Search

1. Introduction The Murray Library is the central library at the University of Saskatchewan. In January 2013, the Library Dean announced that ten support staff in the University's library system, [...]

Canadian labor law transplanted the American concept of accomodation for the disabled and developed three trends in arbitrations regarding labor law. Arbitrators are not held to express contract provisions, the private law character of labor law changed into a more public debate and the industrial relations systems increased in complexity and scope. Accomodation has allowed for the recognition and better treatment of human rights that are integral to Canadian life.

The article offers information on the annexation of territory and end of two-state solution in modern international law. Topics discussed the territorial conquest and annexation as intolerable scourges; highlights the conditions like devasting wars, political instability, and economic ruin; and information on the extension of Israeli laws to the West Bank and the creation of a discriminatory regime.

The article presents information on the Canadian labor unions. Compared with its American counterpart, the Canadian labor movement has been remarkably successful. In 1965, both movements represented 30 percent of the nonagricultural work force in their respective countries. Canadian unions now represent 38 percent of the nonagricultural work force, while only 17 percent of Americans who are not farm workers belong to unions. During the 1970s and 1980s Canadian telecommunications, energy, chemical, paper and forestry workers all split from their American parents to create their own organizations.

UN Security Council Resolution 242 endorsed the ““inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war”” and called for ““withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied”” in the June 1967 war. Since then, a debate has raged over whether these provisions call for a complete Israeli withdrawal, a minor revision of borders, or license for Israel to retain sovereignty over some of the conquered lands. This article argues that the resolution must be read through the lens of international law. A principled legal interpretation clarifies 242's ambiguities on withdrawal and re-establishes the importance of universal rights to a just and durable peace in the Middle East.

In June 2004, the High Court of Israel (HCI) ruled on the ““Beit Sourik””case in which Palestinian villagers challenged the legality of Israel's separation wall, which had been routed through their villages causing great hardship. This article examines the HCI decision---which upheld the legality of the wall under international law but mandated changes in its route---and the argumentation used. In the process, the article shows how the HCI, despite some disagreements with the state on narrow issues of administrative application, broadly supports the government's policies of occupation, and it explains how the court interprets international law in order to do so. The article also contrasts the HCI's ruling with the nearly simultaneous ruling of the International Court of Justice, highlighting the two courts' very different approaches to international law.