Dating i gronland Online sex came

It should be added that only in the last years of the XIXth century was it definitely established that Greenland is not connected by land with the other parts of the continent of America, i.e. [p27] [19] The climate and character of Greenland are those of an Arctic country. The best known of the colonists was Eric the Red, who was an inhabitant of Iceland of Norwegian origin ; it was at that time that two settlements called Eystribygd and Vestribygd were founded towards the southern end of the western coast.

The "Inland Ice" is difficult to traverse, and parts of the coast - particularly of the East coast - are for months together difficult of access owing to the influence of the Polar current and the stormy winds on the icebergs and the floe ice and owing to the frequent spells of bad weather. These settlements appear to have existed as an independent State for some time, but became tributary to the kingdom of Norway in the XIIIth century. [21] Information as to these early Nordic settlements and as to the extent to which the settlers dominated the remainder of the country is very scanty.

*** [15] According to the royal Norwegian proclamation of July 10th, 1931, which gave rise to the present dispute, the "country" the "taking possession" of which "is officially confirmed" and which is "placed under Norwegian sovereignty" is "situated between Carlsberg Fjord on the South and Bessel Fjord on the North, in Eastern Greenland", and extends from latitude 71 30' to 75 40' N.

dating i gronland-44

[7] Further, the Danish Government, in the Application, reserves the right, in the first place, to apply to the Court, should circumstances require it, for the indication of interim measures for the protection of its rights and, in the second place, to ask the Court to decide as to the nature of the reparation due to the Danish Government in consequence of the Norwegian Government's act of which it complains.

[8] On July 13th, 1931, notice of the Application was given to the Norwegian Government; on July 14th, the communications [p24] provided for in Article 40 of the Statute and Article 36 of the Rules of Court were despatched and were sent to all States entitled to appear before the Court, including the United States of America.

[p25] [8] The Norwegian Government repeats in its Rejoinder the submissions made in its Counter-Case.

[9] In the course of a series of public sittings held between November 21st, 1932, and February 7th, 1933, the Court heard the statements, replies, rejoinders and observations presented by: MM.

Accordingly, the Court declares that, in so far as the terms of Article 52 of the Statute are applicable to the evidence produced by one of the Parties to the case, the consent of the other Party, which is required under that Article, may be regarded as having been obtained.

[14] The submission of the case being in all respects regular, these are the circumstances in which the Court is now called upon to give judgment.

[22] In 1380, the kingdoms of Norway and Denmark were united under the same Crown; the character of this union, which lasted until 1814, changed to some extent in the course of time, more particularly as a result of the centralization at Copenhagen of the administration of the various countries which were under the sovereignty of the Dano-Norwegian Crown.

This evolution seems to have obliterated to some extent the separation which had existed between them from a constitutional standpoint.

de Scavenius, on behalf of the Danish Government: "May it please the Court, To reject as unfounded the three submissions in the Norwegian Counter-Case of March 12th and 15th, 1932; To give judgment to the effect that the declaration of occupation promulgated by the Norwegian Government on July 10th, 1931, and any steps taken in this connection by that Government, constitute a violation of the existing legal situation and are, accordingly, unlawful and invalid; To decide that the Norwegian Government shall bear the costs incurred by the Danish Government in this case." [11] M.

Bull, on behalf of the Norwegian Government: "May it please the Court, To reject the submissions presented by the Danish Government; To adjudge and declare that Denmark has no sovereignty over Eirik Raudes Land; That Norway has acquired the sovereignty over Eirik Raudes Land; That the Danish Government shall bear the costs incurred by the Norwegian Government in this case." [12] A large number of documents, including memorials or opinions on special points, and maps were filed on behalf of each of the Parties, either as annexes to the documents of the written proceedings or in the course of the hearings.

This is a point, however, which in view of the conclusions reached by the Court need not be pursued.

Tags: , ,