text:
Baripedia
The fundamental principles of relations between States
From Baripedia
Professeur(s)
Robert Kolb
1 The principle of non-use of force and international peacekeeping
1.1 If the question was so important, why wasn't it addressed in traditional international law?
1.2 The second question is why international law has changed?
1.3 Why do modern texts such as the United Nations Charter impose a prohibition on the use of force subject to certain exceptions?
2 The United Nations Charter is the founding text on this subject
2.1 How does the Charter fit into international peacekeeping?
2.2 What are the limits of the Security Council?
2.3 Two rules further strengthen the Security Council. What are these provisions?
2.4 What is the difference between "breach of the peace" and "act of aggression"?
2.5 What are the problems of legal interpretation that we have as a result of this provision?
2.5.1 « Force »
2.5.2 « Menace »
2.5.3 « dans leurs relations internationales »
2.6 Qu'est-ce qu'exactement une agression armée ?
2.7 Why didn't they add that to section 2.4?
3 Neutrality
3.1 What is the content of the right of neutrality?
The principle of non-use of force and international peacekeeping[edit | edit source]
The principle of non-use of force and international peacekeeping is a crucial issue in public international law. The moment is not free of irone for this kind of subject while the events in Syria have kept us on our toes in recent weeks.
We will address the legal position in relation to the principle of non-use of force and international peacekeeping.
The first remark concerns the importance of the question of peacekeeping and the non-use of force; the importance of the question comes from the fact that the primary purpose of any legal order is to ensure social peace and to amend private peace. In German, it is said "Jede Ordnung ist Friedensordnung", in other words that every legal order is an order of peace.
The issue is important, because peacekeeping is a condition for maintaining social peace and any work of civilization. We will not deal with a myriad of subjects if the primary problem in our society was survival.
The question of social order in the sense of peacekeeping is the very first question that a legal order must address, because the law fights anarchy. Everything to everyone who judges his causes himself is imposed by force such as he perceives them himself is the use of force by all social bodies, to police society we must address the situation where members of the social body use force.
For centuries, and especially in the Middle Ages, lords could use private justice, resulting in a general situation that manifested itself through endemic wars and regular destruction.
If the issue is so essential in domestic law, that the State has been created to ensure peace, then the question arises almost even more seriously in international relations, it is not this or that lord who can cause trouble, but powerful States with weapons.
The nuisances of armed conflicts are particularly high and the social peace function is a particular problem of acuity.
The second remark is that for a long time, since the 17th century and the Westphalian treaties, the question of peacekeeping and the use of force was not a fundamental issue of international law.
If the question was so important, why wasn't it addressed in traditional international law?[edit | edit source]
The arrangement of classical international law was an arrangement of indifference to the non-use of force; States could use force for their own political causes without the law interfering with it.
In the 19th century, the answer would have been quite simple, to know if France and the United States want to intervene in Syria would come out of their own political decision and from the point of view of law, there is only the obligation to declare war.
On the other hand, traditional law attached consequences to the entry into war. If a State chose to use force, there were consequences "in bello", i.e. on the way war was conducted, with a prohibition on the use of certain weapons that were too destructive or on the killing of prisoners of war, as well as on the neutrality of States that were not belligerents.
What we have just mentioned, the "durante bello" obligations, have nothing to do with the political choice to enter or not to enter a war; some legal consequences followed from the entry into the war, but the law remained instrumental.
The classical law was too weak to assume such a function. States in the 19th century did not want to ensure limitations on their ability to wage war; a sovereign state because it is sovereign automatically has by virtue of its sovereignty the right to wage war. In 1879, Chile attacked Bolivia, which is not illegal under 19th century law.
The second question is why international law has changed?[edit | edit source]
States did not want stronger intervention, the choice to go to war was a sovereign one.
Why do modern texts such as the United Nations Charter impose a prohibition on the use of force subject to certain exceptions?[edit | edit source]
Over time, the importance of maintaining peace in a more modern and different society has been recognized. International society has believed its interdependencies; in these increasingly complex and balanced environments, it was in the public interest to maintain peace.
There are also more specific aspects that explain the change, all these more specific aspects have in common that they symbolize a war that has become more and more destructive and devastating.
The war of the 18th and 19th centuries was often a war of little destruction, there were well formed and reduced armies until the Napoleonic wars. These professional soldiers could fight the battlefields with limited impact on society, on the other hand kings and dynasties maintained acceptable relationships, the rule was only a rule of the game to extend its domination. All this actually tends to contain the war.
Throughout the 19th and early 20th centuries in particular, these idyllic assumptions disappeared, and modern warfare was considerably brutalized to the point of becoming a scourge.
We have a whole series of reasons for this evolution:
the fact that war becomes a national cause with the conscription of a mass army and the hatred that mobilizes the nation leading to a war of a completely different scale.
the technological evolution leading to modern weapons as well as the development of aviation during the First World War.
industrialisation, which also contributed to the brutalisation of war, because modern war from the 19th century onwards is no longer necessarily won at the front, but upstream with industrial production, an industry that can support the war effort is needed. This means that the opposing belligerent will no longer only hit the combatants at the front, but also the industries, inducing that civilians will also be affected.
War has changed in nature, it has become a disaster and a cataclysm; in view of this political and social transformation of war, we wanted to give it another answer. What was considered as a legitimate means of settling a dispute in the past relating to the classical vision, in the 20th century such a logic was no longer possible, war is a scourge and can degenerate into generalized wars, that is why there was a fundamental change of perspective in the matter.
The United Nations Charter is the founding text on this subject[edit | edit source]
How does the Charter fit into international peacekeeping?[edit | edit source]
The first remark is that the Charter is based on the idea and principle that the use of force should be repressed as much as possible in international relations, at least when it is used by individual States.
War is no longer seen as a means of foreign policy by which to settle a dispute or impose one's own interests.
However, the Charter is not a pacifist instrument. What the Charter does not want individual States to use force for causes that seem good to them, the Charter recognizes that force must sometimes be used, it reserves it on the one hand for States when they act in self-defence, that is, that a State is attacked by armed forces can and must resist by force, the Charter recognizes the usefulness of "police operations". The Charter recognizes that there are situations in international relations where force must be used to prevent greater harm from occurring.
The judgment of such a situation is reserved to the United Nations and more particularly under Article 24, paragraph 1 to the United Nations Security Council. Not that this body is particularly angelic, but for the Charter, it is the only body that combines strength with a certain force of control and equity.
Charte des Nations Unies - article 24
The Charter tries to do the same as we have in domestic law, we would legitimately be concerned if everyone could use force for causes that seem good to them. On the other hand, when there is a need to use force, it is necessary to turn to the police. For the Charter, the police is the Security Council, a body that may not be ideal, but it guarantees a minimum of multilateralism that means that everyone cannot do what they want.
Experiments of generalized force were already made in the 19th century leading to the politics of the gunboat and the First and Second World War.
Charte des Nations Unies - article 2
It is remarkable that, unlike Russia and China, in the West since the previous one in Kosovo, a whole series of politicians believe that either we go through the Security Council and authorise action, but if it does not do so we proceed to a unilateral reaction, either with or with the Council, but this is not the legal situation, from the point of view of law only the Security Council can use action or there is use of force unless there is an assumption of self-defence.
It is interesting to see that Western leaders no longer seem to take Article 2(4) seriously.
The argument that the Security Council is blocked is a magnificent one. As if by chance, the Security Council is always blocked when China or Russia uses a veto, but never when the West does. In the past the USSR used the most vetoes today it is the United States.
In Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, "Action in the event of a threat to the peace, breach of the peace and act of aggression", we have the competence of the Security Council.
The competences of the Security Council go beyond the framework of ordinary international law, the Security Council can do things that would otherwise be illegal under international law, which States cannot do, but which are recognised by the Security Council, which has a police function. The Security Council can take peaceful sanctions or non-military coercive measures such as embargoes or the Security Council could take military action with United Nations military forces, but since the United Nations has never received military forces it cannot itself use military force.
In United Nations practice, we have come to an alternative regime which consists in authorizing Member States to use force when the Security Council gives them the power to do so through a resolution. The established formula is "authorizes Member States to take all necessary measures (...)". Using this formula means that the use of force has been authorized if necessary.
Peacekeeping sometimes means having to act urgently to prevent aggression, stop massacres, react to serious violations of the law, but as in domestic law we prefer the police to do so, in the same way we try in international law to centralize this in multilateralism.
Section 51 deals with self-defence, or "self-defence" in English.
Thus, we have a triptych in the Charter that is coherent in itself, although it is not always truly functional. On the one hand, States are told not to use force as a means of foreign policy, there is no desire for anarchy in the use of force by everyone and the fact that, through the use of force, the strongest is imposed on the weakest, which is neither the mark of civilisation nor the mark of justice.
On the other hand, the Charter provides for the use of force and organizes it, but centralizes it in a body representing the international community, namely the United Nations and the Security Council, on which the five permanent members sit, and it must take decisions when there are citizens who threaten international peace.
Someone is set up to ensure that the necessary actions are taken, including by force. There is one exception, in the case of armed aggression a State can and must defend itself, this is the exception of self-defence. Self-defence is only granted in the event of armed aggression.
If self-defence were to be opened up to every violation of international law, States would be able to intervene anywhere in the world as in the case of serious human rights violations. If we open this way, we open the way for the use of force to be much more important than the Charter wanted to authorize it beyond the idea of repressing anarchy. However, no State acts for reasons other than war for altruistic interests.
Armed retaliation is prohibited because self-defence is only granted as an exception to self-defence because it is necessary for self-defence and therefore we must concede this because a state needs self-defence to defend itself.
On the other hand, armed reprisals do not represent the situation of necessity because the danger and arrested, there is nothing left to protect directly at this stage. In this case, military action is no longer an action of necessity, but a punishment action.
