01898oam 2200481M 450 991071610970332120200213070941.0(CKB)5470000002519022(OCoLC)1065619373(OCoLC)995470000002519022(EXLCZ)99547000000251902220071213d1926 ua 0engurcn|||||||||txtrdacontentcrdamediacrrdacarrierBridge across the Columbia River between Longville, Wash., and Rainier, Oreg. April 19 (calendar day, April 24), 1926. -- Ordered to be printed[Washington, D.C.] :[U.S. Government Printing Office],1926.1 online resource (4 pages)Senate report / 69th Congress, 1st session. Senate ;no. 660[United States congressional serial set] ;[serial no. 8525]Batch processed record: Metadata reviewed, not verified. Some fields updated by batch processes.FDLP item number not assigned.Bridge across the Columbia River between Longville, Wash., and Rainier, Oreg. April 19 Bridge construction industryBridgesDesign and constructionBridgesLegislative amendmentsLegislative materials.lcgftBridge construction industry.BridgesDesign and construction.Bridges.Legislative amendments.Bingham Hiram1875-1956Republican (CT)463205WYUWYUOCLCOOCLCQBOOK9910716109703321Bridge across the Columbia River between Longville, Wash., and Rainier, Oreg. April 19 (calendar day, April 24), 1926. -- Ordered to be printed3532272UNINA02930nam 2200433z- 450 99654034560331620231214133553.03-7489-2509-3(CKB)5490000000111096(oapen)https://directory.doabooks.org/handle/20.500.12854/64536(EXLCZ)99549000000011109620202104d2021 |y 0engurmn|---annantxtrdacontentcrdamediacrrdacarrierEuropean Consensus between Strategy and PrincipleThe Uses of Vertically Comparative Legal Reasoning in Regional Human Rights AdjudicationBaden-BadenNomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG20211 electronic resource (497 p.)Beiträge zum ausländischen öffentlichen Recht und Völkerrecht,3-8487-8091-7 This study offers a critical account of the reasoning employed by the European Court of Human Rights, particularly its references to European consensus. Based on an in-depth analysis of the Court’s case-law against the backdrop of human rights theory, it will be of interest to both practitioners and theorists. While European consensus is often understood as providing an objective benchmark within the Court’s reasoning, this study argues to the contrary that it forms part of the very structures of argument that render human rights law indeterminate. It suggests that foregrounding consensus and the Court’s legitimacy serves to entrench the status quo and puts forward novel ways of approaching human rights to enable social transformation.Dieses Werk analysiert die Argumentationsstrukturen des Europäischen Gerichtshofs für Menschenrechte, insbesondere dessen Verweise auf einen Europäischen Konsensus. Es verbindet kritische Menschenrechtstheorie mit einer eingehenden Analyse der Rechtsprechung des Gerichtshofs. Während der Europäische Konsensus oft als objektives Element innerhalb der Argumentation des Gerichtshofs angesehen wird, legt diese Studie dar, dass er Teil der argumentativer Strukturen bildet, die zur Unbestimmtheit von Menschenrechten führen. Konsensus und die Legitimität des Gerichtshofs zu betonen, dient der Verankerung des Status Quo. Der Autor schlägt alternative Ansätze vor, um Menschenrechte als Instrument sozialer Transformation denken zu können.LBBRbicssc1QFEbicssccritical international legal theorylegitimacymargin of appreciationEuropean consensusEuropean Court of Human Rightscomparative legal reasoningLBBR1QFETheilen Jens Tauth1076474BOOK996540345603316European Consensus between Strategy and Principle2587056UNISA