AVZ Discussion 2022
- Thread starter GazDix
- Start date
This Maja and the other downrampers of a sell price actually remind me of this carrot dick guy and his gang... I mean, manipulation of opinions is not a Chinese invention, after all. Who knows in which boat they are actually sitting...
lellep
Regular
Last edited:
I haven't logged in since years because of BS like yours. Whatever, put me on ignore.Another Emerged poster, welcome to TSE!
lellep
Regular
If your intent is good, welcome back!
Perhaps you can understand my suspicioun from my point of view?
Lots of new emerged posters spreading misinformation and trying to create discord!
And how does that reconcile with the US claiming they can only get involved if all the bullshit and shenanigans stops? By starting from a foundation of bullshit shenanigans? That's why the ONLY way this works is for AVZ to AGREE. That's what's in Nigel's statement, and that's what's got to happen.
Trump is already breaking global alliances and global economies. What do you think is going to happen to trust in the US and the entire global trade system it underpins if news comes out that they did a dodgy deal with a corrupt government to steal a project from an ALLY. It would shatter what last little bit of trust remained that the US was a country people could trust to do business with.
Not a chance. Not even with Trump.
This thing doesn't happen without AVZ being on board and that doesnt happen without a deal that's substantially better than our prospects with CATH.
There is a win-win-win situation on the table here if the US and DRC aren't too arrogant to take it.
TheGermanOne
Member
Rechnerhand
Regular
LOCKY82
Regular
Ai summary
Let's break down this statement:
* "The Tribunal issues a decision...": This means that a formal panel or body (the Tribunal) has made an official ruling. Tribunals are often set up to resolve specific types of disputes.
* "...on the Respondent’s request to address the objections to jurisdiction as a preliminary question...":
* The Respondent is the party against whom a claim or dispute has been brought.
* The objections to jurisdiction are arguments made by the Respondent that the Tribunal does not have the authority or legal power to hear the case.
* To address these objections as a preliminary question means the Respondent wanted the Tribunal to decide whether it even had the right to hear the case before getting into the details of the actual dispute ("the merits").
* "...as a result, the objections to jurisdiction are joined to the merits of the dispute.":
* Joined to the merits means that instead of deciding on the jurisdictional objections first, the Tribunal has decided to consider the objections at the same time as it considers the substance or core issues of the dispute ("the merits").
In simpler terms:
The party being sued (the Respondent) asked the Tribunal to first decide if the Tribunal even had the authority to hear the case. The Tribunal said "no" to this request. Instead, they will deal with the question of their authority at the same time as they consider the actual arguments of the dispute.
Essentially, the Tribunal has decided not to resolve the "can we even hear this case?" question upfront, but to consider it alongside the "what actually happened?" question.
Do you have any other parts of this statement you'd like me to clarify?
Let's break down this statement:
* "The Tribunal issues a decision...": This means that a formal panel or body (the Tribunal) has made an official ruling. Tribunals are often set up to resolve specific types of disputes.
* "...on the Respondent’s request to address the objections to jurisdiction as a preliminary question...":
* The Respondent is the party against whom a claim or dispute has been brought.
* The objections to jurisdiction are arguments made by the Respondent that the Tribunal does not have the authority or legal power to hear the case.
* To address these objections as a preliminary question means the Respondent wanted the Tribunal to decide whether it even had the right to hear the case before getting into the details of the actual dispute ("the merits").
* "...as a result, the objections to jurisdiction are joined to the merits of the dispute.":
* Joined to the merits means that instead of deciding on the jurisdictional objections first, the Tribunal has decided to consider the objections at the same time as it considers the substance or core issues of the dispute ("the merits").
In simpler terms:
The party being sued (the Respondent) asked the Tribunal to first decide if the Tribunal even had the authority to hear the case. The Tribunal said "no" to this request. Instead, they will deal with the question of their authority at the same time as they consider the actual arguments of the dispute.
Essentially, the Tribunal has decided not to resolve the "can we even hear this case?" question upfront, but to consider it alongside the "what actually happened?" question.
Do you have any other parts of this statement you'd like me to clarify?
Its kind of strange because if they did not have the authority to hear the case why are they hearing the case? More importantly why has the DRC asked the question as it gives authority and legitimacy to the ICSID,
Retrobyte
Hates a beer
Because that's how courts work. If there is a jurisdictional issue it is up to the other party to submit their arguments and for the court to rule. I have one of those I'm running tomorrow in the IRC
Similar threads