The mission of the International Criminal Court is to prosecute and punish persons; in principle, a State does not have the mission and competence to punish another State because between States there is the principle of equal sovereignty. States are peers and one does not have to punish the other.
Sometimes it is difficult to know very precisely whether it is an armed reprisal or not, as Israel did when it used reprisals after the fact.
Chapter VII is the heart of the United Nations Charter, but only somewhere, actually.
Chapter VII is the chapter devoted to collective security action, it is the great hammer, it is unique in international relations that a body has such extensive competence as the Security Council has under this chapter.
It is a chapter dedicated to action, as the title of Chapter VII makes very clear, "action in the event of a threat to the peace, breach of the peace and act of aggression", while the rest of the Charter faithfully reflects the other aspect of the United Nations, namely that it is an organization where discussion, coordination and cooperation take place.
The Security Council is supposed to act and we want it to be able to act with as many possibilities as possible.
Chapter VII is the one that captures the imagination the most. Everyone is more or less familiar with Chapter VII, but in the Charter, Chapter VII is not in substance the most important, because the drafters of the Charter hoped that Chapter VII would not have to be applied.
As the Charter tries to preserve peace, it tries to do so without the need for action to maintain or restore peace in extremis. The Charter strives to ensure that preventive action is avoided.
Economic and social actions and the peaceful settlement of disputes, these chapters VI and VII have been inserted in the Charter, competences have been conferred on the world organisation in this field with the simple aim of having more diversified actions in order to maintain peace.
The drafters of the Charter were aware that if there is a great disparity in the world, it does not guarantee peacekeeping. If there are such strong differences between States, there is a risk of violence; we try to deal with it not because if economic and social causes were valid causes in themselves, but from 1945 they were perceived as a means by which peace could actually be maintained; we work on the fact that there would be better conditions so that peace could prevail.
The Charter tries to deal with these things with limited resources, because you cannot settle a dispute against the will of the people concerned, you cannot impose the settlement of a dispute.
Chapter VII in the logic of the Charter is what is fundamental and distinguishes the current organization from the weakness of the League of Nations and at the same time the Charter is not focused on Chapter VII.
The other remark on Chapter VII is that the drafters of the Charter wanted the Security Council to be able to act with as few obstacles as possible.
The logic of the "highway" is that of the strongest possible executive that has the means to act promptly and decisively.
First of all, the Security Council is centred around major powers, which had not been the case in the League of Nations. The Charter is more realistic, without the great steps of hope of imposing peace, only a preponderant force can be imposed on the aggressor.
The strong executive is characterized by the absence of legal limits to the Security Council's action. States cannot legally do a whole series of things when the Security Council can do almost anything. In law, the Security Council is discussed, especially in terms of ius cogens, i.e. some fundamental norms that it cannot violate, otherwise the Security Council is free.
A State cannot use force unilaterally under article 2, paragraph 4, while the Security Council may, because article 42 gives it absolutely discretionary power to use force if it considers it necessary.
A State cannot arrest a ship that does not fly its flag on the high seas, whereas the Security Council can demand a blockade and derogate from the freedom of the sea. The Security Council does not violate the freedom of the sea and does not violate the non-use of force, but it derogates from it. The freedom of the sea, the non-use of force and other standards do not bind the Security Council as it binds a State, the Security Council is not bound by these standards it can provide for other regimes. These other plans will even have legal priority over other plans and agreements under section 103.
Charte des Nations Unies - article 103
As for customary law, assuming it is applicable to the Security Council, the decision of the Security Council will have priority under the lex speciali rule.
The absence of legal limitations is reflected in the complete absence of a power of the International Court of Justice to review the legality of Security Council decisions; the Court does not have the power at the request of a United Nations Member State that would feel aggrieved in this right to review Security Council decisions. The Court has no jurisdiction in this matter, which was entirely intended in 1945, because the League of Nations had been totally legalistic, which had bad press and immobilized the Security Council of the League of Nations.
What are the limits of the Security Council?[edit | edit source]
These are solely political limits in line with the logic of the Charter, which is to be more political than legal in order to distinguish itself from the League of Nations. Only the vote is the only real limit, you need 9 votes out of 15.
This implies bargaining and control, because one cannot act without a qualified majority, if there is not sufficient consensus the action is not decided by the Security Council and cannot be undertaken, what the minority will always call a "Security Council blockage".
The strong executive stems from a more positive regime, i. e. from certain legal rules that strengthen the power of the Security Council.
Two rules further strengthen the Security Council. What are these provisions?[edit | edit source]
First of all, Article 25 to be read in conjunction with Article 2 in paragraph 5.
Simply put, Security Council decisions under Chapter VII are either legally binding or binding on Member States, they must be implemented.
In addition, the members of the United Nations must assist each other in the implementation of Security Council measures, as recalled in Article 2, paragraph 5 and Article 49.
Finally, it is necessary to recall Article 103 of the United Nations Charter.
If there is a conflict for members of the United Nations between an obligation under the Charter and an obligation under another treaty such as, for example, a trade treaty, the lex speciali and lex posterior are not applied but the primacy of the obligation under the Charter.
If there is an arms embargo on State X and State Y has a treaty with the target State of sanctions committing it to deliver arms to it, then that treaty is not invocable, because the embargo obligation prevails for the United Nations member that has undertaken it.
All this strengthens the Security Council.
Contrary to what many people, and almost all journalists, believe, a negative vote by one of the five permanent members of the Security Council is not a veto.
The veto only applies when we have a decision that would otherwise have been adopted as to whether we have a 9:1 majority.
If we have a majority of 9 is that the decision would be invoked because there is the required majority, then we look at whether one of the five permanent members voted "no", then in this case we will say that he issued a veto. The majority is in favour, but there is a veto and the decision is not adopted.
If one or more of the five members vote against, but the majority for a decision is not reached anyway, then there is no veto.
Secondly, according to the text of the Charter when the right of veto applies, namely when the question is not a procedural matter - if the question is not procedural, there is no veto - in this case, it is taken as an affirmative vote of nine of its members in which all the votes of the permanent members are included.
According to the text of the Charter in Article 27(3), in order for a decision to be adopted on matters that are not procedural, a majority of 9 affirmative votes must be cast in which the 5 permanent members must be, therefore they must have voted in accordance with the text in the affirmative, the five permanent members must have voted "yes".
According to subsequent practice, this was changed very early on following the Iranian crisis and the presence of Soviet troops after the Second World War in Iran.
A decision is now considered adopted if there is no contrary vote by one of the big five; therefore, unlike the text of the Charter, abstention is not considered a veto. In the text of the Charter, it is sufficient to abstain to ensure that the decision is not adopted, to abstain is not to vote in favour.
According to the subsequent United Nations practice accepted by the International Court of Justice and endorsed in the 1971 Namibia case, it is on the contrary the negative vote of one of the five permanent members that counts as a veto.
A resolution that passes with a majority of 9 out of 15 is possible with 5 abstentions of the five permanent members is possible and a decision is invoked in such cases.
This has changed because the Soviets understood relatively early on that it was better to be able to abstain without blocking a resolution, because it gives more flexibility to foreign policy, there is a greater nuance in its foreign policy.
Thus it is possible to mark an opposition without blocking, one can bargain without preventing the resolution. This practice has never been challenged, the Charter has been amended by many things according to subsequent practice.
When can the Security Council act by taking the extraordinary measures it can take under Chapter VII?
The vault article is article 39, which states that the Security Council may take measures such as sanctions in article 41 or military measures in article 42 in three cases, i. e. there are three conditions, events that trigger the Security Council's possible action.
In other words, the Security Council must first qualify a certain situation as X, Y or Z and if it succeeds in doing so, the door is opened to take sanctions or other measures, or even military measures. This is the first key to ensuring that the Security Council can take action:
threat to peace
breach of the peace
act of aggression.
If the Security Council decides on an act of aggression, it may take measures, including by force, if the Security Council decides on a breach of the peace, it may also take measures.
What is the difference between "breach of the peace" and "act of aggression"?[edit | edit source]
In the breach of the peace, the Security Council proceeds by a completely neutral and objective assessment; by breach of the peace it means that the peace is no longer there and since the mission of the Security Council is to maintain the peace, action must be taken.
In aggression there is a legal concept which is that the breach of the peace is only a determination of a fact, aggression is quite a legal connotation, moreover if an act of aggression is determined, there is an aggressor.
In the case of Iraq and Kuwait in 1991 there was an act of aggression, Iraq is the aggressor. The Security Council almost never calls anything an act of aggression, because it is a political and diplomatic body and prefers to remain as neutral as possible.
Since it is not necessary to qualify something as aggression in order to take action, it is better to refrain from doing so. The Security Council does not like to infer legal concepts that could have legal consequences and what is more diplomatic, it is not very good to tell someone that he is the aggressor, we deprive ourselves of diplomatic means.
The threat to peace allows the Security Council to take preventive action. There is no breach of the peace, there is no hostility, there is no need to restore peace because it is not broken. There are situations that suggest such a rupture, such as bellicose speeches, armies that are amassed, threats of intervention are threats to peace.
In its practice, the Security Council has been much broader, has assumed a governance or quasi-governance function; it has described very diverse situations such as not extraditing certain terrorists in the Libyan case, or the fact that there were refugee flows in the Haitian case, or the fact that certain treaties have not been ratified on non-proliferation or the prohibition of certain weapons as threats to peace.
The Security Council has had a broad view of the threats to peace.
In short, the Security Council has a very broad interpretation of what is now the threat to peace, and anti-terrorist actions are all based on the threat to peace.
This is a very broad interpretation, because the Security Council tries to play a little bit with the world government, which it is not always well equipped to do.
