The Argument

Chapter 1 introduces the project. The research question is whether minorities have a right to internal self-determinati(Mi. Furthermore, the general framework and limits of the project are provided. Recurring terminology is explained. These include the terms minorities , Europe and nmi-binding instruments . 

Chapter 3 presents minority rights and self-determination under traditional international law and thus provides part of the foundation for the analysis in 

The chapter shows a complex picture of actors and instruments in the fields of minority rights and self-determination. The sources doctrine of classic international law does not know how to deal with these actors and instruments. The sources doctrine relies on the sources of art. 38 (1) of the Statute of the Intemational Court of Justice. The instruments introduced in this chapter cannot be part of the analysis when relying solely on the sources doctrine yet, the instrument carmot be ignored. Therefore, an approach of intemational law is called for that allows for the actors and instruments to be taken seriously. 

Chapter 5 takes up the call for an alternative approach to intemational law. The theories of Thomas Eranck s Legitimacy and John Rawls Justice open the field of analysis. Legitimacy and justice establish the compliance puU of a mle. The compliance pull is the indicator of the chances that a rule will be followed. 

The approach of legitimacy and justice is used twice in the project. For one, it is applied to four non-binding documents two documents each on minority rights and self-determination. For another, the approach is used oti four specific minority rights. This way, the compliance pull of the documents and the rights is tested. 

As shown in Fig. 1.1, the constant features of a molecule/compound are the number and nature of its atoms (its composihon), the connechvity of its atoms 

Changes in composition or constitutior) without change in oenotype  

---

Equation (7-8). However, for liquid-liquid equilibria, the equilibrium ratios are strong functions of both phase compositions. The system is thus far more difficult to solve than the superficially similar system of equations for the isothermal vapor-liquid flash. In fact, some of the arguments leading to the selection of the Rachford-Rice form for Equation (7-17) do not apply strictly in the case of two liquid phases. Nevertheless, this form does avoid spurious roots at a = 0 or 1 and has been shown, by extensive experience, to be marltedly superior to alternatives. 

Multiple reactions producing byproducts. The arguments presented for the effect of pressure on single vapor-phase reactions can be used for the primary reaction when dealing with multiple reactions. Again, selectivity is likely to be more important than reactor volume for a given conversion. 

However, before extrapolating the arguments from the gross patterns through the reactor for homogeneous reactions to solid-catalyzed reactions, it must be recognized that in catalytic reactions the fluid in the interior of catalyst pellets may diSer from the main body of fluid. The local inhomogeneities caused by lowered reactant concentration within the catalyst pellets result in a product distribution different from that which would otherwise be observed. 

Thus capital cost considerations reinforce the argument that the nonintegrated sequence with the lowest heat load is that with the lowest total cost. 

The mechanism by which nonkey components affect a given separation is more complex in practice than the broad arguments presented here. There are complex interrelationships between the volatility of the key and nonkey components, etc. Although the argument presented is thus not rigorous, it is broadly correct. 

Here again, the older concept of surface tension appears since Eq. 11-22 is best understood in terms of the argument that the maximum force available to support the weight of the drop is given by the surface tension force per centimeter times the circumference of the tip. 

We can describe the conservation of linear momenUim by noting the analogy between tire time-dependent Schrodinger equation, (equation A1.4.1 OS ), and (equation A1.4.991. For an isolated molecule, //does not depend explicitly on t and we can repeat the arguments expressed in (equation Al.4.98), (equation A1.4.99), (equation A1.4.1 OOl. (equation A 1.4.1011 and (equation A1.4.1021 with X replaced by t and Py replaced by // to show that... 

The argument is sometimes given that equation (Al.6,29) implies that the ratio of spontaneous to stimulated emission goes as the cube of the emitted photon frequency. This argument must be used with some care recall that for light at thennal equilibrium, goes as BP, and hence the rate of stimulated emission has a factor... 

Redlich [3] has criticized the so-called zeroth law on the grounds that the argument applies equally well for the introduction of any generalized force, mechanical (pressure), electrical (voltage), or otherwise. The difference seems to be that the physical nature of these other forces has already been clearly defined or postulated (at least in the conventional development of physics) while in classical thennodynamics, especially in the Bom-Caratheodory approach, the existence of temperature has to be inferred from experiment. 

A cautionary word about units equilibriuin constants are usually expressed in nnits, because pressures and concentrations have nnits. Yet the argument of a logaritlnn must be dimensionless, so the activities in eqnation (A2.1.66). defined in tenns of the absolute activities (which are dimensionless) are dimensionless. 

The focal depth in geometrical optics is based on the argument that points of a diameter smaller than 0.15 nnn in diameter caimot be distinguished. This leads to a focal deptii of... 

A by a certain amount—let us suppose that the least detectable increment is a (the argument remains unchanged if some other multiple of a is taken) and it is given by the solution of... 

The occurrence of the argument pj2 shows that these eigenvectors are defined up to a sign only. For a unique representation we have to cut the plane along a half-axis. By this, vector fields uniquely defined on the cut plane. They cannot, however, be continued over the cut, but change their roles there instead. Thus, we have the situation of a crossing at which the eigenvector field is discontinuous and Assumption (A) of Thm. 3 is hurt. 

The procedure of Mason and Evans has the electrical analog shown in Figure 2.2, where voltages correspond to pressure gradients and currents to fluxes. As the argument stands there is no real justification for this procedure indeed, it seems improbable that the two mechanisms for diffusive momentum transfer will combine additively, without any interactive modification of their separate values. It is equally difficult to see why the effect of viscous velocity gradients can be accounted for simply by adding... 

Turning the argument around reactions that do not involve proton transfer steps will only experience a significant effect of the Lewis acids if a direct interaction exists between catalyst and reactant. The conventional Diels-Alder reaction is a representative of this class of reactions. As long as monodentate reactants are used, the effects of Lewis acids on this reaction do not exceed the magnitude expected for simple salt effects, i.e. there are no indications for a direct interaction between Lewis-acid and substrate. 

In considering these results and the explanation suggested for them, it may first be noticed that some of the subsidiary points in the argument... 

The argument for the S 2 process, when the transition from acetic acid as solvent to nitric acid as solvent is considered, is less direct, for because of the experimental need to use less reactive compounds, zeroth-order nitration has not been observed in nitric acid. It can be estimated, however, that a substance such as nitrobenzene would react about 10 faster in first-order nitration in nitric acid than in a solution of nitric acid (7 mol 1 ) in acetic acid. Such a large increase is understandable in terms of the S z mechanism, but not otherwise. 

Enough of the arguments, let s take a look at what Is going on here. 

From the arguments of the present section it is clear that an inverse relationship holds between the specific surface and the particle size, and if the particles are long or thin it is the minimum dimension, the thickness of the plates or of the rods, which mainly determines the magnitude of the specific surface. 

---