GATT and WTO jurisprudence 807 Sample Clauses

GATT and WTO jurisprudence 807 for the invocation of Article XXI:(b)(iii) by the United States. ”229 Some other GATT Contracting Parties, such as Canada and the European Communities agreed with the United States that Article XXI issues were political questions not sub- ject to panel scrutiny.230 The panel nevertheless referred to the question in the following terms: “If it were accepted that the interpretation of Article XXI was reserved entirely to the contracting party invoking it, how could the CONTRACTING PARTIES ensure that this general exception to all obligations under the General Agreement is not invoked excessively or for the purposes other than those set out in this provision? If the CONTRACTING PARTIES give a panel the task of examining a case involving an Article XXI invocation without authorizing it to examine the justification of that provision, do they limit the adversely affected contracting party’s right to have its complaint investigated in accordance with Article XXIII:2?”231 In 1991, as a consequence of the civil war in the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, the European Communities decided to restrict trade explicitly on the grounds of Article XXI.232 Yugoslavia requested the establishment of a panel and argued that the requirements of neither Article XXI(b) nor (c) were met. This could have been the first case in which a panel could have properly analyzed the scope of Article XXI. However, given the uncertainties about the status of Serbia and Montenegro (XXX) as Party to the GATT, the proceedings were suspended by a Council decision in 1993. Two other situations relating to Article XXI during the GATT era deserve to be mentioned, although they did not reach the level of a formalized dispute under GATT Article XXIII. One is the situation arising out of the sanctions imposed on Argentina in 1982 referred to above (Section 2.1). The other relates to the boycott of Portuguese goods imposed by Ghana in 1961. The particularity of this case resides in the fact that Ghana invoked Article XXI, arguing that each contracting party was the sole judge of what was necessary in its essential security interests and, therefore, there could not be an objection to the boycott.233 After the establishment of the WTO, there has been no dispute related to Article 73. However, disputes related to the national security exception under other WTO agreements arose in connection with the extra-territorial effects of some U.S. legislation, notably the Cuban Liberty and Democratic...
Sample 1
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs

Related to GATT and WTO jurisprudence 807

  • GOVERNING LAW AND SUBMISSION TO JURISDICTION 11.1 This Agreement and any non-contractual obligations arising out of or in connection with it are governed by, and shall be construed in accordance with, the laws of England.

  • Submission to Jurisdiction Each party submits to the nonexclusive jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and of any New York State Court sitting in New York, New York for legal proceedings relating to this Agreement. Each party irrevocably waives, to the fullest extent permitted by law, any objection that it may now or in the future have to the venue of a proceeding brought in such a court and any claim that the proceeding was brought in an inconvenient forum.

  • Governing Law; Submission to Jurisdiction This Agreement and each Note shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of New York. The Borrower hereby submits to the nonexclusive jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and of any New York State court sitting in New York City for purposes of all legal proceedings arising out of or relating to this Agreement or the transactions contemplated hereby. The Borrower irrevocably waives, to the fullest extent permitted by law, any objection which it may now or hereafter have to the laying of the venue of any such proceeding brought in such a court and any claim that any such proceeding brought in such a court has been brought in an inconvenient forum.

  • Governing Law: Submission to Jurisdiction, Etc This Agreement and any claim, controversy or dispute arising under or related to this Agreement, the relationship of the parties, and/or the interpretation and enforcement of the rights and duties of the parties shall be enforced, governed, and construed in all respects (whether in contract or in tort) in accordance with the federal law of the United States if and to the extent such law is applicable, and otherwise in accordance with the laws of the State of New York applicable to contracts made and to be performed entirely within such State. Each of the parties hereto agrees (a) to submit to the exclusive jurisdiction and venue of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and the United States Court of Federal Claims for any and all civil actions, suits or proceedings arising out of or relating to this Agreement or the Purchase contemplated hereby and (b) that notice may be served upon (i) the Company at the address and in the manner set forth for notices to the Company in Section 5.7 and (ii) Treasury at the address and in the manner set forth for notices to the Company in Section 5.7, but otherwise in accordance with federal law. TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, EACH OF THE PARTIES HERETO HEREBY UNCONDITIONALLY WAIVES TRIAL BY JURY IN ANY CIVIL LEGAL ACTION OR PROCEEDING RELATING TO THIS AGREEMENT OR THE PURCHASE CONTEMPLATED HEREBY.

  • Governing Law; Consent to Jurisdiction The corporate laws of the State of Delaware shall govern all issues concerning the relative rights of the Company and its shareholders. All other questions concerning the construction, validity, enforcement and interpretation of this Agreement shall be governed by the internal laws of the State of New York, without giving effect to any choice of law or conflict of law provision or rule (whether of the State of New York or any other jurisdictions) that would cause the application of the laws of any jurisdictions other than the State of New York. Each party hereby irrevocably submits to the exclusive jurisdiction of the state and federal courts sitting in the City of New York, for the adjudication of any dispute hereunder or in connection herewith or therewith, or with any transaction contemplated hereby or discussed herein, and hereby irrevocably waives, and agrees not to assert in any suit, action or proceeding, any claim that it is not personally subject to the jurisdiction of any such court, that such suit, action or proceeding is brought in an inconvenient forum or that the venue of such suit, action or proceeding is improper. Each party hereby irrevocably waives personal service of process and consents to process being served in any such suit, action or proceeding by mailing a copy thereof to such party at the address for such notices to it under this Agreement and agrees that such service shall constitute good and sufficient service of process and notice thereof. Nothing contained herein shall be deemed to limit in any way any right to serve process in any manner permitted by law. EACH PARTY HEREBY IRREVOCABLY WAIVES ANY RIGHT IT MAY HAVE, AND AGREES NOT TO REQUEST, A JURY TRIAL FOR THE ADJUDICATION OF ANY DISPUTE HEREUNDER OR IN CONNECTION HEREWITH OR ARISING OUT OF THIS AGREEMENT OR ANY TRANSACTION CONTEMPLATED HEREBY.