It is a body that is not well equipped to legislate. This is understandable when it comes to military action, but when it comes to legislating for anti-terrorism from the point of view of democratic theory, it remains a very narrow basis for taking action, but the advantage is that binding measures can be taken under section 25 of the Charter. If we went through the General Assembly, which is much more legitimate, because it does not have the effectiveness of action, it can only recommend, so we do not have the effectiveness of action.
What are the problems of legal interpretation that we have as a result of this provision?[edit | edit source]
Undoubtedly there are legal aspects and legal problems within this provision.
This article is considered to reflect customary law, obviously this article is addressed to members, but from the point of view of general international law this provision has its parallel in customary law confirmed by the International Court of Justice in the 1986 Nicaragua case.
« Force »[edit | edit source]
The word "force" is not insignificant, if the Charter had been written a few years before we would have used the word "war", but here it is the term force that appears. Between "war" and "force" there is a significant legal difference. War from the point of view of law is a legal state, a subjective legal situation.
War in its traditional form was considered a legal act. By declaring war, a State could put itself in a "state of war" and thus enjoy all the special rights and duties conferred on it by this legal situation, which was called war.
Conversely, not all use of violence was a war, it had to be declared, because it was an act of will. So in the 1920s, when there were armed reprisals by states on foreign territories, there was no war.
Following the bombing of Corfu by the Italians in 1923, the Italians justified their act as a reprisal operation following a violation of international law by Greece since an Italian general sent for an investigation was murdered, so it is only a simple armed reprisal.
If we had the formula "war" in the Charter, the situation in Corfu would not be prohibited, there would be the use of "force", but not "war".
Moreover, for years States have played on this by avoiding calling something war in order to avoid applying the laws of war, to avoid prohibitions on the use of war; the Charter cuts short these difficulties, because it is not related to war, but goes directly to the point.
At the same time, it is accepted that Article 2(4) applies only to military force, which is the physical force of the State. A distinction is made between physical strength and influence.
For the non-use of force alone is physical and military force, including with modern means; on the other hand, political or economic pressure must be analysed in the principle of non-intervention in internal affairs, only certain particularly strong pressures are prohibited through the principle of non-intervention.
« Menace »[edit | edit source]
Members of the organization shall refrain from the threat and use of force. Neither the use of force nor the threat of force are absolute prohibitions. The use of force is not absolutely prohibited, in self-defence force can be used, logically one can also threaten to use force if the use of force was itself lawful. There are situations of chiaroscuro, not all threats are prohibited.
« dans leurs relations internationales »[edit | edit source]
Once again, Article 2.4 only applies to conflicts between States, one cannot threaten or use force against another State. On the other hand, Article 2.4 does not apply at all within the territory of a State, with the remarkable consequence that it does not prohibit people from taking up arms to fight their government, it is called an "insurrection", and that international law does not prohibit the government from retaliation on rebellion by the use of force; it is within a State, but not in international relations. However, there may be a threat to peace that requires action by the Security Council, but we are not in the 2.4.
Knowing what is covered by domestic and international law is not always easy. For example, to know if an armistice line transforms the space it crosses into an international space or if the armistice line does not transform the spaces it crosses into an international space - obviously the armistice lines are not recognized borders -.
Thus, the general rule is that there is no 2.4 for non-international armed conflicts.
Article 51 of the United Nations Charter deals with self-defence.
The first thing, as with article 2.4, and as confirmed by case law, is that article 51 reflects customary international law, it is not an article applied only to members of the United Nations, at the same time and in parallel with article 51, a rule of customary law in the Nicaraguan case of the International Court of Justice of 1986, there is more or less the same article in customary international law.
The second remark is that the rule is the non-use of force 2.4 and the exception is article 51; a State or States may/ may use force in self-defence, it is an exception to the general principle of non-use of force.
In the design of the charter, Article 51 was a concession introduced relatively late and a whole series of states were afraid, as was the United States of America, which did not have the same position as since the outbreak of the Cold War.
It is understood that first of all from a didactic point of view grasping architecture can help to better define things and from a legal point of view it can be of greater importance, because the exceptions are of fixed interpretation, if the exception is an exception the interpretation should tend to be strict and not broad.
The third remark is that self-defence allows for both individual and collective self-defence. Self-defence was initially found in Chapter VIII. Collective self-defence means that in cases where several States are attacked and defended by a coalition of States, legally third States can assist a victim.
Charte de l'OTAN - article 5
The fourth remark is that the terminology used in Article 51 differs from that of Article 2.4. Article 2.4 prohibits the use of force, article 51 allows self-defence in the case of armed aggression.
The English text differentiates, it speaks of an "armed attack", the two notions are not exactly identical and this is not the only point where the versions differ; it is a trace of the late drafting of this article.
We understand that there is a difference, there must be cases where force is used against which self-defence is not advisable, there may be a use of force that is not powerful enough to be armed aggression, but if the use of force does not reach the threshold of armed aggression there is no self-defence.
The case law tries to define the threshold between a use of force - 2.4 - and the use of armed force - Article 52 - which are not concentric. Article 2.4 uses any use of force while article 51 authorizes the use of anarchic force only if a State has received an armed attack in such a proportion.
It is a question of keeping the peace and not immediately opening the escalation of force, but also of blocking the way to unilateralism. International law tries to take this situation into account by restricting the use of force as much as possible and consistent with the order that the Charter is trying to establish.
The practice of the Charter shows that States like Israel have a broader conception and that any use of force can lead them to react. The text of the Charter does not give way to these arguments, because it makes a distinction.
Qu'est-ce qu'exactement une agression armée ?[edit | edit source]
The answer can be found in the reply in United Nations General Assembly resolution 3314 of 14 December 1974 and more particularly in article 33[1].
Resolution 3314 is the resolution on the definition of aggression.
Article 3 lists a series of situations considered as aggression under international law. In this article and in the list of letters going to g we find the cases that are typically cases of armed aggression, it is a list that is not exhaustive.
Résolution 3314 des Nations Unies sur la définition de l'agression - Article 3
In article a we find the invasion which is typically an armed attack, but more subtle cases are found as in letter g which is the irregular arming of armed groups.
Another remark is that there is an increasingly urgent problem of who should be the attacker and the attacked, who should be the aggressor and the attacked.
In the initial vision of the Charter there is no doubt that both sides consider that there are States, but Article 51 in its text is not so limited, let alone the customary rule does not manifestly contain such a limitation.
Especially since the attacks of Al Qaeda on 11 September, the question has been raised as to whether the aggressor could be other than a State entity, namely a terrorist group.
Al Qaeda attacks could be brought back to the Government of Afghanistan, but if this hypothesis is ignored, the question remains as to whether the State of Afghanistan that has not committed an attack, then can force be used?
The law is moving. We will not comment on the issue, but so far the International Court of Justice has refused to extend the notion of self-defence beyond a state attacker. The Court requires that even if an armed group is armed, there must be an attribution to a State.
The Court is therefore strict, based on the case of the armed activities of the Republic of Congo against Uganda in 2005[2][3][4].
The Security Council, for its part, seems much broader, because in Resolution 1373, which follows the attack on the Twin Towers, the Council seems convinced that the United States should use the right of self-defence. This is an important issue.
The role of the Security Council is the reason why Article 51 is included in Chapter VII.
Why didn't they add that to section 2.4?[edit | edit source]
This has been inserted rather in Article 5 since the Security Council has important functions, including in the case of self-defence.
The general design of the Charter is that self-defence and a semblance of an interim right of self-defence will take some time between the time of the attack and the invasion and the decision of the Security Council; as a period of time will elapse anyway, it was considered that the right of self-defence should be granted, but in other words that when the Security Council acts the right of self-defence is subordinate to the Security Council.
So there is a very clear hierarchy, as long as the Security Council has not acted, we can act in self-defence and continue even after the Security Council has taken measures; but in the event that the Security Council has taken a certain measure, we can no longer rely on a decision in self-defence.
In other words, in the event of a conflict between a measure of self-defence and a collective measure taken by the Security Council in a binding manner, the measure of the Security Council prevails.
Section 51 supplements section 103 of the Charter.
« […] jusqu'à ce que le Conseil de sécurité ait pris les mesures nécessaires pour maintenir la paix et la sécurité internationale »
This sentence does not mean that a State can no longer rely on self-defence once the Security Council has taken a measure.
It is not because the Security Council has taken a measure under, for example, Article 41 of the Charter that self-defence should be stopped, but only in the event of a conflict of measures that the Security Council's measures prevail.
Finally, this is not found in the Charter, but in Nicaraguan customary law in 1886, self-defence is subject to the rules of necessity and proportionality.
Necessity may mean that self-defence must be precisely necessary to defend against the ongoing aggression. All measures taken in self-defence must be necessary to repel the enemy attack.
That is why it is prohibited under international law to take armed reprisals because a State is no longer covered by self-defence, because armed reprisal is precisely based on the fact that there is no longer a need to defend itself.
In the case of an attack on a missile that has crashed somewhere, you have been hit, but the attack is over; you can defend yourself against this situation, but you must do it immediately.
If we wait days and weeks, we are no longer in a state of necessity, we take it upon ourselves to punish another.
When there is equal sovereignty between States, no one State is the judge of another. A sovereign state does not have the mission to distribute good and bad points to another state, otherwise sovereignty is superior to another.
As for proportionality, it is not the same problem, it is not that measures must be necessary to repel, the attack is the question of the intensity of the response in relation to the type of aggression that has been suffered.
Proportionality is more important in the low spectrum when you have suffered limited attacks and loses its intensity when you suffer a major attack, if you suffer an invasion you are no longer obliged to weigh the response, it makes no sense, you have to react on all fronts.
The higher the spectrum, the lower the importance of proportionality and the lower the proportionality spectrum, the more important the spectrum of proportionality becomes.
Between countermeasures and self-defence, there is a whole series of parallelisms.
Neutrality[edit | edit source]
Three remarks must be made about neutrality: there is ordinary neutrality and perpetual neutrality.
