Lack of Uniform Jurisdiction Sample Clauses

Lack of Uniform Jurisdiction. At the time of the 1929 Warsaw Conference, the possibility of enforcing a decision in another jurisdiction was discussed. The drafters of the 1929 Warsaw Convention were aware that sometimes an action would have to be introduced in a certain jurisdiction, but that the final decision would have to be enforced in another, for example where the debtor’s assets could be found.210 This situation was explored when the competence of the place of the accident was contemplated as a possible forum. The existence of different fora is a response to this lack of automatic recognition of foreign decisions, as the plaintiffs would then have a greater chance to introduce their action in a State where a final decision could easily be enforced. Notwithstanding the above, the creation of an international specialized Court would have had the advantage of solving this question, but more essentially, would have prevented the existence of conflicting, or at least opposing decisions. Another substantial advantage of a common global Court would have been to provide a uniform interpretation of the Conven- tions.211 Such a common global Court would have indeed prevented, or at least mitigated, what Xxxxxxxxx Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxxx named in 1964 the ‘désuni- fication judiciaire’.212 The idea of such a common global Court is not new, but has always been thwarted by national resistance. As a matter of fact, an international 209 See, section 3.2.4.3(4). 210 See, for example, ICAO Doc 7838, II Conférence Internationale de Droit Privé Aérien, 4-12 Octobre 1929, Procès-Verbaux, Varsovie, 1930, p. 79-80. 211 Suggestions will be made in these regards below. See, section 5.3.1. 212 Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxxx, Transport Aérien International et Responsabilité 222 (Les Presses de l’Université de Montréal, 1964). aviation Court for private law matters213 was already discussed at the time of the negotiations of the 1952 Rome Convention, but no common agree- ment was reached at this stage. Since none of the delegates were willing to risk delaying the signing of the agreed-upon text, the 1952 Rome Confer- ence merely made the following recommendation to the ICAO to examine this question:
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs

Related to Lack of Uniform Jurisdiction

  • 000 JURISDICTION 8.100 Project maintenance conditions do not always justify adherence to craft lines which, in itself, does not establish precedent or change the appropriate jurisdiction of the crafts involved. Composite crews may be formed where conditions warrant, but this is not to be construed under regular operating conditions as the Company's prerogative to assign men out of their usual skill classification.

  • WORK JURISDICTION Par. 1. It is agreed by the parties to this Agreement that all work specified in Article IV shall be performed exclusively by Elevator Constructor Mechanics, Elevator Constructor Helpers, Elevator Constructor Apprentices and Elevator Constructor Assistant Mechanics in the employ of the Company.

  • TRADE JURISDICTION This Article does not apply to Appendix "A", Sheeting and Decking. Refer to Clause 19, Local Appendices for additional provisions. This Agreement covers the rates of pay, rules and working conditions of all employees of the employer engaged in but not limited to:

  • Applicable Law; Jurisdiction This Agreement shall be governed by and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of New Jersey without regard to the principles of conflict of laws. The parties further agree that any action between them shall be heard in Xxxxxx County, New Jersey, and expressly consent to the jurisdiction and venue of the Superior Court of New Jersey, sitting in Xxxxxx County and the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey sitting in Newark, New Jersey for the adjudication of any civil action asserted pursuant to this Paragraph.

  • LAW & JURISDICTION This Call-Off Agreement and/or any non-contractual obligations or matters arising out of or in connection with it, shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the Laws of England and Wales and without prejudice to the dispute resolution procedures set out in Clause CO-14 or CO-19 (Dispute Resolution) each Party agrees to submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales and for all disputes to be conducted within England and Wales.

  • Continuing Jurisdiction of the Court The Parties agree that, after entry of Judgment, the Court will retain jurisdiction over the Parties, Action, and the Settlement solely for purposes of (i) enforcing this Agreement and/or Judgment, (ii) addressing settlement administration matters, and (iii) addressing such post-Judgment matters as are permitted by law.

  • Tax Status Non Jurisdictional Entities Tax Status.‌‌ Each Party shall cooperate with the other Parties to maintain the other Parties’ tax status. Nothing in this Agreement is intended to adversely affect the tax status of any Party including the status of NYISO, or the status of any Connecting Transmission Owner with respect to the issuance of bonds including, but not limited to, Local Furnishing Bonds. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Agreement, LIPA, NYPA and Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. shall not be required to comply with any provisions of this Agreement that would result in the loss of tax-exempt status of any of their Tax-Exempt Bonds or impair their ability to issue future tax-exempt obligations. For purposes of this provision, Tax-Exempt Bonds shall include the obligations of the Long Island Power Authority, NYPA and Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., the interest on which is not included in gross income under the Internal Revenue Code. Non-Jurisdictional Entities. LIPA and NYPA do not waive their exemptions, pursuant to Section 201(f) of the FPA, from Commission jurisdiction with respect to the Commission’s exercise of the FPA’s general ratemaking authority.

  • Arbitrator's Jurisdiction The jurisdiction and authority of the arbitrator and his opinion and award shall be confined exclusively to the interpretation and/or application of the provision(s) of this Agreement at issue between the Union and the Administration. The arbitrator shall have no authority to add to, detract from, alter, amend, or modify any provision of this Agreement; to impose on either party a limitation or obligation not explicitly provided for in this Agreement; or to establish or alter any wage rate or wage structure. The arbitrator shall not hear or decide more than one grievance without the mutual consent of the Administration and the Union. The written award of the arbitrator on the merits of any grievance adjudicated within his jurisdiction and authority shall be final and binding on the aggrieved employee, the Union and the Administration, unless either party contests it before a court of competent jurisdiction as permitted by state law.

  • JURISDICTION & VENUE In the event that any action is brought to enforce any provision of this Master Contract, the parties agree to exclusive jurisdiction in Xxxxxxxx County Superior Court for the State of Washington and agree that in any such action venue shall lie exclusively at Olympia, Washington.

  • Governing Jurisdiction 34.1 This Contract shall be governed by and construed in accordance with English Law.

Time is Money Join Law Insider Premium to draft better contracts faster.