January 2006 experience a broken link, please note the 5 digit number 2006 (xxxxx) at the end of the URL and use it as a Keyword in the Search Box at www.MEfacts.com, the primary Search Engine for Middle East facts. Myths Enhanced Edition US $ 14.95 and Facts Myths and Facts, Inc. Myths and Facts, Inc. | PO Box 941 | Forest Hills, NY 11375 | www.MythsandFacts.org NY New York SPINE Eli Hertz Reply 11-6-05c 11/6/05 5:41 PM Page 2 To my wife Marilyn and my children Etie, Mala and Danny, thank you for your love and support Copyright © 2005, 2006 Myths and Facts, Inc. and Eli E. Hertz All rights reserved. Parts of this publication may be reproduced with attribution for non-commercial use and as citation. For all other purposes a prior written permission of the publisher must be obtained. Published by: Myths and Facts, Inc. PO Box 941, Forest Hills, NY 11375 Myths and Facts, Inc. is a tax-exempt organization under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code (“IRC”) and all contributions to it are deductible as charitable contributions. www.MythsandFacts.org eMail Address: [email protected] Library of Congress Catalog Number: 2005921657 ISBN 0-9741804-1-6 Printed in the United States of America Eli E. Hertz, Editor-in-Chief, Writer and Publisher Daniella Ashkenazy, Chief Researcher and Writer Cover design by Nick Moscovitz Maps by Eli E. Hertz Eli Hertz Reply 11-6-05c 11/6/05 5:41 PM Page 3 Table of Contents Preface ........................................................................................................5 Introduction ...............................................................................................7 1 Testimony Testifying Against Israel..................................................13 Who was allowed to present briefs and who was denied? 2 The “Mandate for Palestine” Document ..........................................25 Is the Mandate for Palestine calling for a Jewish homeland in Palestine or is it the founding document for Palestinian self-determination? 3 Jerusalem and the Holy Places..........................................................41 Jerusalem is cited 54 times in the Opinion. What is the City of Peace connection to the ‘Wall’? 4 Resolution 181 – the “Partition Plan”..............................................51 Is the 1947 UN “Partition Plan” relevant? 5 Self-Defence .....................................................................................69 The Right to Self-Defence and Lawful Use of Force 6 Terrorism..........................................................................................79 Was UN Resolution 1377 that calls terrorism “… the most serious threats to international peace and security” ignored by the Court? 7 ICJ Attempts to Brand Israel the Aggressor......................................93 Are Israel’s actions what the UN defines as aggression? 8 UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338................................97 Is Israel an “Unlawful Occupier” based on UN Security Council Resolutions? 9 Territories – Legality of Jewish Settlements....................................101 Was this issue part of the Court’s mandate? 10 The Supreme Court of the State of Israel.......................................121 Was the use of rulings by the Supreme Court of the State of Israel manipulated by the ICJ? 3 Eli Hertz Reply 11-6-05c 11/6/05 5:41 PM Page 4 R EPLY – E LI E. HERTZ 11 Arab Consistent Behavior and Precedent for Fencing.....................129 Was fencing an acceptable temporary and non-political action against Arab terrorism during nearly three decades of British Mandate? 12 Self-Determination.........................................................................135 Do Palestinian ‘rights to self-determination’ include ‘territorial rights’? 13 The International Court of Justice’s Mandate.................................141 The Court’s opinions need to be applied “… in accordance with international law … accepted as law … principles of law … rules of law.” Was this followed? 