Bord s TV is on a mission to make a video that will provide good learnings for the audience. Be it a current events or a business idea or endeavor. Or a place to visit or nice food to eat. Anything that is positive and has good benefits for the audience. We just want to share positive vibes and love to the community. We are all here to show you any topic that interests the community with the best research of our team giving you an unbiased perspective. Hope we can grow this community by supporting each other. Sharing love to you all.
The scene from WC in Doha 2019 is not the reason why he got a Silver medal.Yes he took 5,92 in 3 attempt , but he lost only on Count back to Sam Kendricks after having jumped 5.97 m.
@4:45 ~ "....that's the latest on Sabah and will update....". After 1 year, still no update on Sabah. Was it that no update because the latest update was not in favour of Sulu / Philippines?
The Philippines claims Sabah on the basis that Sabah was said to be once under Sulu Sultanate. Descendants of former Sultan of Sulu claim that Sabah belonged to Sulu Sultanate because Sabah was given by Brunei the original owner to Sulu as a gift for purportedly helping Brunei to fight rebels. But Brunei refuted this claim and denied ever having given Sabah to Sulu. There was NO DOCUMENT regarding the transfer of ownership of Sabah from Brunei to Sulu signed by both Sultans. In fact on 29 December 1877, the Sultan of Brunei ceded the whole of Sabah to BNBC/British and concurrently appointed Baron Von Overback, the co-owner of BNBC as Maharajah of Sabah and Rajah of Sandakan and Gaya. This cession agreement was documented. When BNBC went to Sabah to begin their business, Sulu claimed that Sabah belonged to Sulu. BNBC agreed to enter a "pajak" agreement with Sulu after they were advised by their fellow businessmen in Hong Kong who advised that Sulu would attack them if they didn't have a deal with Sulu. This "pajak'' agreement was signed on 22 January 1878. BNBC understood that this "pajak" was a "cession", so did early generation of Sulu Sultan accepted it as "cession". Only later generation of descendants of former Sultan of Sulu claimed that the "pajak" agreement was meant to be "rent" or "lease''. Still there was NO DOCUMENT regarding the transfer of ownership of Sabah from Brunei to Sulu signed by both Sultans. The two above events led to an overlapping issue on Sabah. What ever it was, the above agreement and overlapping issue were superceded by later event. On 22 July 1878, the then Sultan of Sulu had relinquished all his possession and sovereignty of Sulu and it's territories including Sabah to Spain. The Sultanate of Sulu only remained as hereditary cultural and traditional entity without any sovereign territory. In 1885, to resolve overlapping issue on Sabah and other issues involving other islands, Britain, Spain and Germany arrived to an agreement known as Madrid Protocol in which Spain surrendered Sabah to Britain. As new owner of Sabah Britain had full control and sovereignty over Sabah and they could do what ever they wanted. Sulu could not claim anything because they had already relinquished the sovereignty of Sabah to Spain and Spain surrendered Sabah to Britain. What ever happened to Sabah after that was under British jurisdiction. Even though British had full control and sovereignty of Sabah, they still honoured the annual "cession money" payment stipulated in the "pajak'' agreement as consolation for the Sulu Sultan. So did Malaysia when formed in 1963, still honoured the annual "cession money" payment as consolation for the Sulu Sultan. The term "cession money" was used because to use the term "consolation" was felt to be too degrading. Thus the term "cession money" was continually used as used before by the British. Even the argument about the word "pajak" and it's meaning in the "pajak" agreement still favoured the British. The "pajak" agreement was written in classical Malay, in jawi script (Arabic alphabet). Malay is the national language of Malaysia and Brunei, and mother tongue of majority Malaysians and Brunei. In those days, Malay was also used by people of Sulu because Malay was the "lingua franca" of this region including the present Philippines. That was why the agreement was written in Malay. But over the years Sulu people had lost their Malay language (standard Malay) because of several reasons like colonisation by different European. This made Sulu relied on translation of the agreement. Things got worse when they translated it to Sulu's local language, be it Tagalog or Tausug, which was rather translation of another translation, that they translated it to their favour. The word "pajak" carried several meanings depending on the contact used in the sentence or passage. It could mean "tax, rent, pawn, lease, or cession". In the agreement between BNBC/ British