There are few States that are generally subject by treaty obligations to an obligation of perpetual neutrality, in the vast majority of cases neutrality derives only from ordinary neutrality.
Ordinary neutrality is the case of a State that is not obliged to stand still and makes a sovereign choice in the face of an armed conflict that erupts in the world, either to participate in this international conflict on the side of the aggressor in violation of the law, on the side of the aggressor in self-defence or not to participate in the armed conflict and remain neutral.
Ordinary neutrality is not an issue and exists as a regime only in the event of the outbreak of an international armed conflict, third States take a decision to enter or remain outside it, in the absence of an international armed conflict there is no neutrality status.
A State under its sovereignty has the possibility to make this choice under international armed conflict.
In some collective self-defence treaties, there is an obligation to assist, but this is specific international law based on treaties.
International treaty law requires that a State, whatever happens, is always neutral and this is Switzerland's status under the Final Act of the Vienna Conference of 1815.
Switzerland was not represented at this conference, but after the intervention of the major powers it accepted to become a neutral state, the powers also found their interest, because Switzerland was in a particularly sensitive part of Europe between Austria, Habsburg and France.
Keeping peace in Europe was therefore based on the neutralisation of Switzerland from the point of view of the great powers, not only, but above all.
Perpetual neutrality implies that the neutral state has obligations in a state of peace, it is obliged to remain neutral and in time of peace, it must take measures to remain neutral. This means that the neutral state cannot perpetually be part of an alliance in which it can be led to use force as part of a defensive alliance, this is not possible for the perpetually neutral state.
Since there is an obligation to defend neutral territory in the event of a violation, there must be a minimum number of armies since, by virtue of neutrality, one is obliged to do so.
One further remark, as we have already mentioned, neutrality exists only in the context of an international armed conflict, there is no neutrality in the sense of international law outside an international armed conflict that is an armed conflict between several States.
At that point, there is occasional or even perpetual neutrality.
In a non-international armed conflict, there is no neutrality, there is no duty of neutrality that would automatically follow in this case. There is a duty not to interfere in the affairs of a State in the grip of a civil war; even more so, there is no neutrality outside any armed conflict and therefore in a state of peace except for the State in a situation of perpetual neutrality.
In terms of neutrality policy, we can say what we want, but we must distinguish between the right of neutrality, which is extremely limited, which only concerns international conflicts, and everything else is the policy of neutrality, which we can discuss.
What is the content of the right of neutrality?[edit | edit source]
The neutral has duties of abstention, impartiality and prevention in the event of permanent neutrality.
Recent doctrine and also the 1993 Federal Council report consider that neutrality applies only in inter-state conflicts. On the other hand, it is considered that neutrality is not applicable in accordance with Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, even if the Security Council decides to apply force. In the case of sanctions, it is not considered to be a measure that concerns neutrality.
In order to understand, neutrality does not apply to peaceful measures of the Security Council or to measures where the Security Council provides for the use of force, but this does not mean that a State is obliged to use force.
The Security Council authorises Member States to use force when necessary, authorises Member States to take all necessary measures, an authorisation is a possibility, a neutral State is not obliged, it cannot oppose it, but is not obliged to participate.
Annexes[edit | edit source]
Zourek Jaroslav. Enfin une définition de l'agression. In: Annuaire français de droit international, volume 20, 1974. pp. 9-30.
↑ Définition de l'agression - Résolution 3314 (xxix) de l'assemblée générale; United Nations Audiovisual Library of International Law
↑ Affaire des activités armées sur le territoire du Congo, République démocratique du Congo c. Ouganda (Arrêt du 19 décembre 2005) par Abdelwahab BIAD Maître de conférences à l'Université de Rouen Membre du CREDHO
↑ International court of justice reports of judgments, advisory opinions and orders case concerning armed activities on the territory of the congo (democratic republic of the congo v. uganda) judgment of 19 december 2005
↑ La CIJ condamne l'Ouganda à réparer les conséquences de son invasion de l'Est de la RDC - Centre d'actualité de l'ONU
Retrieved from "https://baripedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_fundamental_principles_of_relations_between_States&oldid=37412"
Droit International Public
About Baripedia
Hosted by Infomaniak


Listen. You've basically been a turd your whole life. You don't care for anyone but yourself.
Well, fucker, it's time to care about a cause.
I'm talking about Off, Off, Off Broadway. I'm talking about Mad Labs.
Mad Labs needs money. They are a bunch of poor acting fucks who think that someday they might make it as big as me. This money might help to cure them of that fantasy.
And yes, your person information will be used to sneak children out of China.


text:
Asset Protection Strategies, STAFF NEWS & ANALYSIS
Markets Still Aim for the Sky … But for How Long?
By Staff News & Analysis - November 03, 2014
Half a Century of Evidence to Fear the Fed … The hottest game in financial markets is trying to guess when the Federal Reserve will finally raise its benchmark interest rate. Fed officials have said that their main concern is over how much slack, or spare capacity, exists in the economy, because workers will become emboldened to ask for higher wages – and employers will come under pressure to provide them – only when the slack diminishes. On one measure, the Fed should already be reaching for the rate-rise button. – Bloomberg
Dominant Social Theme: The Fed knows what it's doing.
Free-Market Analysis: This article makes the point that the Federal Reserve has kept rates so low for so long that at some point rates will have to rise very fast and very hard.
This is congruent with our position that what we call the Wall Street Party may continue until the last drop of profit is wrung from an exhausted market.
When this occurs is certainly not clear. It could still happen this year – even today. Certainly it could happen next year, or late next year.
The article itself doesn't provide a timeline but does make the point that the end might not be with a whimper, but indeed with a bang of entirely the wrong sort.
Here's more:
The Fed funds rate has been held at 0.25 percent since the end of 2008. This week, the central bank repeated its commitment to keep borrowing costs low for a "considerable time." At the same time, it changed its language about the jobs market, saying the "underutilization of labor resources is gradually diminishing." It had previously referred to a "significant underutilization."
Sean Corrigan, an investment manager at Diapason Commodities in Switzerland, points out that with fewer Americans applying for unemployment benefits than at any time in more than 14 years, there's a mismatch between the Fed holding rates and what's happening in the job market.
Now, this doesn't mean the Fed is about to jump into action; the post-crisis economy, in the U.S. and the rest of the world, is arguably more fragile than at any time in the past half-century. But history suggests that monetary policy has gotten so out of sync with the labor market that once the Fed does move, it may tighten further and faster than anyone currently expects.
This last paragraph points out that while the US economy seems to be accelerating, problems in the rest of the world probably make it even tougher for the Fed – as the dominant central bank – to change course dramatically.
In Japan, for instance, monetary policy has been relaxed even further in the past weeks. In England, central bank head Mark Carney has recently stated that he won't hike rates aggressively any time soon, either. The European central bank has taken what steps it can to loosen the monetary reins in what is probably another vain attempt at counteracting Europe's unhealthy labor markets.
China is out of sync, struggling with the results of many years of loose monetary policy that has generated considerable price inflation and even the construction of whole, empty cities. But generally, around the world, as always in the past decades, monetary policy is more generous than not. Currency continues to be printed wildly and officials at some of the largest central banks are on record as saying they won't do much, if anything, to stop it.
This article sounds a much-needed warning, yet it's not as if this is merely one voice in the wilderness. The Bank for International Settlement itself, about two weeks ago, said much the same thing and in even more dire terms.
An article appearing in the UK Telegraph and entitled, "BIS warns on 'violent' reversal of global markets," summarized the fears of top bankers at the world's coordinating body.
Here's how it began:
Investors take zero-rates for granted and unwisely believe that central banks will protect them, says the capital markets chief of the Bank of International Settlements … The global financial markets are dangerously stretched and may unwind with shock force as liquidity dries up, the Bank of International Settlements has warned.
Guy Debelle, head of the BIS's market committee, said investors have become far too complacent, wrongly believing that central banks can protect them, many staking bets that are bound to "blow up" as the first sign of stress.
In a speech in Sydney, Mr Debelle said: "The sell-off, particularly in fixed income, could be relatively violent when it comes. There are a number of investors buying assets on the presumption of a level of liquidity which is not there. This is not evident when positions are being put on, but will become readily apparent when investors attempt to exit their positions.
"The exits tend to get jammed unexpectedly and rapidly."
Mr Debelle, who is also chief of financial markets at Australia's Reserve Bank, said any sell-off could be amplified because nominal interest rates are already zero across most of the industrial world. "That is a point we haven't started from before. There are undoubtedly positions out there which are dependent on (close to) zero funding costs. When funding costs are no longer close to zero, these positions will blow up," he said.
Read this article and then the Bloomberg piece and the message is astonishingly similar. Even the verbiage is the same. The question is left then – when exactly might these catastrophic events take place?
Our view remains that next year is a more likely destination than this year. But these articles certainly do tend to confirm our position that the crackup, when it comes, could be a rough one, indeed.
All the proverbial stars are aligned for a blowoff that might rival 1929 and usher in – if those at the top of the shattered system can manage it – a new and more global securities system.
Before we get to that point, we think the market may offer an incredible run: Records may be broken and re-broken. If the market makes it relatively unscathed through the end of the year, watch for increasingly strong upward movements that may tax credulity as they will be occurring in an environment of continued economic weakness.
Those running these manipulated markets seem determined to run them high into the sky nonetheless. Opportunities abound, at least in the short term, for those exposed, albeit with proper hedging and diversification. What is necessary to bear in mind as well is that these markets can turn savagely. The trick, then, is to get the timing right.
Of course, that's not easy. But those who could do it stand to benefit mightily, indeed.