14 Epilogue .........................................................................................149 15 Appendix A: The League of Nations “Mandate for Palestine”........153 Appendix B: UN Resolutions Regarding Terrorism: 1269, 1368, 1373, and 1377 .....................................162 Appendic C: UN Resolutions 242, 338, and 1515 .........................170 Appendix D: UN Resolution 2625.................................................173 Appendix E: UN Resolution 3314 – Defining Aggression.............176 Appendix F: Article 22 – Covenant of the League of Nations.........180 Appendix G: The PLO Charter ......................................................182 Appendix H: The FATEH Constitution .........................................186 Appendix I: ICJ Advisory Opinion, 9 July 2004.............................189 Index ......................................................................................................247 Maps: 1. Mandate for Palestine...........................................................................24 2. UN Recommended “Partition Plan”.....................................................50 3. Border Changes As Arabs Initiate Wars of Aggression........................100 4 Eli Hertz Reply 11-6-05c 11/6/05 5:41 PM Page 5 P REFACE Preface “After a sharp rise in Palestinian terror attacks in the spring of 2002”1 the Government of Israel called for the construction of a barrier in parts of the West Bank. On October 21 2003, the UN General Assembly adopted Resolution ES-10/13, that among others: “Demands that Israel stop and reverse the construction of the wall in the Occupied Palestinian territory, including in and around East Jerusalem.” On November 24 2003, the UN General Assembly adopted Resolution ES-10/248, concluding that “Israel is not in compliance with the Assembly’s demand that it ‘stop and reverse the construction of the wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.’”2 On December 3 2003, the UN General Assembly adopted Resolution ES-10L.16, to [among others] “request the International Court of Justice ... to urgently render an advisory opinion” on the legal conse- quences arising from the construction of the wall being built by Israel.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Public Law Sources and Analogies of International Law
    533 PUBLIC LAW SOURCES AND ANALOGIES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW Eirik Bjorge* Are the "general principles of law recognised by civilized nations" capable of adjusting to the progress and needs of the international community? This article argues that they are, and that international law needs, to a larger degree than what has been the case, to draw on principles of public law. Those principles of public law are not to supplant, but to supplement, those of private law. The article analyses four principles: the principle of legality; the principle requiring positive legal basis for state action; the principle that even the highest emanation of the executive power cannot escape judicial review; and the principle of protection of legitimate expectations. If one takes account of the needs of international law, there is no reason whatever why today we should accede to the orthodoxy that the intention behind the concept of general principles is only to authorise a court to apply the general principles of municipal jurisprudence, in particular of private law, in so far as they are applicable to relations of states – if for no other reason than the fact that international law no longer governs only relations of states. I INTRODUCTION The focus of this article is the extent to which "general principles of law recognised by civilized nations"1 are capable of adjusting to the progress and needs of the international community. The * Professor of Law, University of Bristol. 1 Statute of the International Court of Justice 892 UNTS 119 (26 June 1945), art 38(1)(c).
    [Show full text]
  • JURI Committee Mission to the Hague, Netherlands
    COMMITTEE ON LEGAL AFFAIRS Mission to the Netherlands 8 – 9 February 2016 PROGRAMME Monday, 8 February 8.30 Departure of coach from Brussels 10.30 Arrival in Utrecht 11.00-12.00 Meeting with representatives of the European Equality Law Network – exchange of views on gender equality law Dr Susanne Burri, specialist coordinator for gender equality, Pr Linda Senden, senior expert for gender equality and member of the executive committee, Marcel Zwamborn, general coordinator, Dr Alexandra Timmer, acting coordinator for gender equality law 12.30-13.30 Lunch with the European Equality Law Network 14.30 Departure of coach from Utrecht 15.30 Arrival in The Hague 16.00-17.00 Visit to the International Court of Justice – exchange of views on international law Philippe Couvreur, Registrar of the