The Rhine chlorides arbitration concerning the auditing of accounts (Netherlands/France) : Eurotunnel arbitration / permanent court of arbitration; W. van der Wolf (eds.).
2019
KJC6251.A54 2019 (Mapit)
Available at Stacks
Formats
Format | |
---|---|
BibTeX | |
MARCXML | |
TextMARC | |
MARC | |
DublinCore | |
EndNote | |
NLM | |
RefWorks | |
RIS |
Items
Details
Corporate Author
Title
The Rhine chlorides arbitration concerning the auditing of accounts (Netherlands/France) : Eurotunnel arbitration / permanent court of arbitration; W. van der Wolf (eds.).
Added Author
Imprint
Oisterwijk, Netherlands : International Courts Association, [2019].
Description
320 pages ; 23 cm.
Series
International arbitration series ; 10.
Summary
This case concerned the parties' financial obligations under the 1991 Additional Protocol to the 1976 Convention on the Protection of the Rhine against Pollution by Chlorides (the "Additional Protocol"), signed by France, Germany, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and Switzerland. The Additional Protocol required measures to be taken to reduce chloride discharges from the Alsace potassium mines into the Rhine river in the period 1991-1998. France was to reduce chloride discharges and temporarily store the chlorides on land when the chloride concentration in the Rhine at the German-Dutch border exceeded 200 milligrams per liter ("mg/l"). The Additional Protocol established a scheme allocating the storage costs. The contracting parties were to make annual payments to France and France was to reimburse any surplus payments at the end of the period. The quantities of chlorides actually stored by France remained well below the upper limits set out by the contracting parties; as a result there was a surplus to be repaid by France. The subject of the dispute was the manner in which the surplus should be calculated under Annex III of the Additional Protocol. As a result of the lower amounts stored, the costs of storage per ton were higher than predicted. The Netherlands argued that the costs of storage should be calculated at the rate per ton specified in the Additional Protocol. France argued that the actual costs per ton of storage should be used to calculate the surplus.
Language Note
Chiefly in English with some French.
Bibliography, etc. Note
Includes bibliographical references.
Call Number
KJC6251.A54 2019
Language
English
Record Appears in