The Long, Hot Summer of 1967: A Forgotten Season of…
If you think it's too late, think again. There's still time
The #1 destination for American expats is still very…
Panama is still an obvious escape hatch
Why Is the DNC Still on the Fence About Drug Law…
Predictions are hard. But here goes…
Posted in Asset Protection Strategies, STAFF NEWS & ANALYSIS

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING BY THE OFFICES OF THE SPOKESPERSON FOR THE SECRETARY-GENERAL AND THE SPOKESPERSON FOR THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY PRESIDENT
Department of Public Information . News and Media Division . New York
The following is a near-verbatim transcript of today's noon briefing by Michèle Montas, Spokesperson for the Secretary-General, and the Spokesperson for the President of the General Assembly, Ashraf Kamal.
Good afternoon.
** Iran Statement
On a statement attributable to the Spokesperson for the Secretary-General:
The Secretary-General condemns the terrorist attack on a bus in the south-eastern city of Zahedan carrying Iranian security officers, which killed at least 18 people and wounded many more. He reiterates that no cause can justify the use of terrorist violence. He extends his sincere condolences to the families of the victims and to the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
** Lebanon Statement
Another statement attributable to the Spokesperson for the Secretary-General on the second anniversary of the assassination of Rafik Hariri:
On the second anniversary of the terrorist attack which took the lives of Rafik Hariri and 22 others, the United Nations reaffirms its commitment to assisting Lebanon in its efforts to uncover the truth and bring to justice the perpetrators of this despicable act. On this sad occasion the Secretary-General reiterates his sympathies to the families of all the victims and to the people and Government of Lebanon.
At this critical point for Lebanon, and as homage for other lives lost, it is important that all sides return to dialogue and seek the reconciliation, national unity and stability for which Rafik Hariri worked during his lifetime.
**Security Council
The Security Council yesterday afternoon, following the conclusion of the open debate on the Middle East, held consultations on Lebanon. Afterwards, in a statement to the press, the Council President, Ambassador Peter Burian of Slovakia, said that Council members condemned in the strongest terms the targeted attacks that took place earlier that day on two public buses. Council members welcomed the determination of the Lebanese Government to bring the perpetrators and sponsors to justice.
Also, a draft resolution was introduced yesterday on extending the mandate of the UN Mission in Haiti. The Security Council is expected to work on it tomorrow.
**Secretary-General Travel
United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon will travel to Berlin and Vienna next week. In Berlin, he will attend the Middle East Quartet meeting and will meet with Chancellor Angela Merkel and other German officials.
Following an invitation by the Government of Austria, the Secretary General will also visit Vienna from the 22nd to the 24th of February. He will meet with Federal President Heinz Fischer, Federal Chancellor Alfred Gusenbauer, Foreign Minister Ursula Plassnik and with Parliament President Barbara Prammer.
The Secretary-General will also visit the Vienna International Centre, to meet with the Director-General of the United Nations Office at Vienna, Antonio Maria Costa, with the Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei, and with UN staff.
** Sudan
We have upstairs a press release issued in Addis Ababa earlier today by the Human Rights Council mission to Darfur. The mission announced that "it decided that it can no longer allow the continued uncertainty regarding visas from Sudan to impede the continuance of the mission, having completed its very important and productive Darfur consultations and briefings in Addis Ababa".
Mission Leader Jody Williams said that the Mission will proceed and collect all relevant information from locations outside the country. The mission's report to the Human Rights Council, she said, will be presented as mandated. The mission will continue its work in Addis and other locations and return to Geneva, as scheduled, on the 21st of February, after which it will prepare its report to present to the Council at its fourth regular session in March.
The Secretary-General's Special Envoy, Jan Eliasson, and African Union Special Envoy Salim Ahmed Salim left today for Al Fasher, the capital of North Darfur state. They will be holding in Darfur, today and tomorrow, meetings with local authorities, representatives and field commanders of the non-signatories rebel groups of the Darfur Peace Agreement.
The UN Mission in Sudan, meanwhile, continues to report security incidents in Darfur. Today's bulletin includes blockages of UN humanitarian convoys in North Darfur, the hijacking of an ambulance in South Darfur and an attack on a compound housing an international non-governmental organization.
**Kosovo
On Kosovo, the Secretary-General's Special Representative for Kosovo, Joachim Rucker, today asked UN Police Commissioner Stephen Curtis to resign from his post in the wake of two deaths that resulted from last weekend's violent protest in Pristina.
Expressing his regret over the tragic deaths, Rucker stressed that the Commissioner's resignation did not prejudge the investigation into the incident. An investigation will proceed in a transparent and independent manner, he added. We have his full statement upstairs.
** Bolivia
On Bolivia, as the number of people affected by severe flooding in Bolivia has risen by 25,000 in recent days, UN agencies and their humanitarian partners are working to support the Government of Bolivia in its response. Overall, according to the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, some 200,000 people have been affected by the flooding.
In response, the World Food Programme (WFP) has distributed food to more than 60,000 people, and is planning to assess needs in Beni province, where five rivers have overflowed their banks.
Meanwhile, UNICEF has made $30,000 available for water analysis and treatment activities, and for the construction of emergency latrines. Also, the World Health Organization and Pan American Health Organization have provided medicines and medical supplies used to treat those injured in the flooding and help prevent the spread of disease.
**Treaty of Tlatelolco
On the fortieth anniversary of the Treaty of Tlatelolco, the Secretary-General, in a message today, expressed that the commemoration of nations forging agreements to ban nuclear weapons can help energize efforts to halt and reverse the spread of weapons of mass destruction throughout the world.
His message will be delivered by the Under-Secretary-General for Disarmament this afternoon in Mexico City, where the landmark anniversary of Latin American and the Caribbean States signing an agreement on banning nuclear weapons in the region took place.
** Georgia
Yesterday, the Secretary-General's Group of Friends for Georgia wrapped up a two-day meeting in Geneva. You'll recall that the Friends include Germany, France, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States. Also participating were the Secretary-General's Special Representative for Georgia, Jean Arnault, and representatives of the Georgian and Abkhaz sides.
Encouraging the sides to resume dialogue, the Friends stressed the need for immediate engagement on security issues, both in the upper Kodori valley and the zone of conflict. They highlighted the need to refrain from any action that could impede progress or undermine confidence, and urged the sides to take into account one another's sensitivities and to cooperate to de-escalate tensions. We have a press statement on that upstairs.
**Press Conferences
Right after this briefing, at around 12:30, Mr. Ad Melkert, Under-Secretary-General and Associate Administrator of UNDP, will be here with tennis star Maria Sharapova, who will be appointed as UNDP Goodwill Ambassador and announce her donation to UNDP Chernobyl projects.
** Haiti
You are all invited to a briefing on the UN Police operations to root out gangs in neighbourhoods of the Haitian capital. The briefing is for attribution and will take place tomorrow, Thursday afternoon at 3:00 in the Situation Centre on the 32nd floor of the Secretariat Building. The speakers will be Francois Dureau of the Department of Peacekeeping Operations and David Wimhurst, the head of public information at the Haiti Mission. They will join us via video broadcast. We have a media advisory on this upstairs.
That is all I have for you. Any questions? We have little time because at 12:30 we have another press conference. Yes?
**Questions and Answers
Question: With regard to this asking for the resignation of Stephen Curtis at UNMIK, in what way, why was he asked to resign -– was he seen as bearing any responsibility for the event?
Spokesperson: Well, the fact that two deaths occurred and the fact that they were caused by rubber bullets, along with the initial results of the investigation, raised some serious questions about possible cases of misconduct. Rucker wanted to ensure accountability and to restore public confidence in the police.
Question: I just don't understand. I mean, if there's an element of sort of guilt or responsibility, or something assumed for the deaths, caused by rubber bullets, is resignation enough under those circumstances?
Spokesperson: No, there is an investigation that was launched and that is under way. Yes?
Question: I have a question for you: you mentioned in the briefing that in Darfur, humanitarian convoys are being blocked. When the Secretary-General was in Sudan earlier this month or last month, he spoke with Bashir, who promised that there was not going to be any humanitarian blockages; that was one of the things that he strongly said, that that was not going to continue to happen. And now there's a visa problem. But, addressing that question directly about South Darfur, does the Secretary-General have any comment since it seems that you know another Head of State has perhaps not given him… [inaudible]?
Spokesperson: Well, you know, he has expressed disappointment about this fact, about the fact that humanitarian access is impeded at so many instances. And he's also disappointed about the fact that the Human Rights [Council] could not go into Darfur, in spite of the promises he was given by President Bashir. Yes?
Question: Michele, just to follow up on that. Is this, he asked for the
resignation of the police commissioner in Kosovo after the Interior Minister of Kosovo resigned – Fatir Rexhepi, that's his name -- or he asked for it before and after, and to whom he had consulted about the firing of Mr. Curtis?
Spokesperson: He consulted DPKO and also consulted with the Secretary-General's office.
Question: The resignation came before Mr. Rexhepi's resignation, the Kosovo Minister, or after? Because it was a big deal down there that the Kosovo Minister resigned out of taking some responsibility, sharing responsibilities. Then it seems to me it came only after that has happened.
Spokesperson: Well, I don't have the exact sequence, but I can find out for you the exact sequence of events. Yes?
Question: Does the Secretary-General have a reaction to calls by the House International Relations Committee from yesterday? They wrote a letter to the Cypriot Ambassador asking that Benon Sevan be released to come to face charges here in this country? Is there any reaction to that? And what does the UN intend to do about this case?
Spokesperson: Well, the UN has always been in favour of the fact that justice should be carried out and, in this specific case, that the national jurisdiction taking care of these instances should act on them. I don't have any specific reaction on the Benon Sevan case, but I can inquire for you whether there is a specific reaction to that. Yes?
Question: If we can go back to Sudan for a moment, did President Bashir promise the Secretary-General to allow this particular group in? And if he did, is the Secretary-General going to do more than express disappointment? Is he going to get in touch with the President?