and Sulu, the word "pajak" was used together with the phrase "selama-lamanya" which meant "forever". When "pajak" was used together with the phrase"selama-lamanya", in this contact the word "pajak" meant "cession". Cession means "the formal giving up of rights, property or territory by a state". When Sulu "pajak" Sabah to BNBC it meant Sulu ceded Sabah and it meant Sabah no longer belonged to Sulu. This was further clarified. There was a second agreement which was a supplementary to the first agreement known as "Confirmation of Cession of Certain Islands Agreement". It was regarding certain islands between Sabah and Sulu which they were not sure whether they were included in the first agreement or not. In this second agreement, the word "pajak" was no longer used because they thought it might lead to misunderstanding by later generation. Instead the word "menyerahkan" which meant "surrender" was used, and the annual payment was increased from 5,000 dollars to 5,300 dollars due to certain islands included. Another example where the Philippines generally or Sulu in particular misunderstood due to wrong translation or translation to their favour, was about the clause that the territory could not be transfered to another party. Yes, there was a clause that Sabah could not be transfered to another party "... without the consent of 'Duli Queen'...". The British translated "Duli Queen" as "Her Britannic Majesty", even though it was not correct literally but it was correct in the meaning. The "... Queen" was referring to Queen Victoria, the ruler of England / Britain at that time. But Sulu translated "Duli Queen" (or rather translated from a translation) as "Their Majesties' Government". This led to an understanding that "Duli Queen" was the ruler of Sulu. The question was since when Sulu as a Muslim state had a female as their ruler (Sultanah or Queen)? The above showed that North Borneo (Sabah) had indeed been ceded to Britain, that was why it could not be transfered to another party without the consent of 'Duli Queen' (Queen Victoria), the ruler of England/ Britain at that time. And further it was stated that any dispute about the agreement had to be referred to the "Consul General" being the Queen's representative in Borneo to be resolved. It meant that outside Arbitrator had no jurisdiction over the agreement. This fact became the main reason of judgement by Paris Court of Appeal in setting aside and annulling the Paris Court (lower court) ruling awarding the heirs of the defunct Sulu Sultanate. On 31 August 1963 Britain gave independence to Sabah and before that on 22 July 1963 Sarawak was given independence. The people of Sabah and Sarawak had exercised self determination to form Malaysia together with Malaya and Singapore. The sovereignty of Sabah and Sarawak as component states of Malaysia is intact and recognized internationally and recognized by the UN. This was confirmed and clearly stated in the United Nations Malaysia Mission Report "Final Conclusion of the Secretary-General", 14 September 1963. The last sentence of the report says: "I fervently hope that the people of these territories will achieve progress and prosperity, and find their fulfillment as component states of Malaysia". Full text of the report can even be accessed from the Philippines Government Gazette website. About the arbitration award by Paris Court to Sulu of US$14.92B, it had since been set aside and annulled by Paris Court of Appeal. Here is the latest situation. Latest as in June 2023: 1. June 6th - Paris Court of Appeal had set aside and annulled the previous Paris Court (lower court) ruling awarding the heirs of the defunct Sulu Sultanate. 2. June 27th - Dutch Court of Appeal in The Haque had dismissed a bid by eight descendants of former Sultan of Sulu to enforce the arbitration award by Paris Court (lower court) ruling, and dismissed an attempt to seize Malaysian assets following the Paris Court of Appeal decision. 3. Paris Court of Appeal also imposed on Sulu €100,000.00 (Euro currency) to be paid to Malaysia as legal cost. 4. Mean while in Luxembourg, a second attempt to seize Malaysian Petronas assets had been filed in Luxembourg Court due for hearing in September 2023 after the first attempt was dismissed. This will likely be dismissed too following the Paris Court of Appeal decision. Now is already November 2023, no news about Sulu's claim proceeding in Luxembourg Court. It looked like they withdrew their case when they acknowledged the Paris Court of Appeal decision. Malaysia had spent around RM32m, equivalent to about US$6.6m to deal with these Sulu claim cases in various European courts, in Madrid, Paris, Luxembourg and Netherlands. Apart from the €100,000.00 Sulu has to pay to Malaysia as legal cost, Malaysia is planning to sue Sulu for compensation for the loss of RM32m (USD6.6m) spent.
