The Bangladesh–India Treaty on sharing the waters of the Ganges River and the India–Nepal Treaty on sharing the waters of the Mahakali River [36 I.L.M. 531 (1997)] are intended to bring to an end long–running differences between India and her neighbors over the entitlement to water flows following the construction by India of barrages on the Ganges and Mahakali Rivers. The treaties establish long–term water discharge regimes of 30 and 75 years respectively, focusing on the utilization of waters rather than their conservation.

[The U.S. will suspend enforcement of Title III in lieu of efforts by the EU and other allies to promote democracy in Cuba; the U.S. President will seek authority to grant waivers of enforcement of Title IV to countries that have developed disciplines and principles for the strengthening of investment protection, particularly through the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI)]

• His Majesty's Government of Nepal and the Government of India (hereinafter referred to as the “Parties”)

• Reaffirming the determination to promote and strengthen their relations of friendship and close neighbourliness for the co–operation in the development of water resources; Recognizing that the Mahakali River is a boundary river on major stretches between the two countries;

• Realizing the desirability to enter into a treaty on the basis of equal partnership to define their obligations and corresponding rights and duties thereto in regard to the waters of the Mahakali River and its utilization;

Pursuant to Article VII of Annex I of the Israeli–Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, dated September 28, 1995 (“the Interim Agreement”), which deals with the redeployment of Israeli military forces in the City of Hebron and provides that there will be a Temporary International Presence in Hebron, Israel and the PLO agree as follows:

[Transfer of Israeli authority to the Council (see Annexes I and III); Palestinian elections (see Annex II); structure of the Palestinian Council; size of the Council; the Executive Authority of the Council; other Committees of the Council; all meetings are open to the public except meetings of the Executive Authority and meetings that the Council rules are subject to security or confidentiality concerns; judicial review; powers and responsibilities of the Council]

In accordance with the provisions of the Interim Agreement and in particular of Article VII of Annex I to the Interim Agreement, both Parties have agreed on this Protocol for the implementation of the redeployment in Hebron

There is a very lengthy history to the creation of the Convention for the Establishment of the Lake Victoria Fisheries Organization (LVFO).

In 1971, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) Council established the Committee for Inland Fisheries of Africa, with the broad mandate to assist member governments in establishing the scientific basis for regulatory and other measures for the conservation and improvement of inland fishery resources, to formulate such measures through subsidiary bodies, as required, and to make appropriate recommendations for the adoption and implementation of these measures.

The Protocol of Brasilia on dispute resolution, together with the Treaty of Asuncion for the Constitution of a Common Market among Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay and Paraguay (Mercosur) [30 I.L.M. 1044 (1991)] and the Protocol of Ouro Preto on the Institutional Structure of Mercosur [34 I.L.M. 1244 (1995)], forms part of the basic legal framework for the process of economic integration in the Southern cone of Latin America.

The present Convention applies to uses of international watercourses and of their waters for purposes other than navigation and to measures of protection, preservation and management related to the uses of those watercourses and their waters.

The uses of international watercourses for navigation is not within the scope of the present Convention except insofar as other uses affect navigation or are affected by navigation.

On February 16, 1996 the New Zealand Court of Appeal rendered judgment on three applications for judicial review arising out of what had come to be known in New Zealand as the “Winebox Inquiry”. The Inquiry began as the result of certain documents being tabled (in a winebox) before the New Zealand House of Representatives. It was alleged that the documents implicated several New Zealand companies in the evasion of New Zealand income tax by the use of the Cook Islands as a tax haven, and that the New Zealand Inland Revenue Department and Serious Fraud Office had been incompetent at the least in failing to detect and prevent the abuse.

In 1993 the South African Parliament adopted an Interim Constitution which came into effect on April 27, 1994 [33 I.L.M. 1043 (1994)]. This Constitution, which brought to an end 40 years of apartheid, was negotiated by political groups which in most instances were unelected and simply reflected the political realities of the time. For this reason it was approved only as an Interim Constitution pending the adoption of a final Constitution by a democratically elected Parliament sitting as a Constitutional Assembly. However, as the 1993 Interim Constitution was a political compromise between rival groups, it was agreed that the final Constitution would have to comply with 34 Constitutional Principles contained in the 1993 Constitution and that a Constitutional Court would be empowered to pronounce on the compliance of the final Constitution with these principles.

Prior to the amendment, the non–commercial tort exception to sovereign immunity, 28 U.S.C. §1605(a)(5), barred tort claims against foreign states where the tort and the resulting injury did not occur in the United States. New §1605(a)(7) denies immunity to states in suits involving torture, extrajudicial killing, hostage taking, and aircraft sabotage, committed outside the U.S. by an official, employee or agent of the offending state while acting within the scope of his employment or agency. The respondent state must have been designated by the Executive as a state sponsor of terrorism. To fall within this new jurisdictional grant, the claim must meet several preconditions, each of which has dispositive jurisdictional significance.