Spokesperson: Well, as you know, he's expecting a letter from the President on a series of commitments that were taken, and he's waiting to see. But he certainly will definitely carry this on. I mean, he will not stand still and wait; he will definitely try to probably talk to Mr. Bashir, even though it is not yet scheduled -– a phone call is not yet scheduled, a phone call is not scheduled yet.
Question: Do you know for sure he's going to talk with him on this Human Rights [Council]?
Spokesperson: I don't know yet. I can't confirm that.
Question: Secondly, almost related. On NGOs [inaudible]… genocide [inaudible].. Mr. Mendez' contract renewed and so forth. Do you have any information on what's happening?
Spokesperson: No, all I can say is the Secretary-General never intended on diminishing the responsibilities of the UN Special Envoy on Genocide. On the contrary, he wants to reinforce that post and make it -- as you know it's a part-time post -- and make it a more permanent post. In fact, what he's planning to do is to reinforce that post when Mr. Mendez leaves the post, he will be certainly replaced by another person who will take on the responsibility of the position.
Question: And will he be renewed or what?
Spokesperson: He doesn't want to; he has asked to go.
Question: A follow-up on that, the NGOs that gave the briefing also called for the release of the report of the Advisory Committee of the Secretary-General and that the shortlist be released when a new candidate is being sought. Can that report be released?
Spokesperson: I don't know. I will try to find out for you whether the report will be released.
Question: It's in a letter that they wrote.
Spokesperson: Okay.
[The spokesperson later added that the Secretary-General had received the report from the Advisory Committee on Genocide Prevention and was considering its recommendations. The report was not presently public.]
Question: And also, there's been a settlement between the company behind the toxic waste and Cote d'Ivoire, and the Government of Cote d'Ivoire, and Greenpeace, among others, have said that it's a sellout, that it legitimizes dumping on the developing world. So, I don't know if UNEP or the UN system at all has had any comment on this settlement?
Spokesperson: An agreement between the Government and the private company – I don't think there would be, at this point, any comments. But, we can put you in touch with UNEP.
Question: Okay. The previous Secretary-General actually spoke quite a bit about it when it happened, so I'm just wondering, whether it's being swept away?
Spokesperson: It is an agreement between the Government and a private company.
Question: Exactly when is that letter supposed to come to the Secretary-General from Bashir? How many days are we… ?
Spokesperson: There was not a set date on it, but we're expecting that at least on the deployment of the hybrid force.
Question: Right, but is that tomorrow, or…?
Spokesperson: We don't know, Jonathan. As soon as I find out whether – I don't think there was any commitment for a specific date. However, as you know, we have two Special Envoys there right now, the AU representative and our own, so we should expect some answers very soon.
Question: Are they doing a hybrid force or are they just trying to get a peace [inaudible]?
Spokesperson: For the time being, it's the peace process. Yes?
Question: Do you have a list of the UN Goodwill Ambassadors from the date it was first initiated –- I believe it was Audrey Hepburn –- until now? And, why this time, the UNDP is selecting the Goodwill Ambassador instead of the UN?
Spokesperson: Well, why don't you ask the UNDP? And, in our case, we will give you a list of all our Goodwill Ambassadors. Usually, you know, different agencies have Goodwill Ambassadors, so it's not the UN only, the Secretariat.
Question: [talkover] announced here, you are supposed to know the reason.
Spokesperson: You asked me two things. You asked me for the list. I am saying I don't have the list, but I could have the list for you whenever you want. And I am saying that different agencies have different Goodwill Ambassadors. You know, UNICEF has Goodwill Ambassadors, UNDP has Goodwill Ambassadors and today you're going to have the presentation.
Question: Is there a reason why the UNDP has taken over what the UN has been doing for so many years?
Spokesperson: The UNDP is not taking over; the UNDP as an agency has a right to have its own Goodwill Ambassador.
Question: I think you are announcing, it's going to be announced here, so I believe, I gather that you should know the reason.
Spokesperson: I just announced that at 12:30 you will know the reasons. Yes?
Question: Speaking of Goodwill Ambassadors, we never found out what actually happened with the dollar a year contracts. Is there any change in their situation? Which ones are being retained? Which ones are being let go?
Spokesperson: Benny, I don't have that list yet. You can have the list of the dollar a year people, but I don't know what decision -– there has been no decision taken yet. Yes?
Question: Just on pacing – are we going to get any more personnel change announcements over the next couple of weeks? For example, when might we have our 38th floor decisions? When might we get any information on any changes to SRSGs? That kind of thing. And, also any other sort of officials? And also, when might we see a more comprehensive proposal on the restructuring because the whole sort of thing has gone quiet for a few days now? Where are we on that?
Spokesperson: Well, today there are three meetings scheduled between different Permanent Representatives and the Secretary-General's team on the question of restructuring, and, as I said, as soon as everything will be finalized, you'll have someone come here and brief you on what the specific proposals were. As you know, the proposals that the Secretary-General had offered are being changed, you know, and being discussed with the Member States, and the Secretary-General said that he will be fully in respect of the legislative process. So, you know, right now we are still proceeding with consultations, and as soon as we find out, we'll get you a briefing on that with the details.
And, your other question -- when will we find out about new appointments? I don't have a date on that.
Question: Is there a plan to replace, let's say, SRSGs over the coming month or something?
Spokesperson: Certainly, there is a priority on the SRSG posts that are vacant, yes. Yes?
Question: Michèle, there is an announcement out of Iraq today that they will be closing the borders for 72 hours, and I know that the High Commissioner for Refugees made a lot of his announcements on his trip. But, does the Secretary-General have any comment on this? And, also, the Iraqis said that, after 72 hours, there will be a partial opening only, leaving a lot of people stranded inside the country. Does he have any comment on that?
Spokesperson: The Secretary-General does not at this point, but we can try to seek more information from Mr. Guterres. Yes?
Question: If Mr. Ban Ki-moon is going to use the opportunity during his visit to Vienna and [inaudible] the negotiators with Mr. Ahtisaari in Kosovo?
Spokesperson: No, I don't think he will. I think he leaves the process to Mr. Ahtisaari. Yes?
Question: I understand that Mr. Ban Ki-moon has been talking to Mr. Siniora by telephone yesterday. Can you brief us on what they discussed?
Spokesperson: Well, they discussed the incident that occurred yesterday. As you know, Mr. Siniora has written a letter to the Security Council asking for an expansion of the [International Independent] Investigation Commission, and the Secretary-General has referred the letter to the Security Council. I'll take just one more quickly because Ashraf still has to brief and we have our tennis star coming in. Yes?
Question: I wanted to know: at the AU summit, the Secretary-General was supposed to meet with the President of Nigeria, but the meeting did not happen. There are all kinds of rumours flying around about why it did not happen. So, I'd like to know what is the take of the Secretariat as to why the meeting did not happen in Addis Ababa between Mr. Obasanjo and Mr. Ban Ki-moon?
Spokesperson: I can check on that for you, but I don't think there was any problem there. It might have been a scheduling problem, but I'll check for you. Okay, thank you very much. Ashraf?
Briefing by Spokesperson for the President of the General Assembly
Until Michèle said Maria Sharapova was coming, I thought you guys were here for me.
**Election of Next General Assembly President
Okay, two quick points. The date for the election of the next President of the General Assembly and the General Committee is the 31st of May. It is usually three months before the end of the session, which would have taken us to the 18th of June, but due to construction work -– there is no conspiracy or anything; it's just construction work in the General Assembly –- the date is now designated as the 31st of May.
**Elections for Human Rights Council
And the elections for the Human Rights Council will be held around mid-May. So far, there are eight candidates, and once pledges are submitted, they will be circulated as official documents.
Question: Ashraf, who are the candidates for the new President of the General Assembly?
Spokesperson: I don't have the list on me, but – for the President?
Question: Yes, the new President of the General Assembly, the next session.
Spokesperson: It comes from one regional group. I think it's already endorsed by – it's Macedonia, if I'm not mistaken. I think it's Macedonia. I don't have the name off the top of my head, but I will confirm. Yes, sir?
Question: … going on in the General Assembly or planned with regard to Darfur and the situation there?
Spokesperson: Nothing that I know of in the immediate future.
Question: There was an OIOS report on the Pension Fund suggesting recommendations that certain people be removed. The Pension Fund is saying it disagrees and won't take any action, and it says it will now go to the GA. Can you explain how does it go to the GA and what does the GA do if an OIOS report is not acted on by an agency that it investigates?
Spokesperson: Okay, that's pretty long. Well, usually the report will go the General Assembly, which will decide if there is any further action needed. So, if the General Assembly disagrees with what the Pension Fund does, it can do something about it, if it deems that this is fit. But, the reports of the OIOS get discussed exactly the same way as any other reports before the General Assembly. Benny?
Question: Yes. The restructuring, are there any activities in the next few… [talkover]?
Spokesperson: A meeting is planned for tomorrow between the Secretary-General and the President of the General Assembly, and I should be able to brief you a little more about that tomorrow once they finish the meeting.
Question: And also on other OIOS reports that are expected, I'm told that the OIOS will not brief us on the issue of a report on DESA until it's delivered to the [inaudible].
Spokesperson: That makes sense. I can check for you on that date. Alright? Thank you.
* *** *
For information media • not an official record


Saucony's most innovative running experience to date takes flight in the Freedom ISO. With the first ever full-length EVERUN midsole, the Freedom ISO delivers more energy with every stride, while the barely-there upper holds the foot and disappears mid-run. Unleash the potential of every run in the brand new Freedom ISO.


Property Location: When you stay at Amara Sanctuary Resort Sentosa in Singapore, you'll be near the beach, within a 15-minute walk of Madame Tussauds and Adventure Cove Waterpark. This 5-star hotel is 0.6 mi (1 km) from Sentosa Luge and 0.7 mi (1.1 km) from Siloso Beach.