International Court of Justice 17.30-18.30 Visit to Eurojust – exchange of views on judicial cooperation in the EU Michèle Coninsx, President of Eurojust 18.30 Departure of coach to hotel Tuesday, 9 February 9.00 Departure of coach from hotel 9.30-10.30 Visit to the Academie voor wetgeving – exchange of views on better law-making 11.00-12.00 Visit to the Permanent Court of Arbitration – exchange of views on international arbitration Hugo Siblesz, Secretary-General of the Permanent Court of Arbitration 12.30-13.00 Informal lunch at the Ministry for Security and Justice At the invitation of the Deputy Director for European and International Affairs 13.15-13.45 Private meeting with Ard van der Steur, Minister for Security and Justice – exchange of views on
    [Show full text]
  • Madrid, 14 April 2009 His Excellency Mr. Philippe Couvreur
    MINISTERIO DE ASUNTOSEXTERIORES Y DE COOPERACIÔN El M.inistro Madrid, 14 April 2009 His Excellency Mr. Philippe Couvreur Registrar International Court of Justice Peace Palace 2517 KJ The Hague The Netherlands Y our Excellency, In response to your letter of 20 October 2008, it is my honour to inform you that, following the Court's Ortler of 17 October 2008, the Government of Spain has decided to submit a written statement regarding the request from the United Nations General Assembly for an Advisory Opinion on the Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral fleclaration of Independence by the Provisional Institutions of Self­ Government of Kosovo. In this respect, I am pleased to inform you that the Kingdom of Spain will be represented in these advisory proceedings by Professor Concepci6n Escobar Hemandez, Legal Adviser of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Cooperation. Please accept, Y our Excellency, the assurances of my highest consideration. Minister of Foreign Affairs and Cooperation INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE ACCORDANCEWITH INTERNATIONALLAW OF THE UNILATERALDECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCEBY THE PROVISIONALINSTITUTIONS OF SELF-GOVERNMENTOF KOSOVO (REQUEST FOR ADVISORY OPINION) WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE KINGDOM OF SPAIN April, 2009 GOBIERNO MINISTERIO DE ESPANA DE ASUNTOS EXTERIORES Y DE COOPERACIÔN CONTENTS Page 1.- REQUEST FOR AN ADVISORY OPINION: GENERAL ISSUES...................... 5 1.- Introduction................................................................................................ 5 2.- The scope of the question.........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • JURI Report SPECIAL EDITION
    JURI Report SPECIAL EDITION MARCH 2016 SPECIAL EDITION following the mission to Utrecht and The Hague on 8 and 9 February NEXT MEETING 2016 14-15 MARCH2016 Members of the mission: Heidi Hautala (Leader of the mission) Joëlle Bergeron JURI Website Julia Reda The mission of the Committee on Legal Affairs to Utrecht and The Hague took place over two EPRS days, 8 and 9 February 2016. It was mainly focused on the committee's competence for international law, both private and public. The mission also comprised specific meetings on the topics of better law-making, gender equality and judicial cooperation. LATEST ANALYSES The three participating Members were accompanied by a team composed of secretariat staff, political advisors and interpreters. Brussels IIa: Towards a Review Summary account of meetings The participants held a total of seven meetings during the mission: The General Principles of EU Administrative Procedural Law The Balance of EU Copyright: Impact of Exceptions and Limitations on Industries and Economic Growth The ECB's Outright Monetary Transaction Programme compatibility with the EU Law Civil Judicial Expertise in the EU: Analysis of EU Legislation and Recommendations Civil-Law Expert Reports in the EU: National Rules and Practices 1. Meeting with representatives of the European Equality Law Network The European Patent At Utrecht University, the participants held an exchange of views on gender equality law Office - State of Play with Dr Susanne Burri, specialist coordinator for gender equality, Professor Linda Senden, _________________________________________________________________________________ senior expert for gender equality and member of the executive committee, Marcel Zwamborn, general coordinator, and Dr Alexandra Timmer, acting coordinator for gender equality law.