Now is already December 2023 and still no news about Sulu's claim proceeding in Luxembourg Court. It looked like they really withdrew their case when they acknowledged the Paris Court of Appeal decision.
Gonzalo Stampa, the Spanish Arbitrator who awarded Sulu US$14.92B compensation had been charged in Madrid High Court on 11 December 2023 for "Contempt of Court" and "Professional Intrusiveness".
He is the best now but I would not call him the greatest of all time. Sergey Bubka from Ukraine had beaten more world records and nobody could beat him for 20 years. Duplantis is the best now. I thought that those nights were not reachable. In my teenage years when I practiced this sport, 5.55 m was enough to get an Olympic gold medal. Now this was a starting height at the final of World Athletics Championships in Budapest.
We’re are you from?I don’t think think that there’s a country that has not had scandals with athletes,sports men using illegal substances , .But i would mean Swedens doping control is one of the best.
What undisputable proof do you have that Brunei give Sabah to Sulu as a gift? But Brunei Sultanate (original owner) grant and cede North Borneo to British North Borneo Company on 29/12/1877.
There is an existence of 29/12/1877 agreement (consist of 4 agreements) signed by Brunei Sultanate that grant the whole of North Borneo to British North Borneo Company (BNBC). These agreements exist and keep at the National Archives in London. The word “grant” been used, and it has never been challenged or protest by Brunei, even when the British turned North Borneo into British Charter (1881), Protectorate (1888), Colony (1946) and finally British Parliament under the Malaysia Act 1963 incorporate it into Malaysia.
What undisputable proof do you have that Brunei give Sabah to Sulu as a gift? But Brunei Sultanate (original owner) grant and cede North Borneo to British North Borneo Company on 29/12/1877.
Nothing will happen since Malaysia has every rights to not pay the Sulu pirates. The payment was given out of courtesy, not obligation, meaning it can be stopped at any time.
Philippines own sabah why is that well Philippines OwnS sabah becuse there need life growth economy and more growing population for philippines and to train Filipino army and aqitments
What undisputable proof do you have that Brunei give Sabah to Sulu as a gift? But Brunei Sultanate (original owner) grant and cede North Borneo to British North Borneo Company on 29/12/1877.
Sulu only claimed that Sabah was given by Brunei to Sulu as a gift for purportedly helping Brunei fight rebels. But Brunei refuted this claim and denied ever having given Sabah to Sulu. There was NO DOCUMENT regarding the transfer of ownership of Sabah from Brunei to Sulu signed by both Sultans.
Born and raised in USA. Benefited from American education, healthcare, you name it. Competes for Sweden to honor his Mom. How about honoring the American way of life which you benefited from?
Plus it lets other American vaulters into the game. Mondo would have occupied top spot for a decade so by not being there others will get their time to shine
What undisputable proof do you have that Brunei give Sabah to Sulu? Bear in mind that Brunei (original owner) grant and cede North Borneo to British North Borneo Company on 29/12/1877.
That's not the only reason. . There was a lot of factors for that. He's brother competed for Sweden. Sweden would let his father still be his coach. His father and him had much more freedom to decide things. His father was also "official National team Swedish trainer" in competitions and all that. Sweden has easier try-outs to Olympics. He can focus on becoming the best. Not as in US he has 1 competition he needs to be good at. If he fails he won't go to Olympics and so on. Sweden offered him a better deal overall. They let him do his things and check how far it has taken him. I know for a fact in US that there is a lot of politics and bureaucracy and people trying to meddle with everything. I can garantee that if he would have competed for the US national team he would not have had the success he has had now with all the world records
What undisputable proof do you have that Brunei give Sabah to Sulu? Bear in mind that Brunei (original owner) grant and cede North Borneo to British North Borneo Company on 29/12/1877.
