Multiple nationality and claim against a third State

(a) The injured State has validly waived the claim

Multiple nationality and claim against a State of nationality

Draft article 6 Multiple nationality and claim against a third State

Notice of claim by an injured State

Draft article 7 Multiple nationality and claim against a State of nationality

The State party has not contested this claim.

2. A State is no longer entitled to exercise diplomatic protection in respect of a corporation that acquires the nationality of the State against which the claim is brought after the presentation of the claim.

2. A State intervening to present a claim in a proceeding before a court of another State cannot invoke immunity from the jurisdiction of the court in respect of any counterclaim arising out of the same legal relationship or facts as the claim presented by the State.

Thus the provision of a remedy by a State party negates the basis for the international claim.

2. Any State entitled to invoke responsibility under paragraph 1 may claim from the responsible State

1. An injured State which invokes the responsibility of another State shall give notice of its claim to that State.

4. A State is no longer entitled to exercise diplomatic protection in respect of a person who acquires the nationality of the State against which the claim is brought after the date of the official presentation of the claim.

Iranian state media claim that it is to have a laser guidance system resistant to enemy jamming.

The State party observes that the claim for protection against possible future separation of the family unit was expressly referred to in the claim for a protection visa.

In the State party's view, the author's claim is therefore manifestly ill founded.

Such a State would wish to claim that it is entitled to the benefit of these enhancement activities.

4.13 Concerning the claim under article 24, paragraph 1, the State party argues that this claim is also insufficiently substantiated, for purposes of admissibility.

That's a claim!

The Nordic experience also belies conservatives claim that a large social welfare state weakens incentives to work and save.

3. A State making a counterclaim in a proceeding instituted against it before a court of another State cannot invoke immunity from the jurisdiction of the court in respect of the principal claim.

4.5 The State party points out, on this claim, that the complainant was unable to substantiate his claim for protection despite the opportunity to file two separate applications for a protection visa.

Where claimants state on their claim forms that their business is located in either Iraq or Kuwait, the claim is not individually reviewed but electronically processed.

The Panel considers that this is a claim for claim preparation costs.

Does such a population group have any claim to a territory of its own to replace the territory it has lost? Presumably any such claim would be against the international community as a whole, rather than against a particular State.

What was relevant was that the State bringing such a claim espoused the cause of its nationals and stated as much.

And he didn't put in a claim. Why didn't he put in a claim? Why?

The inability to obtain a claim form is a satisfactory explanation for failure to file a claim.

In one claim, a husband who filed a category A claim during the regular filing period explained that he was unable to file a category C claim at the same time because no claim forms were available.

Did you stake a claim?

I got a prior claim.

(Ironically, they will be able to claim success in having built a better state only when they accept their first electoral defeat.)

The State party concludes that the author cannot claim to be a victim within the meaning of article 1 of the Optional Protocol and that his claim under article 26 is therefore inadmissible ratione personae.

The Claimants assert that international law has consistently taken the view that injury to a national of one State by another State gives rise to a claim that belongs to the State of the national and not to the injured person.

No State reported that the period depended on the type of claim incorporated in the arbitral award.

Therefore, no single State or group of States can claim control over the activities of other States.

6.2 The Committee considered the contention of the State party that the claim is inadmissible ratione loci.

No rule of international law authorized any State party to a treaty to claim a superior enforcing role, nor did internationally recognized rules permit any State to hinder free navigation on the high seas.

It further took note of the State party apos s claim that the authors could not claim to be victims of a violation of the Covenant within the meaning of article 1 of the Optional Protocol.

4.11 As regards the author apos s claim under article 14, paragraph 3 (g), the State party argues that this claim is not substantiated and should therefore be declared inadmissible.

Nine dashes, and a historic claim

The author filed a counter claim.

Claim in a rectangular shape 1

They're threatened with a legal claim.

It's a waiver on your claim.