    [Show full text]
  • PUT on NOTICE: the ROLE of the DISPUTE REQUIREMENT in ASSESSING JURISDICTION and ADMISSIBILITY BEFORE the INTERNATIONAL COURT Put Notice JULIETTE MCINTYRE*
    PUT ON NOTICE: THE ROLE OF THE DISPUTE REQUIREMENT IN ASSESSING JURISDICTION AND ADMISSIBILITY BEFORE THE INTERNATIONAL COURT Put Notice JULIETTE MCINTYRE* Since the International Court of Justice handed down its 2016 judgments in the Marshall Islands cases, much has been written about the cases and their consequences. This article takes a step back, to view the Court’s most recent treatment of the dispute requirement in the context of the principles developed in the Court’s previous case law. It will be argued that the ‘new’ awareness requirement is potentially no more than a manifestation of the requirement for positive opposition, but that it has been driven by the Court’s conceiving of the dispute requirement as a jurisdictional precondition and serves to impose a de facto pre-action notice requirement on parties seeking access to the Court. CONTENTS I Introduction ............................................................................................................... 2 II ‘Disputes’ before the International Court of Justice and the Principles that Determine the Existence of a Dispute ....................................................................... 4 A Irrelevance of Political Motive ..................................................................... 7 B Legal Rights .................................................................................................. 9 C Positive Opposition .................................................................................... 10 D Awareness ..................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • International Court of Justice
    INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE Peace Palace, Carnegieplein 2, 2517 KJ The Hague, Netherlands Tel.: +31 (0)70 302 2323 Fax: +31 (0)70 364 9928 Website: www.icj-cij.org Press Release Unofficial No. 2011/10 1 April 2011 Opening of the exhibition “The International Court of Justice: 65 years of serving peace” The Court receives the first examples of three new postage stamps especially designed for it by the Dutch postal service THE HAGUE, 1 April 2011. To celebrate the sixty-fifth anniversary of its inaugural sitting, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, unveiled an exhibition of photographs today, and its President officially received the first examples of three new postage stamps designed for the Court. Both events took place in the Atrium of the City Hall in The Hague, at a ceremony organized by the Court’s Registry, with the help of the Municipality of The Hague, in the presence of Members of the Court, the Mayor of The Hague, Mr. Jozias van Aartsen, Aldermen, representatives of the Diplomatic Corps and senior officials from the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs and international organizations based in The Hague. Exhibition As its title indicates, the exhibition briefly traces the history of the Court and of its predecessor, the Permanent Court of International Justice. “[F]irst and foremost, the photos and other exhibits on display demonstrate how the International Court of Justice, the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, functions for the peace and order of the international community”, the President of the Court, H.
    [Show full text]
  • De Baere - Wouters PAGE: 7 SESS: 5 OUTPUT: Mon Oct 5 11:23:18 2015
    JOBNAME: de Baere - Wouters PAGE: 7 SESS: 5 OUTPUT: Mon Oct 5 11:23:18 2015 Contributors Serge Brammertz is the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribu- nal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY). In Belgium, he has served as Deputy to the Prosecutor-General at the Liège Court of Appeal, was in charge of coordinating investigations in the fields of international drug trafficking and trafficking of human beings as a national magistrate, and was later the Belgian federal chief prosecutor. He was Deputy Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, in charge of the Investigations Division of the Office of the Prosecutor when the investigations of crimes committed in Uganda, the DRC and Darfur were initiated. In 2006–07 he headed the investigation by the UN International Independent Investiga- tion Commission into the murder of the former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. He holds a law degree from the Université catholique de Louvain, a degree in criminology from the University of Liège and a PhD in international law from the Albert Ludwig University in Freiburg, Germany. He is currently also visiting professor at Strathmore law school, Nairobi, teaching international criminal law Antônio Augusto Cançado Trindade has been a Judge at the Inter- national Court of Justice (ICJ) since 2009. He holds an LLM and PhD in International Law from the University of Cambridge. He is a Full Professor of Public International Law at the University of Brasilia and was a lecturer at the Hague Academy of International Law. He received honorary degrees at the Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, the Central University of Chile, the Catholic University of Peru, the Ameri- can University of Paraguay and the National University of La Plata.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Introduction
    Book Reviews 1303 Carlos Jimenez Piernas (ed.) The Legal Practice in International Law and European Community Law – A Spanish Perspective. The Hague: Brill Academic Publishers, 2006. Pp. 690. $189.00. ISBN: 9789004154261. 1 Introduction This article reviews the book edited by Pro- fessor Carlos Jiménez Piernas entitled The Legal Practice in International Law and European Community Law – A Spanish Perspective. As the editor points out in his prologue, this publication is an updated and revised Eng- lish edition of a volume published in 2003 in Spanish.1 The new publication retains the Spanish edition’s general structure of five substantive parts, plus indexes, which deal with legal practice before International Tri- bunals in International Organizations and in the European Union, national legal practice in international law, as well as with some legal tools for international lawyers, in particular to determine evidence of state practice and concerning sources of knowledge of inter- national law on the internet. The title of the book is suggestive and confusing at the same time. It is suggestive in that it apparently deals with a topic which is seldom addressed in the literature on international law, i.e., ‘legal practice’. Indeed, the book covers innovative topics which, in the near future, may become very relevant both for states and international organizations, as well as individuals and pri- vate companies. The confusing aspect of this title is its sub- title, ‘A Spanish Perspective’. This means either that the authors of the contributions are Span- ish, and thus offer their ‘Spanish’ perspective on the topics covered, or that the actual con- tents of the different contributions focus prima- rily on ‘Spanish practice’.
