Journal Articles Clause Samples

The 'Journal Articles' clause defines the terms and conditions governing the creation, submission, and publication of articles in academic or professional journals. Typically, this clause outlines the responsibilities of authors regarding originality, proper citation, and compliance with editorial standards, as well as the rights of the publisher to edit, distribute, or archive the articles. Its core function is to ensure clarity and mutual understanding between authors and publishers, thereby protecting intellectual property rights and maintaining the integrity of the publication process.
Journal Articles. Ambos, Kai. “The Overall Function of International Criminal Law: Striking the Right Balance Between the Rechtsgut and the Harm Principles”, 9 Criminal Law and Philosophy 2 (2015). ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇▇▇. “The ICTY Prosecutor and the Review of the NATO Bombing Campaign against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia”, 12 European Journal of International Law 3 (2001): 503- 530. ▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, and, ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇, “International law protecting the environment during armed conflict: gaps and opportunities”, 92 International Review of the Red Cross 879 (2010): 569-592. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇. “Charging Practices in Hazardous Waste Crime Prosecutions”, 62 Ohio State Law Journal 3 (2001): 1077-1144. ▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇. “The Proportionality Principle in the Humanitarian Law of Warfare: Recent Efforts at Codification,” 10 Cornell International Law Journal 1 (1976). ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇. “A Survey of International Customary Rules of Environmental Protection”, 13 Natural Resources Journal (1973): 179-189. ▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇. “Balancing Profit and Environmental Sustainability in Ecuador: Lessons Learned from the Chevron Case” 24 Duke Environmental Law & Policy Forum (2014): 353-373. ▇▇▇, ▇▇▇▇▇-Sun, “Emergence of an International Environmental Criminal Law?”, 19 UCLA Journal of Environmental Law and Policy 1 (2001): 11-47. ▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇▇. “Modes of Warfare and Evolving Standards of Environmental Protection Under the International Law of War” 15 Florida Journal of International Law (2002-2003): 481-539. ▇▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇ and ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇. “Wildlife crime scene investigation: techniques, tools and technology”, 9 Endangered Species Research (2009): 229-238. ▇▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇. “Beyond Symbolism: Problems and Prospects with Prosecuting Environmental Destruction before the ICC”, 15 Journal of International Criminal Justice 3, (2017): 491–507. ▇▇▇-▇▇ ▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, “Armed Opposition Groups and the Right to Exercise Control over Public Natural Resources: A Legal Analysis of the Cases of Libya and Syria”, 62 Netherlands International Law Review 1 (2015). D'Aspremont ▇▇▇▇ and, ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, “Strategies of Engagement with Scientific Fact- Finding in International Adjudication” 5 Journal of International Dispute Settlement 2 (2014):240- 272. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇▇▇. “Protection of the Environment in International Armed Conflict” 5 ▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇ Yearbook of United Nations Law (2001): 523-549. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇▇▇▇, “Le droit international humanitaire et l’avis consultatif de ...
View SourceView Similar (3)
