Last Resort Sample Clauses

Last Resort. “ ... any party having invoked the dispute settlement procedures may request authorization from the DSB to suspend the application to the Member concerned of concessions or other obligations under the covered agreements”. (Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes, Article 22) • Development dimension • Flexibility • Right to Regulate • Smooth operation “The fact that commitments on market access and national treatment are subjects of concessions, provided under a positive list, is of great importance to developing countries as it allows members to determine, in terms of their own national development strategy and policy, the individual service sector or transaction that they are willing to open up at a given time, Mauritius on behalf of the African Group (WTO document S/CSS/W/7, Oct. 2000)7 Three possible Scenarios ...

Last Resort. Movement of φ to Specψ is contingent on feature checking between φ and ψ. eat+v VP Spec-head agreement It is then not entirely correct to think of feature checking as being the “trigger” for movement. If this were the case, we would end up in an infinite loop: movement must be triggered by feature checking, and feature checking can only apply a er movement (in spec-head configuration). Rather, one has to think about Last Resort as a condition that is checked a er movement has applied. If the movement is followed by feature checking, the condition is fulfilled, otherwise not. Spec-head agreement Further motivation (Kayne 1989): In French, past-participle agreement with the object does not arise if the object remains in the position where it is merged (12-a). Only if the object moves (e.g., because it is a clitic) does past-participle agreement becomes possible (12-b). On the way to its final position, the clitic makes an “intermediate stop” in the specifier of the projection responsible for participle agreement (let’s say an outer Specv), thereby inducing the specifier-head configuration necessary for agreement (13). ▇. ▇▇▇▇ ▇ repeint-(*es) les chaises. ▇▇▇▇ has ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇-▇▇▇.▇▇ the ▇▇▇▇▇▇.▇▇▇.▇▇ ‘▇▇▇▇ painted the chairs (again).’ ▇. ▇▇▇▇ les a repeint-es. ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇.▇▇▇.▇▇ has ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇-▇▇▇.▇▇ ‘▇▇▇▇ painted them (again).’ Spec-head agreement

Last Resort. A question much discussed in relation to Iraq but relevant also to the use of force in Afghanistan and elsewhere is whether the military intervention was, as it must be under the law, a last resort, with all peaceful means having been exhausted in accordance with Article 2(3) of the Charter. According to state- ments by the US President and UK Prime Minister, the bombardment of Afghanistan and the Taleban was justified, in part, by reference to the fact that attempts to secure the extradition of ▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇ and others had been unsuccessful. Before 9/11, extradition of ▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇ had certainly been sought through the Security Council,283 although post 9/11 it took the form of a demand, outwith the extradition process, that he and others be ‘turned over’ for extradition from the United States.284 Did this suggest that military action (at least against the Taleban) may not have been necessary if the Taleban had cooperated and been ‘prepared to give up ▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇’?285 It is a question of fact whether all efforts to handle this matter by the criminal law route were exhausted, whether the international cooperation was fully engaged and exhausted, whether the requests for extra- dition could have been made more effective if bolstered by robust international coordination (and backed up where necessary by Security Council authorisation that members of the Taleban leadership opposed 9/11for strategic reasons. 282 Tams, ‘The Use of Force’, note 50, p. 378. 283 See, e.g., SC Res. 1333 (2000), 19 December 2000, UN Doc. S/RES/1333 (2000). Post 9/11, the Council again urged compliance with earlier resolutions. ‘Security Council Urges Taliban to Comply with Texts Ordering ▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇ Handover’, United Nations News Centre, 18 September 2001, available at: ▇▇▇▇://▇▇▇.▇▇.▇▇▇/apps/news/storyAr.asp?NewsID=1501 &Cr=iraq&Cr1=. 284 Reportedly the U.S. demanded extradition, the Taleban requested proof of ▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇’s involvement and later (with the prospect of air strikes looming) said it would consider turning him over to a third country but the U.S. administration indicated that it would not negotiate. After strikes began, the Taleban reiterated its offer: see, e.g., Toronto Star,6 October 2001, p. A4; or Associated Press, 7 October 2001): ‘Under Islamic law, we can put him on trial according to allegations raised against him and then the evidence would be provided to the court.’ It may be that cooperation was not feasible and would not have weakened al-Qaeda sufficiently, but, as has ...

Last Resort. An operation OP involving α may apply only if some property of α is satisfied.

Last Resort. The Directors agree that, prior to directing the Officers to send a Loan Request to the Shareholders, the Directors shall utilize their best efforts to obtain non-recourse or limited-recourse financing to cover any cash needs of the Corporation. If non-recourse financing is not available, the Directors shall attempt to obtain financing in which all Shareholders provide a limited recourse personal guaranty (guaranty based on Voting Percentage). In the event that neither non-recourse, nor limited-recourse financing is available, the Directors may request each Shareholder to make a Shareholder Loan as set forth in this agreement. The fact that the Directors elect to obtain third party financing, in which less than all Shareholders offer their personal guaranties shall not affect the ability of those Shareholders guarantying such loan to the recover from the non-guarantying Shareholders pursuant to this agreement.