    [Show full text]
  • Non Corrigé Uncorrected
    Non corrigé Uncorrected CR 2019/7 International Court Cour internationale of Justice de Justice THE HAGUE LA HAYE YEAR 2019 Public sitting held on Thursday 9 May 2019, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Yusuf presiding, in the case concerning Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Qatar v. United Arab Emirates) ____________________ VERBATIM RECORD ____________________ ANNÉE 2019 Audience publique tenue le jeudi 9 mai 2019, à 10 heures, au Palais de la Paix, sous la présidence de M. Yusuf, président, en l’affaire relative à l’Application de la convention internationale sur l’élimination de toutes les formes de discrimination raciale (Qatar c. Emirats arabes unis) ________________ COMPTE RENDU ________________ - 2 - Present: President Yusuf Vice-President Xue Judges Tomka Abraham Bennouna Cançado Trindade Donoghue Gaja Bhandari Robinson Crawford Gevorgian Salam Iwasawa Judges ad hoc Cot Daudet Registrar Couvreur - 3 - Présents : M. Yusuf, président Mme Xue, vice-présidente MM. Tomka Abraham Bennouna Cançado Trindade Mme Donoghue MM. Gaja Bhandari Robinson Crawford Gevorgian Salam Iwasawa, juges MM. Cot Daudet, juges ad hoc M. Couvreur, greffier - 4 - The Government of the State of Qatar is represented by: Mr. Mohammed Abdulaziz Al-Khulaifi, Legal Adviser to H.E. the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs, Dean of the College of Law, Qatar University, as Agent; Mr. Vaughan Lowe, QC, member of the English Bar, Essex Court Chambers, Emeritus Professor of International Law, Oxford University, member of the Institut de droit international, Ms Catherine Amirfar, Debevoise & Plimpton LLP, member of the Bars of the United States Supreme Court and New York, Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • The Challenge and Recusal of Judges of the International Court of Justice
    University of Richmond UR Scholarship Repository Law Faculty Publications School of Law 2015 The hC allenge and Recusal of Judges of the International Court of Justice Chiara Giorgetti University of Richmond, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.richmond.edu/law-faculty-publications Part of the Courts Commons, and the International Law Commons Recommended Citation Chiara Giorgetti, The Challenge and Recusal of Judges of the International Court of Justice, in Challenges and Recusals of Judges and Arbitrators in International Courts and Tribunals 3 (Chiara Giorgetti ed., 2015). This Book Chapter is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Law at UR Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Law Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of UR Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Challenges and Recusals ofJudges and Arbitrators in International Courts and Tribunals Edited By Chiara Giorgetti BRILL LEIDEN I BOSTON Challenges and recusals of judges and arbitrators in international courts and tribunals I edited By Chiara Giorgetti. pages cm Based on papers presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Society of International Law in April 2014. Includes index. ISBN 978-90-04-30211-2 (hardback: alk. paper) - ISBN 978-90-04-30212-9 ( e-book) I. International courts-Congresses. 2. Judges-Recusal-Congresses. 3. Arbitrators-Legal status, laws, etc.­ Congresses. 4. Arbitration (International law)-Congresses. 5. International commercial arbitration­ Congresses. 1. Giorgetti, Chiara, editor. KZ6250.C475 2015 341.5'5-dc23 2015021719 This publication has been typeset in the multilingual 'Brill' typeface.
