00763nam0-2200265---450-99000919799040332120100614125445.0000919799FED01000919799(Aleph)000919799FED0100091979920100614d1978----km-y0itay50------baengy-------001yyCenter for disease control malariaSurvillanceAnnual summary 1978[S.I.]U.S. department of health, education, and welfare1978p. varia28 cmMalariaITUNINARICAUNIMARCBK990009197990403321IG 17 I 30DMIGIDMIGICenter for disease control malaria775119UNINA03910nam 22007092 450 991045508520332120151005020622.01-107-19880-10-511-69973-51-107-63374-51-282-33679-797866123367990-511-63456-00-511-63500-10-511-63279-70-511-63158-80-511-63399-8(CKB)1000000000804283(EBL)461176(OCoLC)609845848(SSID)ssj0000342509(PQKBManifestationID)11231037(PQKBTitleCode)TC0000342509(PQKBWorkID)10285686(PQKB)11399100(UkCbUP)CR9780511635458(MiAaPQ)EBC461176(Au-PeEL)EBL461176(CaPaEBR)ebr10349786(CaONFJC)MIL233679(EXLCZ)99100000000080428320090923d2009|||| uy| 0engur|||||||||||txtrdacontentcrdamediacrrdacarrierThe role of domestic courts in treaty enforcement a comparative study /edited by David Sloss[electronic resource]Cambridge :Cambridge University Press,2009.1 online resource (xxix, 626 pages) digital, PDF file(s)Title from publisher's bibliographic system (viewed on 05 Oct 2015).0-511-63545-1 0-521-87730-X Includes bibliographical references and index.Treaty enforcement in domestic courts : a comparative analysis /David Sloss --Does international law obligate states to open their national courts to persons for the invocation of treaty norms that protect or benefit persons? /Sean D. Murphy --Australia /Donald R. Rothwell --Canada /Gib van Ert --Germany /Andreas L. Paulus --India /Nihal Jayawickrama --Israel /David Kretzmer --The Netherlands /André Nollkaemper --Poland /Lech Garlicki, Małgorzata Masternak-Kubiak, and Krzysztof Wójtowicz --Russian Federation /William E. Butler --South Africa /John Dugard --United Kingdom /Anthony Aust --United States /David Sloss --The role of domestic courts in treaty enforcement : summary and conclusions /Michael P. Van Alstine.This book examines the application of treaties by domestic courts in twelve countries. The central question is whether domestic courts actually provide remedies to private parties who are harmed by a violation of their treaty-based rights. The analysis shows that domestic courts in eight of the twelve countries - Australia, Canada, Germany, India, the Netherlands, Poland, South Africa, and the United Kingdom - generally do enforce treaty-based rights on behalf of private parties. On the other hand, the evidence is mixed for the other four countries: China, Israel, Russia, and the United States. In China, Israel, and Russia, the trends are moving in the direction of greater judicial enforcement of treaties on behalf of private parties. The United States is the only country surveyed where the trend is moving in the opposite direction. US courts' reluctance to enforce treaty-based rights undermines efforts to develop a more cooperative global order.TreatiesInternational and municipal lawJurisdictionJurisdiction (International law)Treaties.International and municipal law.Jurisdiction.Jurisdiction (International law)341.3/7Sloss DavidUkCbUPUkCbUPBOOK9910455085203321The role of domestic courts in treaty enforcement1905647UNINA