The lease was only to Baron de Overbick and Arfred Dent can't be transfer to any company or nationality. Since the leased was transfer to other country the leased have been violated.
What undisputable proof do you have that Brunei give Sabah to Sulu? Bear in mind that Brunei (original owner) grant and cede North Borneo to British North Borneo Company on 29/12/1877.
@@dilinglintasan652 You are just dreaming. If Sulu won, they would have been billionaires since 2021 when they first brought their case to court in Madrid. But they are court hopping. NOTHING happened. You just been fooled by the media.
@@dilinglintasan652, "...sulu won in the arbitral ruling.."?? Here is the latest development. Latest as in June 2023: 1. June 6th - Paris Court of Appeal had set aside and annulled the previous Paris Court (lower court) ruling awarding the heirs of the defunct Sulu Sultanate. 2. June 27th - Dutch Court of Appeal had dismissed a bid by eight descendants of former Sultan of Sulu to enforce the arbitration award by Paris Court (lower court) ruling, and dismissed an attempt to seize Malaysian assets following the Paris Court of Appeal decision. 3. Paris Court of Appeal also imposed on Sulu €100,000.00 (Euro currency) to be paid to Malaysia as legal cost. 4. Mean while in Luxembourg, a second attempt to seize Malaysian Petronas assets had been filed in Luxembourg Court due for hearing in September 2023 after the first attempt was dismissed. This will likely be dismissed too following the Paris Court of Appeal decision. Now is already October 2023, ni no news about Sulu's claim proceeding in Luxembourg Court. It looked like they withdrew their case when they acknowledged the Paris Court of Appeal decision. Malaysia had spent around RM32m, equivalent to about USD6.6m to deal with these Sulu claim cases in various European courts, in Madrid, Paris, Luxembourg and Netherlands. Apart from the €100,000.00 Sulu has to pay to Malaysia as legal cost, Malaysia is planning to sue Sulu for compensation for the loss of RM32m (USD6.6m) spent.
Any pro Sulu or PH claims on North Borneo, their primal source of reference will be the Sulu and British North Borneo Company (BNBC) agreement dated 22 January 1878. In this agreement, Sulu “lease” North Borneo to BNBC (Tausug version - missing during his majesty trip to Singapore) while the English version is “grant and cede”. This information will easily be cherry picked in any of their discussion or debate. But what they will not revealed are those that can refute their claim. The followings are few of the information that had been kept secret: 1. The agreement between Sultan Brunei that grant and cede North Borneo to BNBC on 29 December 1877 which is 3 weeks earlier than the agreement between Sultan Sulu and BNBC (22 January 1878). This will deny that North Borneo was a gift to Sulu from Brunei. Show undisputable proof that Brunei (original owner) give Sabah to Sulu as a gift. 2. On 22nd July 1878, Sultan Sulu relinquished his sovereignty on Sulu Archipelago and its dependencies thereof to Spain (Bases of Peace and Capitulation agreement). 3. On the same day, 22 July 1878, Sultan Sulu wrote to Governor General of Philippines and Governor of Sulu terminating the 22/1/1878 agreement between Sulu Sultanate and BNBC. Thus, the agreement is null and void. 4. On 24th July 1878, Governor of Sulu wrote to BNBC concerning the Spanish sovereignty on Sulu and its dependencies including North Borneo and the termination of the 1878 agreement. 5. Governor General of Philippines wrote a letter on the same matter dated 20th August 1878 to the Spanish Government in Madrid. 6. Finally, the issues on the agreement between Sultan Sulu and BNBC and the status of North Borneo was settled through the Madrid Protocol (7th March 1885). North Borneo belongs to the British under this Protocol. 7. In addition, during the US colonization of PH, 2 agreements (Bates 1899 and Carpenter 1915) were signed by the Sultanate of Sulu which relinquished its temporal sovereignty of Sulu and its dependencies. 8. Later, the 1930 Anglo-US border agreement acknowledge the boundary delimitation between PH and North Borneo that belongs to the British. Most of the above documents are kept either in Public Record Office in London or General Archives in Madrid. It can also be accessible from the Philippines official website with Spanish to English translation Rebut my comment with facts and references. Not hearsay.