    [Show full text]
  • An Exemplary Lawyer's Life
    ᭧ EJIL 2000 ............................................................................................. An Exemplary Lawyer’s Life (1884–1973) François Rigaux* Abstract This article traces the career of Charles de Visscher through his early years at the University of Ghent, a brief period in England during World War I, his move to the Catholic University of Louvain in 1931, his role as part of a clandestine political committee in permanent contract with the Belgian Government in exile in London during World War II and his terms on both the Permanent Court of International Justice and the International Court of Justice. It was a drama of a private, domestic nature that shaped Charles de Visscher’s personality, and two world cataclysms that made him into the savant and patriot we know and admire. The First World War guided his academic concerns towards international law, the Second World War, which he lived through in enemy-occupied Belgium, gave him the chance to deploy his strength of spirit and character. After losing his mother to a premature death, Charles de Visscher also lost his father, a doctor and professor of legal medicine at the University of Ghent, when he was only 12 years old. The young orphan and his small brother, Fernand, were entrusted by the Bishop of Ghent to the Abbé Watté, later to become curate of the parish of Saint-Sauveur. The trials these two brothers shared are not enough in themselves to explain the especially close tie that united them until Fernand’s death in 1964: this closeness was above all the consequence of the sense of responsibility Charles had spontaneously taken on towards his younger brother, even though there was less than a year between them.
    [Show full text]
  • Différend Frontalier Frontier Dispute
    COUR INTERNATIONALE DE JUSTICE RECUEIL DES ARRÊTS, AVIS CONSULTATIFS ET ORDONNANCES DIFFÉREND FRONTALIER (BURKINA FASO/NIGER) DÉSIGNATION D’EXPERTS ORDONNANCE DU 12 JUILLET 2013 2013 INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE REPORTS OF JUDGMENTS, ADVISORY OPINIONS AND ORDERS FRONTIER DISPUTE (BURKINA FASO/NIGER) NOMINATION OF EXPERTS ORDER OF 12 JULY 2013 4 CIJ1047.indb 1 8/05/14 09:44 Mode officiel de citation : Différend frontalier (Burkina Faso/Niger), ordonnance du 12 juillet 2013, désignation d’experts, C.I.J. Recueil 2013, p. 226 Official citation : Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso/Niger), Order of 12 July 2013, Nomination of Experts, I.C.J. Reports 2013, p. 226 No de vente: ISSN 0074-4441 Sales number 1047 ISBN 978-92-1-071162-3 4 CIJ1047.indb 2 8/05/14 09:44 12 JUILLET 2013 ORDONNANCE DIFFÉREND FRONTALIER (BURKINA FASO/NIGER) DÉSIGNATION D’EXPERTS FRONTIER DISPUTE (BURKINA FASO/NIGER) NOMINATION OF EXPERTS 12 JULY 2013 ORDER 4 CIJ1047.indb 3 8/05/14 09:44 226 INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE YEAR 2013 2013 12 July 12 July 2013 General List No. 149 FRONTIER DISPUTE (BURKINA FASO/NIGER) NOMINATION OF EXPERTS ORDER Present : President Tomka ; Vice-President Sepúlveda-Amor ; Judges Keith, Skotnikov, Cançado Trindade, Yusuf, Greenwood, Xue, Donoghue, Gaja, Sebutinde, Bhandari ; Judges ad hoc Mahiou, Daudet ; Registrar Couvreur. The International Court of Justice, Composed as above, After deliberation, Having regard to Article 48 of its Statute, Makes the following Order : Having regard to Article 7 of the Special Agreement concluded between the Parties on 24 February 2009, whereby the Parties agreed to effect the demarcation of their common frontier in the disputed area within 18 months following the Judgment of the Court, and to request the Court “to nominate, in its Judgment, three (3) experts to assist them as necessary in the demarcation”, Having regard to the Judgment delivered by the Court on 16 April 2013, paragraph 113 of which states : “The Court is ready to accept the task which the Parties have thus entrusted to it.
    [Show full text]