  • Submission to Jurisdiction; Waivers Each party hereto hereby irrevocably and unconditionally:

  • Consent to Jurisdiction EACH PARTY HEREBY IRREVOCABLY SUBMITS TO THE NON-EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF THE STATE AND FEDERAL COURTS SITTING IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK, BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, FOR THE ADJUDICATION OF ANY DISPUTE HEREUNDER OR IN CONNECTION WITH ANY TRANSACTION CONTEMPLATED HEREBY, AND HEREBY IRREVOCABLY WAIVES, AND AGREES NOT TO ASSERT IN ANY SUIT, ACTION OR PROCEEDING, ANY CLAIM THAT IT IS NOT PERSONALLY SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF ANY SUCH COURT, THAT SUCH SUIT, ACTION OR PROCEEDING IS BROUGHT IN AN INCONVENIENT FORUM OR THAT THE VENUE OF SUCH SUIT, ACTION OR PROCEEDING IS IMPROPER. EACH PARTY HEREBY IRREVOCABLY WAIVES PERSONAL SERVICE OF PROCESS AND CONSENTS TO PROCESS BEING SERVED IN ANY SUCH SUIT, ACTION OR PROCEEDING BY MAILING A COPY THEREOF (CERTIFIED OR REGISTERED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED) TO SUCH PARTY AT THE ADDRESS IN EFFECT FOR NOTICES TO IT UNDER THIS AGREEMENT AND AGREES THAT SUCH SERVICE SHALL CONSTITUTE GOOD AND SUFFICIENT SERVICE OF PROCESS AND NOTICE THEREOF. NOTHING CONTAINED HEREIN SHALL BE DEEMED TO LIMIT IN ANY WAY ANY RIGHT TO SERVE PROCESS IN ANY MANNER PERMITTED BY LAW.

  • GOVERNING LAW; VENUE; CONSENT TO JURISDICTION This Agreement is to be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Oregon without regard to principles of conflicts of law. Any claim, action, suit or proceeding (collectively “Claim”) between Owner and Architect that arises from or relates to this Agreement shall be brought and conducted solely and exclusively within the Circuit Court of Xxxxxx County for the State of Oregon; provided, however, if a Claim must be brought in a federal forum, it shall be brought and conducted solely and exclusively within the United States District Court for the District of Oregon. In no event shall this Section be construed as a waiver by Owner of any form of defense or immunity, whether based on sovereign immunity, governmental immunity, immunity based on the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution or otherwise. ARCHITECT, BY EXECUTION OF THIS AGREEMENT, HEREBY CONSENTS TO THE IN PERSONAM JURISDICTION OF SAID COURTS.

  • Governing Law; Submission to Jurisdiction; Waiver of Jury Trial THIS AGREEMENT SHALL BE CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, WITHOUT REFERENCE TO ITS CONFLICT OF LAW PROVISIONS, AND THE OBLIGATIONS, RIGHTS AND REMEDIES OF THE PARTIES HEREUNDER SHALL BE DETERMINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SUCH LAWS. EACH OF THE PARTIES HERETO HEREBY SUBMITS TO THE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK AND OF ANY NEW YORK STATE COURT SITTING IN NEW YORK CITY FOR PURPOSES OF ALL LEGAL PROCEEDINGS ARISING OUT OF OR RELATING TO THIS AGREEMENT OR THE TRANSACTIONS CONTEMPLATED HEREBY. EACH OF THE PARTIES HERETO HEREBY FURTHER IRREVOCABLY WAIVES ANY CLAIM THAT ANY SUCH COURTS LACK JURISDICTION OVER SUCH PARTY, AND AGREES NOT TO PLEAD OR CLAIM, IN ANY LEGAL ACTION OR PROCEEDING WITH RESPECT TO THIS AGREEMENT IN ANY OF THE AFORESAID COURTS, THAT ANY SUCH COURT LACKS JURISDICTION OVER SUCH PARTY. EACH OF THE PARTIES HERETO IRREVOCABLY WAIVES, TO THE FULLEST EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW, ANY OBJECTION THAT IT MAY NOW OR HEREAFTER HAVE TO THE LAYING OF THE VENUE OF ANY SUCH PROCEEDING BROUGHT IN SUCH A COURT AND ANY CLAIM THAT ANY SUCH PROCEEDING BROUGHT IN SUCH A COURT HAS BEEN BROUGHT IN AN INCONVENIENT FORUM. EACH PARTY HERETO HEREBY WAIVES, TO THE FULLEST EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, ANY RIGHT IT MAY HAVE TO A TRIAL BY JURY IN RESPECT OF ANY LITIGATION DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY ARISING OUT OF, UNDER OR IN CONNECTION WITH THIS AGREEMENT.

  • Governing Law and Consent to Jurisdiction This Agreement and the legal relations among the parties shall be governed by, and construed and enforced in accordance with, the laws of the State of Delaware, without regard to its conflict of laws rules. The Company and Indemnitee hereby irrevocably and unconditionally (i) agree that any action or proceeding arising out of or in connection with this Agreement shall be brought only in the Chancery Court of the State of Delaware (the “Delaware Court”), and not in any other state or federal court in the United States of America or any court in any other country, (ii) consent to submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Delaware Court for purposes of any action or proceeding arising out of or in connection with this Agreement, (iii) waive any objection to the laying of venue of any such action or proceeding in the Delaware Court, and (iv) waive, and agree not to plead or to make, any claim that any such action or proceeding brought in the Delaware Court has been brought in an improper or inconvenient forum.

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