Preliminary Conclusions Clause Samples

Preliminary Conclusions. International humanitarian law contains a number of obligations for parties to an armed conflict which are applicable to the exploitation and plundering of natural resources in situations of armed conflict. These obligations follow from provisions which afford protection to property and to civilian objects. However, upon closer examination, three problems immediately become apparent. The first concerns the general ability of international humanitarian law to regulate the exploitation of natural resources, which is principally a commercial activity and not an act of warfare. International humanitarian law is not designed to address these types of activities. This is only different for occupation law, which regulates the position of an occupant as a de facto authority. Most importantly, the right of an occupant to exploit natural re- sources is limited to a right of “usufruct” to cover the costs of civilian admin- istration in occupied territory. The second issue that immediately becomes apparent concerns the enormous range of obligations under international humanitarian law. Although there are actually not many rules that apply to the exploitation of natural resources in situations of armed conflict, different rules apply to different conflict situations. Moreover, some of the rules target only one party to the conflict. This asymmetry of obligations for parties to an armed conflict is most apparent in situations of internal armed conflict. For example, the prohibition against seizing or destroying the property of an “adversary” restricts its application to the exploitation of natural resources by non-state armed groups, while the prohibition has no direct relevance for governments. The final problem that is apparent is the failure of IHL to provide adequate protection to the environment in situations of armed conflict. The prohibition against causing widespread, long-term and severe damage to the environment applies only to situations of international armed conflict. Moreover, it has such a high threshold that it would only cover the most extreme cases of environ- mental damage resulting from the exploitation of natural resources. The mass- ive pollution of a river caused by the use of chemicals or the cutting down of a forest encompassing at least several hundred square kilometres are examples of this. More general provisions regarding the protection of property or of objects that are indispensable to the civilian population could fill some of the gaps, b...

Preliminary Conclusions. These early data support the feasibility of intramuscular injections of VM202 in subjects with critical limb ischemia. They suggest that this therapeutic approach may improve functional outcomes and provide symptomatic relief. VM202 is rapidly eliminated from circulation, and appears to remain active only at the injection site. The incidence of complications, while high, did not appear to be significantly different between treatment cohorts. Continued study of VM202 in patients with CLI and / or diabetes is warranted.

Preliminary Conclusions. ▪ High degree of structured information, combined with a limited complexity, makes dentistry well suited for using SNOMED CT

Preliminary Conclusions. A framework agreement is similar to that of a sales contract, except that the price or quantity is not fixed. Moreover, it has a fixed duration which a regular sales contract does not as it is a »one-time deal«.

Preliminary Conclusions. The unprecedented pace of change that the Arctic is currently experiencing makes it difficult to argue that the current international legal and policy framework for Arctic fisheries conservation and management is adequate for responding to the huge challenges that lie ahead. This chapter identifies a number of governance and regulatory gaps in this framework as well as in national regulation and offers various options for addressing them. Some initial steps towards one of these options, namely a declaration on new and existing fisheries in the Arctic Ocean, are underway. Such a declaration would function as a minimum level of protection, despite not being legally binding. It would apply if new fishing opportunities were to arise earlier than foreseen, in the absence of the necessary scientific information, or with potentially higher risks to the protection and preservation of the marine environment, marine bio- diversity and the rights and interests of Arctic indigenous peoples. The pace of change will also determine when negotiations for an Arctic RFMO or Ar- rangement should commence.

Preliminary Conclusions. US law has been classified as an eclectic legal system, meaning that it bears elements of both the common and civil law systems. It also operates a dual system of state law and Federal law. The regulation of close-out netting is no exception to this legal set-up. Outside of a bankruptcy situation it is regulated wholly by the applicable state law. Within bankruptcy the applicable state netting law still applies but only within the confines of the mandatory provisions of the Bankruptcy Code. The US Bankruptcy Code has been generally classified as pro-debtor. This is reflected in various of 161 ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ & ▇▇▇▇▇▇ refer to the leading role taken by ISDA in the drafting of the safe harbours, in particular its involvement in the drafting of BAPCPA and its close collabo- ration with the President’s Working Group on Financial Markets. These authors also suggest that the derivatives industry proliferated, in part, on account of the US law safe harbours. See ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ & ▇▇▇▇▇▇ (2014) 1741. 162 ▇▇▇▇▇ (2014) 102. its provisions, notably in its objective of giving the debtor a second chance and of preserving going-concern value for the benefit of the debtor by the adoption of principles such as the automatic stay. It gives the debtor the choice whether to file for rehabilitation or liquidation under the Bankruptcy Code and it normally entrusts the estate in the hands of the debtor. Two main federal rules have been analysed which regulate the protec- tion given to close-out netting provisions in an insolvency situation, namely section 560 of the Bankruptcy Code in relation to swap agreements and section 403 of FDICIA in relation to bilateral netting. Both provisions are clearly exceptions to the pro-debtor tendencies of US bankruptcy law. The protection of close-out netting under the US safe harbours forms part of the wider protection of contractual rights, a full list of which is provided in the definition of ‘master netting agreement’ in section 101(38A) of the Bankruptcy Code, and which apply in relation to widely-defined financial contracts concluded between financial participants. Not all safe harbours specifically cover this full list of protected rights. The initial safe harbours were intended to give protection to the close-out of contracts in order to crystallise open trading positions and did not stipulate the protection of contractual netting rights. It was only with the enactment of sections 560 and 561 that specific reference was made to off-set and netting ...

