Issue 1. Commitments to Tackle the Space Debris Problem One possible way to overcome the legal gap regarding the lack of a clear obligation to mitigate and remove debris is for those more forward-looking States to make commitments and lead international efforts to solve the space debris problem. As to the form of commitments, reference can be made to the GGE Report of 2013, which states that: “The Group endorses efforts to pursue political commitments, for example, in the form of unilateral declarations, bilateral commitments or a multilateral code of conduct, to encourage responsible actions in, and the peaceful use of, outer space. The Group concludes that voluntary political measures can form the basis for consideration of concepts and proposals for legally binding obligations.”1 In other words, political commitments can take a variety of forms, and these commitments may contribute to the further development of international law for the governance of space activities. Accordingly, States could make unilateral, multilateral and global commitments to address the space debris problem. These three forms of commitments will be discussed in Sections 5.1.1 to 5.1.3 below. Besides the State-oriented commitments addressed in 1 UN Doc. A/68/189 (29 July 2013). Report of the Group of Governmental Experts on Transparency and Confidence-Building Measures in Outer Space Activities, para. 69. these three sections, Section 5.1.4 will discuss the “Net Zero Space” initia- tive launched in November 2021 at the Paris Peace Forum which calls upon all stakeholders over the world, ranging from governmental agencies to private actors, to make commitments to debris mitigation and remediation.2
5.1.1 Unilateral Commitment to Debris Mitigation and Remediation At the unilateral level, States could issue unilateral statements to express their determination and commitment to mitigate and remove space debris. In fact, some States have explicitly expressed in their national space policies their political will to promote the development and implementation of ADR programs. For instance, the UK National Space Strategy states that the UK aims to “[l]ead the global effort to make space more sustainable”.3 More specifically, the UK “will explore advanced in-orbit debris removal, servicing, refuelling and assembly technologies, bringing together industry, academia, and government to ensure the UK is ready to grasp the opportunities of the future space economy”.4 With regard to the US, the Orbital Sus...
Issue 1. Height in sub-precinct A
Issue 1. Did the trial judge err in awarding s. 24
Examples of Issue 1 in a sentence
If the Priority Level is Priority Issue 1 or Priority Issue 2 Tmware shall use all reasonable endeavours to resolve the Issue as soon as reasonably possible having regard to the complexity of the problem and shall keep the Customer informed of progress towards correction of the Issue.
Xxxxx, X., ‘Customary International Law in the 21st Century: Old Challenges and New Debates’, EJIL, Volume 21, Issue 1, Pp. 173.
More Definitions of Issue 1
Issue 1. Does the Commission have the statutory authority to grant FPL’s requested storm cost recovery mechanism as part of the Stipulation and Settlement Agreement?
Issue 1. For the off-stream watering with/without fencing BMP, the workgroup recommended that the livestock shading requirement be removed from the stream protection without fencing definition. o DECISION: UMD accepted the workgroup’s recommendation. Shade should not be a requirement for this practice, although they suggested saying in the definition that shading should be encouraged where applicable.
Issue 1. The impact of the Competition Law on registered commercial agencies • UAE Federal Law No. 4 of 2012. • What is a restrictive agreement? • Is my registered commercial agency agreement a “restrictive agreement”? • One to watch: dealings between a registered commercial agent and its sub- distributors and customers.
Issue 1. The severability of the Consideration
Issue 1. The “Clause 7” issue - [Ground 2 of the POA’s Appeal; Grounds 16-19 of the Developer’s Respondent’s Notice] Issue 2 - The “common area/mauve line plan” issue - [Ground 3 of the POA’s Appeal; Also, Grounds 20-45 of the Developer’s Respondent’s Notice] 163. In my view, the issues raised in grounds 2 and 3 of the POA’s Appeal are interrelated. Figuratively speaking, they can be described as two sides of the same coin; and may be considered together. Furthermore, as will shortly appear, these two issues were central to the dispute before the learned Judge and underlie many (if not all) of the remaining grounds of appeal. 41 Paras [298] and [300.4] of the Judge’s written Decision. 42 Para [264] of the Judge’s written Decision. 43 Paras 91, 93 and 97 of the POA’s Amended Statement of Claim filed on 31 October 2017. 164. Ground 2: The POA complains that the learned Judge ‘misconstrued’ Clause 7 and erred in law in concluding that “Clause 7 is an express reservation of the Developer’s entitlement to deal as it pleases with its retained land”44; and that “the designation of “common area” was always intended to be at the Developer’s discretion, acting in good faith.”45 165. In its Skeleton Arguments46, counsel for the POA, Xxx. Xxxxx XX, identified no less than 6 alleged errors47 of law which, the POA claims were committed by the learned Judge in the course of construing Clause 7. The Judge’s “errors” in interpreting Clause 7, she contends, denied the POA the relief which it ought to have been granted in the court below. 166. Firstly, Xxx. Xxxxx submits48 that the learned Judge erred, inter alia, by failing or by failing to give proper consideration to the word “Subdivision” which, she says, appears throughout Clause 7 as well as in the first sentence thereof. Developing the submission, she contends that the word “Subdivision” is expressly defined in Clause 1 of the OFB conveyances as “the numbered lots shown on the Plan” and hence, related solely to Phase 1 of the OFB Subdivision49 and not the OFB subdivision as a whole.
Issue 1. What is the appropriate language to implement the FCC’s transition plan for: (1) switching; (2) high-capacity loops; and (3) dedicated transport as detailed in the FCC’s TRRO, issued February 4, 2005?
Issue 1. What is the required standard of proof in the circumstances of a no case submission having been made without putting the Defendant to an election?