@@dilinglintasan652Ha ha ha ha. What arbitration court? Read and check out yourself my comment below. Understand what and which are to be called arbitration court. On 29 Sep 2022, lawyers for the Sultanate heirs sought permission from a court in the Netherlands to enforce the arbitration ruling on Malaysia. Before it was in Spain, France, and Luxembourg. They been hopping from one court to another (Spain, France, and Luxembourg) trying their luck. If they have an arbitration agreement or clause, then one court is good enough as stipulated under the New York Convention 1958. 1. Earlier, on 29 June 2021, upon application by the Government of Malaysia, the Spanish High Court of Justice of Madrid decided that the service of notice of the proceedings for appointment of arbitrator for purposes of the Claim was not properly served to Malaysia in accordance with peremptory international rules and Spanish law (the “Nullification Decision”). It is also not consistent with the High Court of Justice of Madrid’s case laws on service of process on sovereign States. Because of the Nullification Decision, Dr Stampa is not an arbitrator in the purported arbitration proceedings and, therefore, all his decisions, including the Final Award (issued on 28/2/2022), are null and void. 2. Paris Court: On 12 July 2022 Malaysia obtained Suspension (Stay) Order from the Paris Court of Appeal to suspend Exequatur Order issued by Paris Court. A Stay Order obtained in the French Court of Appeal pending application to set aside an arbitration award in an arbitration proceeding also to be filed in the French Court has a high probability to be allowed since the arbitration proceedings itself was held ex-parte (one sided) which is deemed deficient and defective. Also, this court has no jurisdiction on a sovereign state. Soon it will just be like Spain that rejected the claim in 2021. 3. French arbitration court: Under the French Arbitration Law, original arbitration agreement or a copy thereof must be provided when settling a dispute through arbitration in France to proceed. This is in accordance with the more precisely Article 1504 of the Code of Civil Procedure or CPC. This is also in compliance with Article 2 of the New York Convention 1958. So, is there any arbitration agreement exist between Sulu and Malaysia? If none, the court cannot proceed. 4. ICC International Court of Arbitration: It is just an institution for the resolution of international commercial disputes based in Paris. It operates under the auspices of the International Chamber of Commerce and consists of more than 100 arbitrators from roughly 90 countries. Contrary to what its name suggests, the ICC does not issue formal judgements. Instead, it just provides judicial supervision of arbitration proceedings. 5. Luxembourg arbitration court: Read the Luxembourg Arbitral Act particularly in Article 1224 to 1251 of the New Code of Civil Procedure (NCPC). Pursuant to Article 1226 NCPC, arbitration clause or arbitration agreements can be made before the arbitrators, by deed before a notary or by written agreement. Article 1227 of the NCPC provides that the arbitration agreement must specify the intention of the parties to submit their dispute to arbitration, the subject of the dispute and the arbitrators’ names to be valid. Do Sulu have that arbitration agreement? If not, then the court cannot proceed. 6. As of the 1st of January 2015, the New Dutch Arbitration Act entered into force, replacing the Dutch Arbitration Act of 1986. The New 2015 Act is still contained in book 4 (arts 1020-1077) of the Dutch Code of Civil Procedure (DCCP). For an arbitration agreement to be valid under Dutch law, the dispute that must be settled must arise out of a contractual legal relationship (article 1020 DCCP). The arbitration agreement must be in writing. Inclusion of the arbitral agreement in general terms and conditions may not suffice. 7. Even under Section 4 of the RA 876, PH Arbitration Law require an arbitration agreement or clause. Do Sulu, have it?
@@dilinglintasan652 You been fooled again by the media. Petronas NEVER lost anything. Only Sulu lost everything. Making claim that NOT rightly belong to them from the very beginning. No proof Brunei give North Borneo to Sulu. Proof it otherwise. I challenge YOU.
it can take 50 years for the next one or it may never happen....there will never be a better Babe Ruth..or a better Ali....Jacks 18 golf majors will never be beat....etc
@@jadezee6316 Nobody knows, and it’s all speculation, and your or my opinion of the goat is not always everyone else’s, but one thing for certain is records are always broken eventually.