Rooms: Make yourself at home in one of the 140 air-conditioned rooms featuring LCD televisions. Complimentary wireless Internet access keeps you connected, and digital programming is available for your entertainment. Private bathrooms with showers feature rainfall showerheads and complimentary toiletries. Conveniences include phones, as well as safes and complimentary newspapers.
Amenities: Relax at the full-service spa, where you can enjoy massages, body treatments, and facials. You're sure to appreciate the recreational amenities, which include 3 outdoor swimming pools and a health club. Additional features at this hotel include complimentary wireless Internet access, concierge services, and wedding services. Guests can get to nearby shops on the complimentary shuttle.
Dining: Grab a bite to eat at Shutters Restaurant, a restaurant where you can enjoy drinks at the bar, take in the garden view, and even dine alfresco. You can also stay in and take advantage of the 24-hour room service. Quench your thirst with your favorite drink at the poolside bar.
Business, Other Amenities: Featured amenities include a 24-hour business center, complimentary newspapers in the lobby, and dry cleaning/laundry services. A train station pick-up service is provided at no charge, and free self parking is available onsite.


Montgomery County, TN – The Clarksville Montgomery County Green Certification Program (CMCGCP) held the second green ribbon cutting of the week on September 25th, 2018 to celebrate Heritage Bank's completion of the Certification Program.
The ceremony was attended by Clarksville Mayor Kim McMillan, Melinda Shepard of the Clarksville Chamber of Commerce, David Graham Director of Bi-County Solid Waste, CMCGCP Steering Committee member Rose Melton (Altra Federal Credit Union), CMCGCP Steering Committee member Doug Jones (Montgomery County), and CMCGCP Manager Carlye Sommers.
Clarksville Montgomery County Green Ribbon Cutting for Heritage Bank. (L to R) Melinda Shepard, Rose Melton, Barbara Clifton, David Graham, Amber Empson, Kasey Bright, Mayor Kim McMillan, Doug Jones, Chase Clark, Scott Sandridge.
Heritage Bank, which began the Certification Program earlier this year, had already actively recycled white paper.
After going through the Program, Heritage Bank expanded its recycling to include all recyclables such as plastics and cardboard.
Kasey Bright, a Heritage Bank Customer Service Representative, explained how the bank has worked to keep lights off in unused offices, and added programmable thermostats to reduce energy use. Customer Service Representative Amber Empson added that the bank also donates used printer cartridges to the Humane Society and newspapers to Precious Friends.
Mayor McMillan congratulated the employees on their hard work and dedication to the Program and asked if these green practices were also taking place at home. Mrs. Empson confirmed the employees have increased recycling at home and occasionally bring their recycling into work for disposal.


BIG BAD WOLF, now old and residing in the Villain Villa Senior Center, is invited to a tea by a children's librarian. His best friend, a toothsome crocodile, warns him that he will have to mind his manners. B. B. Wolf makes up a song: "Sip your tea and never slurp, say 'excuse me' if you burp. Smile and have a lot of fun, but don't go biting anyone." He remembers to say "please" and "thank you" and he gives a nervous Red Ridinghood, Three Little Pigs, and Gingerbread Boy his biggest smile ever, but when his stomach starts to gurgle, he gets a little mixed-up about what to do when you burp. This hilarious read-aloud story is a gentle reminder for children still learning their manners.
When B.B. Wolf, who now lives in the Villain Villa Retirement Residence, is invited to the library for a storybook tea, he is careful to follow the advice of his crocodile friend and impresses everyone with how polite he can be.
Sierra, J., & Seibold, J. O. (2007). Mind your manners, B.B. Wolf. New York: Knopf.
Sierra, Judy and J. Otto, Seibold. 2007. Mind Your Manners, B.B. Wolf. New York: Knopf.
Sierra, Judy and J. Otto, Seibold, Mind Your Manners, B.B. Wolf. New York: Knopf, 2007.
Sierra, Judy., and J. Otto Seibold. Mind Your Manners, B.B. Wolf. New York: Knopf, 2007. Print.
|a Mind your manners, B.B. Wolf / |c by Judy Sierra ; illustrated by J. Otto Seibold.
|a When B.B. Wolf, who now lives in the Villain Villa Retirement Residence, is invited to the library for a storybook tea, he is careful to follow the advice of his crocodile friend and impresses everyone with how polite he can be.
|a Seibold, J. Otto, |e ill.


text:
You are here: Home | Forum | Leadership who is the next PM?
Cable Forum > General Discussion > Current Affairs
Leadership who is the next PM?
Ice Cold
Location: Leeds, Seacroft
Services: XL TV M Phone 200MB BB
1/11 Boris Johnson. ...
2/11 Esther McVey. ...
3/11 Michael Gove. ...
4/11 Dominic Raab. ...
5/11 Amber Rudd. ...
6/11 Sajid Javid. ...
7/11 Jeremy Hunt. ...
8/11 David Davis.
Boris Johnson, former foreign secretary
Resigned from the cabinet over May's Chequers plan last July. Has argued that a no-deal exit would reflect the result of the 2016 referendum. The former mayor of London was once seen as the "Heineken candidate" capable of reaching voters other Tories could not. But his star has waned among Tory MPs left unimpressed by his two years as foreign secretary.
His popularity among Tory activists would give him a strong chance of winning if he made the final shortlist, but he might be blocked by a determined "stop Boris" campaign already being planned by his critics. If successful, the move would anger many Tory activists.
Andrea Leadsom, former Commons leader
Resigned from the cabinet on the eve of the European elections, saying she no longer believed the government's approach would deliver the Brexit referendum result the people voted for.
She showed her inexperience in the 2016 leadership election, withdrawing to leave May as the last candidate standing after making comments appearing to suggest she would make a better leader because she had children.
The former Commons leader has strong support among Brexiteers.
Sajid Javid, home secretary
Backed Remain in 2016 referendum despite his Eurosceptic instincts. Now a keen Brexiteer, and prepared to keep a no-deal exit on the table. Has consistently challenged May in cabinet meetings.
Ambitious and has a brilliant backstory as the son of Pakistani bus driver who came to the UK with £1 in his pocket. But appears to be suffering from the curse of being one of the frontrunners in the Tory race. His stock has fallen recently after what some MPs see as unforced errors such as his handling of migrants crossing the English channel and his decision to strip Isis schoolgirl Shamima Begum of her UK citizenship.
Jeremy Hunt, foreign secretary
Remainer who briefly supported a Final Say referendum on the Brexit deal after the 2016 vote. Now rejects the idea, and is seen as a born-again Brexiteer who also wants to keep a no-deal departure on the table.
His pitch would be as the candidate who could unite the Tories' warring factions. Tory members might judge him too much of a Remainer. Critics worry that his long stint as health secretary could return to haunt him at a general election. Could benefit from a slide in Javid's fortunes, but will not want to overtake him to become the frontrunner.
Michael Gove, environment secretary
Along with Johnson, headed the victorious Vote Leave campaign in the 2016 referendum. Even his critics admit he is one of the few successful departmental ministers since his surprise return to May's cabinet in 2017, a year after she sacked him.
Has been a loyal and articulate promoter of the withdrawal agreement. Critics see this as in part an attempt to shed his reputation as an assassin who turned on Johnson to run for the leadership in 2016.
Gove's refusal to join other Brexiteers in resigning from the cabinet might count against him among Eurosceptics. However, many of them are now coming round to his strategy of getting the deal "over the line" to save Brexit.
Dominic Raab, former Brexit secretary
Eurosceptic former chief of staff to David Davis, and followed his path by becoming and then resigning as Brexit secretary, complaining he was kept out of the loop by May and her civil service negotiator Olly Robbins. Displayed a grip on the detail while in the job, and impressed May allies in the 2016 referendum when he campaigned for Leave. But did not impress Brussels officials.
A fresh face, although his relative lack of cabinet experience could count against him. But a dark horse to watch in a leadership race. Has a big decision to make: will he back May's deal if Johnson does, or decide to have clean hands and oppose it to the end, and potentially be on the losing side?
Matt Hancock, health secretary
[B]A new entrant in the leadership race and, at 40, could be the youngest candidate. A rare breed in the May government as a survivor of David Cameron's regime: before becoming an MP in 2010, he was chief of staff to George Osborne. Impressed as culture secretary, as one of the few UK politicians to understand the digital era and power of the internet giants. Has also shown grip in a testing job since his promotion to health and social care secretary.
Smooth media performer who does not lack ambition. Described by some MPs as "a better version of Jeremy Hunt", he is Remainer-turned-Leaver who could unite his fractious party. Has gone into bat for May's deal when others kept their head down. Could be part of a "stop Boris" drive in which Johnson's rivals try to share out MPs' votes to keep him off the shortlist. Seen by some Tories as the leader after next.
Esther McVey
A Brexit supporter and former TV presenter, Esther McVey quit as work and pensions secretary last November in protest at Mrs May's withdrawal agreement with the EU.
Asked on Talk Radio whether she would run for leader, the MP for Tatton, in Cheshire, said: "I've always said quite clearly that if I got enough support from colleagues then, yes, I would, and now people have come forward and I have that support."
Priti Patel
Elected as MP for Witham in May 2010, she served as a minister in the Treasury and Department of Work and Pensions before being appointed international development secretary.
She resigned from the cabinet in 2017 after disclosures she had held a series of unofficial meetings with senior Israeli figures.
But she is admired on the right of the party for her strong pro-Brexit stance.
Penny Mordaunt
Penny Mordaunt became the UK's first female defence secretary in May this year after Gavin Williamson was sacked
With a background as a naval reservist, and having served as an armed forces minister under David Cameron, Ms Mordaunt seemed well prepared for the role.