Journal Articles. ▇▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ and ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, 2017. “
View Source
Journal Articles. A. Print (1) Intl Rev Econ 213 ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇▇ ▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ and ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇, ‘Anomalies: The Endowment Effect, Loss Aversion, and Status Quo Bias’ (1991) 5(1) J Econ Perspectives 193 ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇ and ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇, ‘Heart of Darkness: Modeling Public–Private Funding Interactions Inside The R&D Black Box’ (2000) 29 Research Policy 1165 ▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇▇, Toole ‘Is public R&D a complement or substitute for private R&D? A review of the econometric evidence’ (2000) Research Policy 29 ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇, ‘Barriers to Entry’ (1982) 72(1) Am Econ Rev 47 ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇, ‘Information and Efficiency: Another Viewpoint’ (1969) 12(1) ▇ ▇ & Econ Demsetz H, ‘Toward a Theory of Property Rights’ (1967) 57(2) Am Econ Rev 347 ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ V and Versaevel B, ‘Patent Pools and Dynamic R&D Incentives’ (2013) 36 International Review of Law and Economics 59 ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ B, ‘Just What are Essential Facilities?’ (2001) 38 CM L Rev 397 Dolmans M, ‘A Tale of Two Tragedies – A Plea for Open Standards’ (2010) 2(2) IFOSS L Rev 115 ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇, ‘The Limits of Antitrust’ (1984) ▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇ ▇▇▇ ▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇ and Rai AK, ‘▇▇▇▇-▇▇▇▇ Reform and the Progress of Biomedicine’ (2003) 662(1) Law and Contemporary Problems 289 ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇, ‘Public Research and Private Development: Patents and Technology Transfer in Government- Sponsored Research’ (1996) 82(8) Virginia L Rev 1663 ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ E, ‘Tying, Bundled Discounts, and the Death of the Single Monopoly Profit Theory’ (2009) 123(2) Harv L Rev 399 ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇, ‘Why There Is Too Little, Not Too Much, Private Property’ (2011) 53 Arizona L Rev 51 ▇▇▇▇▇ T and ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ R, ‘The Giants Among Us’ (2012) 1 ▇▇▇▇ Tech L Rev 1 ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇ and ▇▇▇▇▇▇ F, ‘How Predictable is Technological Progress?’ (2016) 45 Research Policy 647 First H, ‘Controlling the Intellectual Property Grab : Protect Innovation, Not Innovators. Public Interest’ (2003) 38 Rutgers LJ 365 ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ B and ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇, ‘Revitalizing Essential Facilities’ (2008) 75(1) Antitrust LJ 1 ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇ and ▇▇▇▇▇▇ MA, ‘Spillovers’, (2007) 107 Columbia Law Review 257 <▇▇▇▇://▇▇▇. ▇▇▇▇▇.▇▇▇/▇▇▇▇▇▇/▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇> ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇, ‘An Economic Theory of Infrastructure and Commons Management’ (2005) 89 Minn L Rev 917 ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇, ‘Evaluating the Demsetzian Trend in Copyright Law’, (2007) 3(3) Rev L & Econ 2 Gal MS, ‘Monopoly Pricing as an Antitrust Offense in the U.S. and the EC: Two Systems of Belief about Monopoly’ (2004) 49(2) Antitrust Bulletin 343 Geradin D, ‘Pricing Abuses by Essential Patent Holders in a Standard-setting Context: A View f...
View Source
Journal Articles indicates co-author is/was a student when the research was conducted
View Source