@@martintheron1386 Nobody disputes that one centimetre is a big achievement over your PB, so what is your point. All records will be broken eventually, that’s a fact.
Stupid video ,,!! JMA is Not the one to get back the Sabah land it is P-MLQ ,P- LQ and Hiro P - FM only JMA is a Member of Liberal Party JMA he is the one Sale the Formosa land or TAIWAN and his GMA sale the 3 iland of West Phili.Sea if you not Believe me ,,!! Check the old map of the Maharlika land ,,!! And Ask the Old Pilipino Age 85 +
It's without question that the Sultanate of Sulu existed long before the creation of Malaysia. How could a British Company Lessee tranfer a property being leased from the Lessor Sultanate of Sulu to his country only to be made part of the new country Malaysia? I think this is injustice perpetrated by a Super Power to the Sultanate of Sulu and may ALLAH give due justice to the heirs of the Sultanate of Sulu and the Philippines.
What undisputable proof do you have that Brunei give Sabah to Sulu? Bear in mind that Brunei (original owner) grant and cede North Borneo to British North Borneo Company on 29/12/1877. Only the agreement that Brunei grant and cede North Borneo to British North Borneo Company (BNBC) on 29/12/1877 exist. Later the British government signed agreement with BNBC and turned North Borneo into its British Charter (1881), British Protectorate (1888), British Colony (1946) and incorporate into Malaysia under Malaysia Act in 1963. Also, Sulu signed many agreements to relinquish its territories to the colonial powers namely Spain (Bases of Peace and Capitulation agreement 22/7/1878) and US (Carpenter 1915).
It's a very important advantage for the Sultanate of Sulu that it won its case with regards to the breach of contract that Malaysia, as the tenant/Lessee in the arbitration case, violated subject to the Lease Agreement pertaining to Sabah. Why did not the Sultan of Brunei move for intervention in the just concluded arbitration case if, as some alleged claim that, they are still the owner of Sabah? Having said that, was the alleged ownership issue of the Sultan of Brunei already prescribed under the circumstances? As it is now, I thought it is incumbent for Malaysia to carry the burden of proof to wiggle its way out of the ownership issue but, the way things are going, the heirs of the Sultanate of Sulu have now the upper hand. Good Luck to the heirs of the Sultanate of Sulu on their next move in their quest for justice.
@@adjakammoya8617 Ha ha ha ha. You been fooled by the media. If Sulu has the upper hand, they won't be hopping from one court to another starting in Spain in 2021 followed by France, Luxembourg and now in The Netherlands. Now already 2023 and nothing happened. Sulu still not become billionaires. Show me an undosputable proof Brunei give North Borneo to Sulu. NONE. Also UN recognize Sabah is in Malaysia since 1963. Don't tell me in that 60 years Sulu do not find any proof yet?
Until there is no reversal of the international arbitration court's decision in favor of The Sultanate of Sulu, then that decision is still stands. How can be a Lessee be the owner of an estate in which by paying rent for the use of the same is an acknowledgement of its position or personality in a contact? By the way, legal cases usually take long becuz of the so-called legal remedies that are entitled to it. No matter how long a case it will take as long as it will be decided on its merits.
