United Nations System Part 3

Paper Charter: Self-Defense and the Failure of the United Nations Collective Security System
Robert J. Delahunty
Catholic University Law Review
Volume 56, Number 3, Spring 2007 p.871

Non-proliferation Law and the United Nations System : Resolution 1540 and the Limits of the Power of the Security Council
Daniel H. Joyner
Leiden Journal of International Law
Volume 20, Number 2, June 2007 p.489

Marine Scientific Research in the Waters Where Claims of the Exclusive Economic Zones Overlap between Japan and the Republic of Korea – Incidents between the Two States in 2006
Atsuko Kanehara
Japanese Yearbook of International Law
Volume 49, 2006 p.98

Law of the Sea – Marine Scientific Research – “the State Concerned”under Article 74, Paragraph 3 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea – the Obligation of Making Every Effort to Enter into Provisional Arrangement of a Practical Nature – the Obligation Not to Jeopardize or Hamper the Reaching of the Final Agreement – Exercises of Marine Scientific Research in Disputed Sea Areas – A Prior Notification System

Who Decides? The ECJ’s Judgment on Jurisdiction in the MOX Plant Dispute: Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations- United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea -Part XII-Protection and preservation of the marine environment-Dispute-settlement system provided for under that convention-Arbitration proceedings initiated on the basis of that system by Ireland against the United Kingdom-Dispute relating to the MOX plant at Sellafield (United Kingdom)-Irish Sea-Articles 292 EC and 193 EA-Undertaking not to submit a dispute relating to the interpretation or application of the Treaty to a method of settlement other than those provided for by the Treaty-Mixed agreement-Community competence-Articles 10 EC and 192 EA Duty of cooperation – Case C-459/03, European Commission v Ireland
Paul James Cardwell and Duncan French
Journal of Environmental Law
Volume 19, Number 1, 2007 p.121-129

The United Nations Human Rights Treaty System and the Challenge of Commitment and Compliance in the South Pacific
‘Dejo Olowu
Melbourne Journal of International Law
Volume 7, Number 1, May 2006

A Critical Evaluation of the United Nations Volcanic Emergency Management System: Evidence from Latin America
Jesús Manuel Macà­as and Benigno E. Aguirre
Journal of International Affairs
Volume 59, Number 2, Spring/Summer 2006 p.43

Reform of the taxation of foreign trusts in Australia and the United States: A comparative analysis
Christopher Bevan
Australian Tax Review
Volume 35, Number 1, March 2006 p.7

This article undertakes a comparative analysis of the Australian and United States regimes for the taxation of foreign trusts. It does so both at the policy level and at the legislative level by undertaking a technical dissection of each regime. It identifies the principal features of each regime and then undertakes a detailed comparison of them. It makes that comparison for the purposes of assessing the strengths and weaknesses of each regime and, more importantly, to assess the success or failure of both the recently enacted reforms to the Australian regime effected by the RITA program and those yet to be enacted which are proposed by it. This article adopts the United States regime as the benchmark for what is a fair and equitable system for the taxation of foreign trusts for three reasons. First, it does so because of its status as Australia’s principal source and destination of expatriates. Second, because of its status as one of Australia’s principal trading partners and sources of foreign capital investment for many years. Third, because of the fact that the United States foreign trust taxation regime was fundamentally reformed in 1997-1998 under the Clinton Administration, leaving that regime as a proven model for the enactment of a successful foreign trust taxation regime in any major industrialised economy. The United States economy has many features common to the Australian economy. It is an economy that depends heavily on the movement of taxpayers between the two taxation systems due to the increasing incidence of globalisation and ties between the two nations at various levels

The evolving contours of water law in the United States: Bridging the gap between water rights, land use and the protection of the aquatic environment
William L Andreen
Environmental and Planning Law Journal
Volume 23, Number 1, February 2006 p.5

Although Australia and the United States share a common legal heritage, water law has developed significantly differently in the two nations. Much of the credit for Australia’s different course can be ascribed to Alfred Deakin who, after taking a study tour of the American West in 1885, wrote a report that rejected the doctrine of prior appropriation as used in the arid States of the American West and advocated a system in which the rights of the State were elevated over those of the individual. Unfortunately, both countries have generally treated water as a commodity. Until recently, little significance was attached to the adverse environmental impact of reduced stream flows and the damage caused by hydrologic modifications and land-based development activities. Both countries, therefore, face the challenge of trying to recognise freshwater systems as part of a larger ecosystem linking all land and aquatic features in a particular watershed. After exploring the separate regimes governing water use, water quality, and land use in the United States, this article will discuss a number of approaches for integrating these regulatory schemes into a mechanism that can better protect the integrity of aquatic systems while also meeting many human needs.

Author: international