Related to Journal Articles

  • Organization and Standing; Articles and Bylaws The Company is a ---------------------------------------------- corporation duly organized and validly existing under, and by virtue of, the laws of the State of Delaware and is in good standing under such laws. The Company has the requisite corporate power to own and operate its properties and assets and to carry on its business as presently conducted and as proposed to be conducted.

  • Internal Accounting Controls The Company and each of its Subsidiaries maintain a system of internal accounting controls sufficient, in the judgment of the Company’s board of directors, to provide reasonable assurance that (i) transactions are executed in accordance with management’s general or specific authorizations, (ii) transactions are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial statements in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles and to maintain asset accountability, (iii) access to assets is permitted only in accordance with management’s general or specific authorization and (iv) the recorded accountability for assets is compared with the existing assets at reasonable intervals and appropriate action is taken with respect to any differences.

  • Internal Accounting and Disclosure Controls The Company and each of its Subsidiaries maintains internal control over financial reporting (as such term is defined in Rule 13a-15(f) under the 1934 Act) that is effective to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, including that (i) transactions are executed in accordance with management’s general or specific authorizations, (ii) transactions are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial statements in conformity with GAAP and to maintain asset and liability accountability, (iii) access to assets or incurrence of liabilities is permitted only in accordance with management’s general or specific authorization and (iv) the recorded accountability for assets and liabilities is compared with the existing assets and liabilities at reasonable intervals and appropriate action is taken with respect to any difference. The Company maintains disclosure controls and procedures (as such term is defined in Rule 13a-15(e) under the 1934 Act) that are effective in ensuring that information required to be disclosed by the Company in the reports that it files or submits under the 1934 Act is recorded, processed, summarized and reported, within the time periods specified in the rules and forms of the SEC, including, without limitation, controls and procedures designed to ensure that information required to be disclosed by the Company in the reports that it files or submits under the 1934 Act is accumulated and communicated to the Company’s management, including its principal executive officer or officers and its principal financial officer or officers, as appropriate, to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosure. Neither the Company nor any of its Subsidiaries has received any notice or correspondence from any accountant, Governmental Entity or other Person relating to any potential material weakness or significant deficiency in any part of the internal controls over financial reporting of the Company or any of its Subsidiaries.

  • S▇▇▇▇▇▇▇-▇▇▇▇▇; Internal Accounting Controls The Company and the Subsidiaries are in compliance with any and all applicable requirements of the S▇▇▇▇▇▇▇-▇▇▇▇▇ Act of 2002 that are effective as of the date hereof, and any and all applicable rules and regulations promulgated by the Commission thereunder that are effective as of the date hereof and as of the Closing Date. The Company and the Subsidiaries maintain a system of internal accounting controls sufficient to provide reasonable assurance that: (i) transactions are executed in accordance with management’s general or specific authorizations, (ii) transactions are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial statements in conformity with GAAP and to maintain asset accountability, (iii) access to assets is permitted only in accordance with management’s general or specific authorization, and (iv) the recorded accountability for assets is compared with the existing assets at reasonable intervals and appropriate action is taken with respect to any differences. The Company and the Subsidiaries have established disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Company and the Subsidiaries and designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that information required to be disclosed by the Company in the reports it files or submits under the Exchange Act is recorded, processed, summarized and reported, within the time periods specified in the Commission’s rules and forms. The Company’s certifying officers have evaluated the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures of the Company and the Subsidiaries as of the end of the period covered by the most recently filed periodic report under the Exchange Act (such date, the “Evaluation Date”). The Company presented in its most recently filed periodic report under the Exchange Act the conclusions of the certifying officers about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on their evaluations as of the Evaluation Date. Since the Evaluation Date, there have been no changes in the internal control over financial reporting (as such term is defined in the Exchange Act) of the Company and its Subsidiaries that have materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the internal control over financial reporting of the Company and its Subsidiaries.

  • ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇-▇▇▇▇▇; Internal Accounting Controls The Company and the Subsidiaries are in compliance with any and all applicable requirements of the ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇-▇▇▇▇▇ Act of 2002 that are effective as of the date hereof, and any and all applicable rules and regulations promulgated by the Commission thereunder that are effective as of the date hereof and as of the Closing Date. The Company and the Subsidiaries maintain a system of internal accounting controls sufficient to provide reasonable assurance that: (i) transactions are executed in accordance with management’s general or specific authorizations, (ii) transactions are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial statements in conformity with GAAP and to maintain asset accountability, (iii) access to assets is permitted only in accordance with management’s general or specific authorization, and (iv) the recorded accountability for assets is compared with the existing assets at reasonable intervals and appropriate action is taken with respect to any differences. The Company and the Subsidiaries have established disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Company and the Subsidiaries and designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that information required to be disclosed by the Company in the reports it files or submits under the Exchange Act is recorded, processed, summarized and reported, within the time periods specified in the Commission’s rules and forms. The Company’s certifying officers have evaluated the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures of the Company and the Subsidiaries as of the end of the period covered by the most recently filed periodic report under the Exchange Act (such date, the “Evaluation Date”). The Company presented in its most recently filed periodic report under the Exchange Act the conclusions of the certifying officers about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on their evaluations as of the Evaluation Date. Since the Evaluation Date, there have been no changes in the internal control over financial reporting (as such term is defined in the Exchange Act) of the Company and its Subsidiaries that have materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the internal control over financial reporting of the Company and its Subsidiaries.