@@adjakammoya8617 Read and understand what is arbitration court, its legislation and requirements. Check it out for yourself. Below few of my comments. Read it!!!!. On 29 Sep 2022, lawyers for the Sultanate heirs sought permission from a court in the Netherlands to enforce the arbitration ruling on Malaysia. Before it was in Spain, France, and Luxembourg. They been hopping from one court to another (Spain, France, and Luxembourg) trying their luck. If they have an arbitration agreement or clause, then one court is good enough as stipulated under the New York Convention 1958. 1. Earlier, on 29 June 2021, upon application by the Government of Malaysia, the Spanish High Court of Justice of Madrid decided that the service of notice of the proceedings for appointment of arbitrator for purposes of the Claim was not properly served to Malaysia in accordance with peremptory international rules and Spanish law (the “Nullification Decision”). It is also not consistent with the High Court of Justice of Madrid’s case laws on service of process on sovereign States. Because of the Nullification Decision, Dr Stampa is not an arbitrator in the purported arbitration proceedings and, therefore, all his decisions, including the Final Award (issued on 28/2/2022), are null and void. 2. Paris Court: On 12 July 2022 Malaysia obtained Suspension (Stay) Order from the Paris Court of Appeal to suspend Exequatur Order issued by Paris Court. A Stay Order obtained in the French Court of Appeal pending application to set aside an arbitration award in an arbitration proceeding also to be filed in the French Court has a high probability to be allowed since the arbitration proceedings itself was held ex-parte (one sided) which is deemed deficient and defective. Also, this court has no jurisdiction on a sovereign state. Soon it will just be like Spain that rejected the claim in 2021. 3. French arbitration court: Under the French Arbitration Law, original arbitration agreement or a copy thereof must be provided when settling a dispute through arbitration in France to proceed. This is in accordance with the more precisely Article 1504 of the Code of Civil Procedure or CPC. This is also in compliance with Article 2 of the New York Convention 1958. So, is there any arbitration agreement exist between Sulu and Malaysia? If none, the court cannot proceed. 4. ICC International Court of Arbitration: It is just an institution for the resolution of international commercial disputes based in Paris. It operates under the auspices of the International Chamber of Commerce and consists of more than 100 arbitrators from roughly 90 countries. Contrary to what its name suggests, the ICC does not issue formal judgements. Instead, it just provides judicial supervision of arbitration proceedings. 5. Luxembourg arbitration court: Read the Luxembourg Arbitral Act particularly in Article 1224 to 1251 of the New Code of Civil Procedure (NCPC). Pursuant to Article 1226 NCPC, arbitration clause or arbitration agreements can be made before the arbitrators, by deed before a notary or by written agreement. Article 1227 of the NCPC provides that the arbitration agreement must specify the intention of the parties to submit their dispute to arbitration, the subject of the dispute and the arbitrators’ names to be valid. Do Sulu have that arbitration agreement? If not, then the court cannot proceed. 6. As of the 1st of January 2015, the New Dutch Arbitration Act entered into force, replacing the Dutch Arbitration Act of 1986. The New 2015 Act is still contained in book 4 (arts 1020-1077) of the Dutch Code of Civil Procedure (DCCP). For an arbitration agreement to be valid under Dutch law, the dispute that must be settled must arise out of a contractual legal relationship (article 1020 DCCP). The arbitration agreement must be in writing. Inclusion of the arbitral agreement in general terms and conditions may not suffice. 7. Even under Section 4 of the RA 876, PH Arbitration Law require an arbitration agreement or clause. Do Sulu, have it?
How do you know he is left handed? I saw he changed the pole from one hand to the other but that dues not automatically mean it, there could've been other reasons.
Sam Kendrick has said about Duplantis that he is good at Jumping others styles.He said ,he can jump like i do or he can jump like Laverne, and than he does it his own way.Mondo has two older brothers,one of them is left handed, Maybe he only wanted to see if he could vault better using his left hand.The. left hand brother was also a pole vaulter for some years.
The Sultanate of Sulu is already defunct. On 22 July 1878, the then Sultan of Sulu had relinquished all his possessions and the sovereignty of Sulu and it's territories including North Borneo to Spain. The Sultanate of Sulu only remained as heredity cultural and traditional entity without any sovereign territory. Then in 1885, to resolve overlapping issue on North Borneo and other issues involving other islands, Britain, Spain and Germany arrived to an agreement known as Madrid Protocol in which Spain surrendered North Borneo to Britain. What ever happened to North Borneo after that was under British jurisdiction.
I have been following this GOAT in pole vault sport for three years now... Simply magic Mam. I am learning lot from him and wanna do it like him ... Sadly i have no age to prove like him ... I am trying