The former international development secretary was a high-profile campaigner for the Leave campaign during the 2016 EU referendum and underlined her pro-Brexit credentials by backing Andrea Leadsom in the subsequent Conservative leadership contest. This time around, she is touted as a contender in her own right.
Sir Graham Brady
The long-standing chairman of the Conservative backbench 1922 Committee resigned his position shortly after Mrs May's announcement and said he was considering running.
"I have been urged by a number of colleagues from across the party from inside Parliament, and outside, asking me to put myself forward as a candidate," he told the BBC. "Therefore, I have made the decision to stand down as chair of the 1922 Committee in order to ensure a fair and transparent election process."
Sir Graham, knighted in the 2018 New Year Honours, has been a Conservative MP since 1997, chairing the 1922 Committee since 2010.
A leading cabinet Remainer, Amber Rudd resigned as home secretary in April last year over the Windrush scandal, after many people from Commonwealth countries who had legally lived in Britain for decades were wrongly classed as illegal immigrants and deported.
She returned six months later, replacing Esther McVey as work and pensions secretary, after an investigation blamed officials for the debacle.
She spearheads a 60-strong bloc of Tories called the One Nation Conservative Caucus, a group opposing a no-deal Brexit.
"The Conservative Party is entering a new phase and we here in this room are determined to shape that phase. Sometimes our voices aren't heard quite as vocally as they should be," she told the launch.
The former prisons minister was appointed international development secretary in early May, in a reshuffle that followed Gavin Williamson's sacking.
Although once a Remain supporter, he said he accepted Brexit but wanted "to reach out to Remain voters as well to bring this country together again".
"The only way I can do that is by moving beyond my brief and beginning to lay out, whether it's on climate change or any of these other issues, what I think it would mean to be a country we can be proud of," he told the BBC's Political Thinking With Nick Robinson podcast.
Liz Truss
A Brexit-friendly right-winger, the chief secretary to the Treasury has been making thinly veiled leadership speeches for some time.
The MP for South West Norfolk was the first woman justice secretary.
She caused a stir on social media in her earlier role of environment secretary when she told the Tory party conference in a dramatic voice that "we import two-thirds of our cheese. That. Is. A. Disgrace".
I thought a seperate post might be better for this please post up if I have forgot anyone?
Maybe we should do a poll?
Find More Posts by Gavin78
Carth
cf.geek
Location: At the Leaving door
Re: Leadership who is the next PM?
I see a few on there that 'drift with the tide' regarding Brexit.
Doubt I could trust anyone that can't make a decision and stick to it.
come to think of it, that rules out just about everyone above the position of door knob polisher and cushion arranger doesn't it
The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it - 'T. Pratchett'
Find More Posts by Carth
denphone
Still alive and fighting
Location: In the land of beyond and beyond.
Services: XL BB, 2 V6 boxes , XL TV.
Can one of the mods put a poll option in please.
"The only lesson you can learn from history is that it repeats itself"
Find More Posts by denphone
papa smurf
vox populi vox dei
Location: the last resort
Services: every thing
It baffles me when they say there's lots of talent in the party,if there is i can't see it.
links posted from news sources are not necessarily my opinion
i don't have the time or the crayons to keep explaining this
Find More Posts by papa smurf
10 yrs same company 
Location: Expanding Town with crap roads
Services: ? BB, L Digi TV, basic phone.
Of those only Rory Stewart seems potentially able to unite the party. Amber Rudd has already withdrawn.
Truth always poses doubts & questions. Only lies are 100% believable, because they don't need to justify reality. - Carlos Ruiz Zafon, The Labyrinth of the Spirits
Find More Posts by Angua
Originally Posted by Angua
They won't have him as he is a remainer.
I thought they were trying to put a stop to anyone pro brexit? which kind of rules out Esther McVey as I'm sure she said no deal was a prefered option.
Experience is everything
Location: Wokingham
Services: 2 V6 boxes; Full House; Now TV, Amazon and Netflix; VM broadband and landline
Originally Posted by Gavin78
Boris is the favourite, Gavin, so no deal is now highly likely.
Find More Posts by OLD BOY
Originally Posted by OLD BOY
Favourite he might be but 66% of favourites get beaten...
pip08456
Sad Doig Fan!
Location: Barry South Wales
Services: Now back with VM for BB & phone. 50Mb service.
Boris is favourite with party members, MPs could easily prevent him making it to the final 2.
Find More Posts by pip08456
Originally Posted by pip08456
l suspect they will as he might be a real darling with party members but among Tory MP's he has plenty of enemies who see him as a ambitious , polarising , duplicitous and mendacious figure.
Originally Posted by denphone
Just an average MP then.
cf.mega poster
Location: Kairdiff-by-the-sea
Services: TVXL BBXL Superhub 2ac (wired) 1Tb Tivo
Boris might be the popular choice amongst the lower ranks and non-members, but he is considered total poison by the higher ranks and those-who-must-be-obeyed.
So I suspect it'll be someone dragged out from the darkness.
Find More Posts by Taf
Originally Posted by Taf
It'll have to be someone from the right side of the brexit argument or the party will be irreparably damaged.
Originally Posted by papa smurf
But they are already deeply damaged and until the make their way back to the middle ground of politics they will never get a overall majority again as hung parliaments and coalitions will dominate British politics for the foreseeable future.


I'm having problems activating my SN account. I've been through the procedure and Squeezenetwork tells me that it's sent an activation e-mail to the address I gave, but this doesn't arrive. I've been trying for over 24-hours now. Any ideas?
in, it will give you the opportunity to resend the activation email.
Thanks, I've tried the 'resend' option several times, but without result and I don't filter spam. Any more ideas?
I tried creating an account with a slimdevices@forename.surname.name account and received no activation email. A more conventional .co.uk account received an activation email within seconds.
I don't know if it will help sort out any problems but I tried to register at about 9pm (UK) last night using the same email address that I am subscribed to the mailing list with (DJMiles@dial.pipex.com) but got no activation email by this morning.
I asked for it to be resent but had not received anything a couple of hours later.
I then created a new account with the address (djm@trimoslie.co.uk) and got the activation email within a couple of minutes.
Neither of these accounts has any (automatic) spam filters.
Thanks guys, it's always nice to know that it isn't just me. So, where do I go from here?
>Thanks guys, it's always nice to know that it isn't just me. So, where do I go from here?
We're working on it - looks like the remote mail server isn't liking our "From" address.
Just to let you know that as a short-term fix I managed to activate my SqueezeNetwork account using my Hotmail <spit> address.
If I enable using a different mail address ... can I then change the address in my profile without requiring additional activation emails?
if you register with a different email address then you can change the address later but the screen says that you will have to go through the activation process again (so I guess that the SB2 would become unlinked until complete).
So - I have registered for SQN again - with the "wrong" email address (but one that accepts email from SQN) and I'll change the address in my SQN profile once freeserve.co.uk starts accepting SQN email.


Fast and very good quotations, informed advisers to help you choose the correct merchandise that suits all your preferences, a short creation time, responsible excellent command and different companies for paying and shipping affairs for Weldlok Expanded Mesh , weldlok expanded mesh , welding expanded mesh , to achieve a win-win situation and common prosperity.
As for competitive charges, we believe that you will be searching far and wide for anything that can beat us. We will state with absolute certainty that for such excellent at such charges we have been the lowest around for Weldlok Expanded Mesh , weldlok expanded mesh , welding expanded mesh , So We also continuously function. we focuse on high quality and are conscious of the importance of environmental protection most of the merchandise are pollution-free environmentally friendly merchandise reuse on the solution. We have Updated our catalog which introduces our organization. n detail and covers the primary goods we present at existing You may also visit our web-site which involves our most recent product line. We look forward to reactivating our company connection.


> 6000, Studio, Recorder, FM Recorder, Recorder V2 and Ondio MP3 players.
> "Google Is Your Friend" ??
> some reason which you may or may not want/be able to rectify.
I have now submitted an update suggestion.
Next message: Sander Sweers: "Re: Where in the world are Rockbox users?"
Previous message: Bluechip: "Re: (????-??????????)Re: Iriver crashing loads"
In reply to: Bluechip: "Re: (????-??????????)Re: Iriver crashing loads"


Streetlight number 2 on the junction of Spruce Drive and ZHornbeam Road not working. In addition, the tree by it needs a severe cut as when the light is working, it is unable to provide any light due to it being completely covered. Very dark and very dangerous.
Tree issue forwarded to tree team to investigate and respond.
Thank you for your enquiry. We have investigated your report and have instructed our contractors. Works will be carried out in the coming weeks.
Light still not working, can't believe another month has gone by!
Still not fixed and it's now 2 months!!!! Disgusting behaviour from the council. Letter on its way to our MP..


text:
CBRE Visit cbre.co.uk
Our guide to buying
Browse London properties for sale
Student Rentals in London
Lettings market appraisal
London Bridge Yuki Search Letting 1443
Yuki textblock
Majestic harbourfront residences
The Revy is a landmark on the harbour and a new benchmark for living in Sydney. Historically significant, this stately red brick building is being converted into just 46 unparalleled freehold residences.
With two, three or four bedroom configurations you will find an ideal layout suitable to you. Crowning its eight storeys, a rooftop terrace affords unobstructed views over the harbour.
The apartments are unique in their plan, all having exposure to the east and west, and thus the rise and fall of the sun.
Time is therefore experienced at a macro level in the design details and on a micro level as the day goes from dawn till dusk.
Through a focus on distinctive detailing, the internal architecture illustrates the bridge between the historical legacy and a new generation.
Sales portfolio
Work with CBRE
© 2020 CBRE HK Limited, 12/F Three Exchange Square 8 Connaught Place, Central, Hong Kong Estate Agent's License (Co.) No. C-004065 * Guide Prices are calculated based on exchanges rates published on 21/01/16, and are intended for informational purposes only