Jurisdiction

jurisdictional requirements in the Rome Statute that must be met before a case may start against an individual. They are: (1) Subject-matter jurisdiction (what acts constitute crimes). (2) Territorial or personal jurisdiction (where the crimes were committed or who committed them). (3) Temporal jurisdiction (when the crimes were committed). The Court's subject-matter jurisdiction means the crimes for which individuals can be prosecuted. Individuals can only be prosecuted for crimes that are listed in the Statute

humanitarian law in the territory of former Yugoslavia. This tribunal was created on ad hoc basis as a subsidiary organ of UN. The ICTY determines the individual criminal responsibility, according to its Statute. The former was allowed to operate jurisdiction over grave abuses of Geneva Conventions, violations of the laws and customs of war, genocide, crimes against humanity, which were allegedly committed in the territory of former Yugoslavia since 1991 in time of armed conflict. As it was noticed

Mutual Aid Agreements Brian H. Doyle Saint Leo University Abstract Mutual aid agreements are essential for allocating resources, equipment, and personnel between jurisdictions through intrastate, interstate, private organizations, and nongovernmental organizations agencies in the event of an emergency situation that exceeds the capabilities of the local agencies. Intrastate agencies mobilized by a mutual aid agreement consist of resources within the state that can provide support to the requesting

When analyzing the following strategies as a comparison, my finding results illustrate some similarities and some differences; however, these comparisons listed below: Original Jurisdiction consists of the judicial system having the authority to observe a case first before further examination of the evidence needing to decide in a higher courtroom setting. The objective here is to see if the evidence is worth sending up to a higher branch within the judicial system courts or for the courts to waive

Article 21.2 permits investors to opt for international arbitration after pursuing remedies in domestic courts, but not to engage in local remedies during or subsequent to investment arbitration. If the investor submits a claim to international arbitration, it must waive its rights to continue or initiate a claim based on the same measure in domestic courts. This means domestic courts have the opportunity to provide redress for wrongs before they are raised at the international level. Investors may

provides that: “[a]assistance may be refused when the execution of the request would seriously impair sovereignty, national security, or other essential public interests or for any reason provided by [the Respondent] domestic law.” Furthermore, jurisdiction has to be considered as a prerequisite in order for the

other state courts that benefit from the full faith and credit clause. A recognized judgment produces res judicata effects in the jurisdiction that recognizes the judgment. However, just because a judgment is recognized, it does not mean that the judgment will be enforced because that requires the aid of the courts and law enforcement of the enforcing jurisdiction which may or may not be afforded along with the recognition of the judgment. Therefore, it is important for creditors seeking to enforce

4. Arguments: Some of the most relevant arguments presented by the plaintiff and defendants for this case are highlighted below. The arguments specifically form a basis for the laws presented in the previous section. 4.1 Astra Nominees make offer of securities The plaintiff had alleged that the second defendant contemplated section 727 for the sale of securities and did not disclose this to the investors. ASIC also mentioned that Astra Nominees was in a position to sell the shares it had if the

Nigerian government to execute his husband Doctor Barinem Kiobel, an environmentalist, in an effort to suppress protests against its operations in Nigeria summarily. Discussion/Legal Reasoning: "The Alien Torts Act (ATS) gives federal district courts jurisdiction over claims by an alien for wrongdoings only, committed in violation of International Customary Law or a treaty of the United States." (28 U.S.C. § 1350). Back in 2004, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the constitutionality of the ATS in Sosa vs.

there Jurisdiction? [Insert Name Here] [Insert Additional details here] Situation 1: Mike, a Utah resident, sues Jim, a Nevada resident for $60,000 in Nevada’s Federal District court for negligence (a state law civil suit).  Jim argues that the case should be dismissed for a lack of subject matter jurisdiction.  Is he right?  Under the circumstances, since Mike lives in Utah and Jim lives in Nevada then the type of subject matter jurisdiction that applies is diversity jurisdiction. Under