Preliminary Conclusions. ‌ The assessment of the application of graphene family material for the water treatment and purification resulted in the identification of main issues to be addressed to evaluate early on its potential impact. Graphene-based membrane properties make them a potential candidate to substitute current water treatment methods, with a potential global diffusion in high amount (thousands of tons). Also, the efficacy and simplicity of certain systems (e.g. the biofoam) can lead to diffusion among consumers of portable systems. On one hand, effective and cheap systems to clean water and produce drinkable water both at general service and personal level is an important achievement toward sustainable and just society. On the other hand, the knowledge about the possible abundant use of graphene in composites, its persistence and hydrophobicity, as well as its substantial toxicity according to conducted studies, implies that graphene should be regarded as a potential environmental and health hazard. According to the 4 preliminary risk hypotheses, from a foresight point of view, there is the need to have more data on (in order of priority): • Emission of graphene form nanocomposites has to be studied in realistic conditions, simulating potential use and accelerated wear. Even indicative measurements can improve the preliminary assessment of adverse impacts. • Workplace emissions have to be better measured characterized at different level (from lab to industry), for the main production methods, those eligible for scaling-up, in order to exclude workers as specific target as well as to identify the need of risk management measures. • Toxicity studies on graphene family materials are still lacking, in number and quality. The European flagship initiative should allow filling the gap by using regulatory acceptable methods. However, there is a very strong focus on development of technical applications, and more investment on the side of safety is needed. From a regulatory point of view, to address the graphene safety, if the production amount will reach the predicted level, there will be a REACH dossier, but it is not clear the level of detail that it will have depending on the tonnage/year of each company. If the number of companies is limited as it seems, it is likely that a detailed dossier will be available in the next 5 to 10 years. However, in the meantime, the only obligation for graphene is in CLP regulation. Water framework directive do not have a reference value for...

Preliminary Conclusions. It is difficult nowadays to decide whether the French netting regime may be classified as liberal or conservative. On the one hand, its scope is more restrictive than that of the FCD since the French legislator opted out partially under its Article 1(3). The French legislator also did not incorporate into the law the FCD standard that close-out netting provisions are enforce- able ‘in accordance with their terms’, which would signal the supremacy given to party autonomy in the recognition of close-out netting provisions. On the other hand, the partial opt-out is extended to include also physical persons, and the law allows the parties total freedom to agree on the modalities of termination, valuation and set-off of their close-out netting arrangements which, when taking into account that these three elements in fact constitute the close-out netting mechanism, is essentially equivalent to the FCD standard of enforcing close-out netting provisions ‘in accordance with their terms’. Originally developed as an offshoot of the termination and set-off (‘résiliation-compensation’) concepts, legislation on close-out netting arrange- ments under French law was adopted earlier than the EU’s Financial Collateral Directive. It can thus be said that under French law the regulation of close-out netting is ‘home-grown’ but also incorporates characteristics which, as stated above, are not different from those of the FCD. Initially, the law regulating close-out netting did not recognise full contractual freedom in bilateral relations since the close-out netting provision had to be based on the applicable framework rules of the relevant market association or on international or national market standard agreements. At this stage, this amounted to self-regulation by the market which was granted recognition by law. In relation to the repo market, the parties were even required to obtain the clearance of the central bank Governor as chairperson of the Commission Bancaire prior to operating their close-out netting arrangement. A process of successive amendments to the law led to its gradual liberalisation. At first, the close-out netting provision operated product by product, based on the set-off requirement of connexity between the obligations being netted. As a result, three different regimes existed for the regulation of different products. This segregation was later questioned as it did not serve any purpose related to close-out netting as a concept and this led to its gradua...

Preliminary Conclusions. To sum up this chapter, overall there are four ways in which contracting au- thorities can organize themselves when establishing framework agreements. This includes common public purchasing, purchasing associations, occasional joint procurement and central purchasing bodies.