|
Size: 2321
Comment:
|
Size: 4145
Comment:
|
| Deletions are marked like this. | Additions are marked like this. |
| Line 75: | Line 75: |
| INDAGINI E QUESTIONI LEGALI |
|
| Line 102: | Line 104: |
| INDAGINI E QUESTIONI LEGALI (vedi anche Dioxin) Le risposte delle compagnie accusate: n a 27,878-word defence brief made public on February 6, the chemical companies put up a long list of arguments seeking to wash their hands of any responsibility. These include: * The claim that international law did not bar the US military from using Agent Orange or other herbicides during wartime. * The claim that under US federal law, the government's contractors cannot be held responsible for the government's decision to deploy “the instruments of war”. * Claiming that under the 1995 US-Vietnam agreement to normalise relations and end US trade embargo against Vietnam there were no provisions for reparations or restitution to settle claims arising out of the US military's use of Agent Orange or other herbicides. * Claiming that the US “has never agreed that it has either a moral or a legal duty to provide funds or assistance to remedy for harm allegedly caused by Agent Orange” and the current law suit is a backdoor way to seek reparation and should be rejected. * Arguing that military use of herbicides is still not prohibited under the Chemical Weapons Convention of 1993, “even if the (secondary) effect of such use were the killing or harming of people”. * Claiming that international law governing the conduct of war has never extended liability to corporate entities. Instead, “states are the principal subjects of international law”. Piu' dow: dow.com/agentorange SEVESO http://www.flanet.org/aseva/evento.asp?WHERE=ID_Evento=8 http://www.lifegate.it/ambiente/articolo.php?id_articolo=1786 |
|
| Line 113: | Line 143: |
LE COMPAGNIE COINVOLTE NB: la Dow Chemical possiede dal 2001 la divisione poliuretani della EniChem... |
[:rorinterattiva: Home page Ror interattiva] |
[#appunti Appunti e note redazionali] |
[:RorFonti: Fonti] |
Gr 19:30
Sommario
In primo Piano
Editoriale
NOTIZIE BREVI
ESTERI
ITALIA
Siparietto
Gr 13:00
In primo Piano
NOTIZIE BREVI
ESTERI
ITALIA
Siparietto
Gr 9:30
ESTERI
ITALIA
Appunti e note redazionali
AGENTE ORANGE
Punti:
CONFERENZA
COS’E’ L’AGENTE ORANGE E SUE CONSEGUENZE
DOVE VIENE USATO
DOVE VENIVA PRODOTTO PRODOTTO L’AGENTE ORANGE
GLI INTERESSI DI MONSANTO E DOW CHEMICALS
LE SOSTANZE CORRELATE
INDAGINI E QUESTIONI LEGALI
SEVESO (testi piu' telefonata)
I RISULTATI DELLA CONFERENZA (testo)
ELENCO DELLE COMPAGNIE COINVOLTE
LINK
COS’E’ L’AGENTE ORANGE E SUE CONSEGUENZE
(tibi)
...ma qualcuno le conseguenze non le vuole studiare:
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/dn7146.html
DOVE VENIVA E VIENE PRODOTTO PRODOTTO L’AGENTE ORANGE
‘’’Il caso ceco’’’ http://greenpeace.cz/agentorange/index_en.shtml
INDAGINI E QUESTIONI LEGALI
(vedi anche Dioxin)
Le risposte delle compagnie accusate:
n a 27,878-word defence brief made public on February 6, the chemical companies put up a long list of arguments seeking to wash their hands of any responsibility. These include:
- The claim that international law did not bar the US military from using Agent Orange or other herbicides during wartime.
- The claim that under US federal law, the government's contractors cannot be held responsible for the government's decision to deploy “the instruments of war”.
- Claiming that under the 1995 US-Vietnam agreement to normalise relations and end US trade embargo against Vietnam there were no provisions for reparations or restitution to settle claims arising out of the US military's use of Agent Orange or other herbicides.
- Claiming that the US “has never agreed that it has either a moral or a legal duty to provide funds or assistance to remedy for harm allegedly caused by Agent Orange” and the current law suit is a backdoor way to seek reparation and should be rejected.
- Arguing that military use of herbicides is still not prohibited under the Chemical Weapons Convention of 1993, “even if the (secondary) effect of such use were the killing or harming of people”.
- Claiming that international law governing the conduct of war has never extended liability to corporate entities. Instead, “states are the principal subjects of international law”.
Piu' dow: dow.com/agentorange
SEVESO
http://www.flanet.org/aseva/evento.asp?WHERE=ID_Evento=8
http://www.lifegate.it/ambiente/articolo.php?id_articolo=1786
I RISULTATI DELLA CONFERENZA
http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/2006/03/28/1509363.htm
E’ stato chiesto pubblicamente dalla conferenza un indennizzo da parte degli Stati Uniti, dopo l’esito negativo del processo di primo grado contro 37 compagnie responsabili di aver prodotto l’AO. Il processo ha auvot luogo a Brooklyn, New York.
ARTICOLI SU DIOSSINA
LE COMPAGNIE COINVOLTE
NB: la Dow Chemical possiede dal 2001 la divisione poliuretani della EniChem...
LINK:
in inglese
http://agent-orange-news.newslib.com/
Servizi audio della giornata
[#top Torna a inizio pagina] |