<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Case of the Day: Sokolow v. PLO	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://lettersblogatory.com/2016/09/01/case-day-sokolow-v-plo/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://lettersblogatory.com/2016/09/01/case-day-sokolow-v-plo/</link>
	<description>The Blog of International Judicial Assistance</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 18 Nov 2024 18:56:06 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.9.4</generator>
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Conundrum of the Day: Palestinian Statehood &#124; Letters Blogatory		</title>
		<link>https://lettersblogatory.com/2016/09/01/case-day-sokolow-v-plo/#comment-2628</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Conundrum of the Day: Palestinian Statehood &#124; Letters Blogatory]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Mar 2020 13:49:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://lettersblogatory.com/?p=23247#comment-2628</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[[&#8230;] 2016), a case argued after Palestine&#8217;s accession to the Rome statute, which I wrote about in September 2016, the court vacated a $650 million judgment on a jury verdict on similar grounds. Now, the issue is [&#8230;]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] 2016), a case argued after Palestine&#8217;s accession to the Rome statute, which I wrote about in September 2016, the court vacated a $650 million judgment on a jury verdict on similar grounds. Now, the issue is [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Case of the Day: Livnat v. Palestinian Authority &#124; Letters Blogatory		</title>
		<link>https://lettersblogatory.com/2016/09/01/case-day-sokolow-v-plo/#comment-2627</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Case of the Day: Livnat v. Palestinian Authority &#124; Letters Blogatory]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 28 Mar 2017 10:00:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://lettersblogatory.com/?p=23247#comment-2627</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[[&#8230;] examples of this surprising and perhaps cynical view, on the part of the Palestinian authorities, before. The question was whether the same rule that applies to states should nevertheless apply to the PA [&#8230;]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] examples of this surprising and perhaps cynical view, on the part of the Palestinian authorities, before. The question was whether the same rule that applies to states should nevertheless apply to the PA [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Case of the Day: Gilmore v. Palestinian Authority &#124; Letters Blogatory		</title>
		<link>https://lettersblogatory.com/2016/09/01/case-day-sokolow-v-plo/#comment-2626</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Case of the Day: Gilmore v. Palestinian Authority &#124; Letters Blogatory]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 12 Jan 2017 15:58:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://lettersblogatory.com/?p=23247#comment-2626</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[[&#8230;] and therefore entitled to FSIA sovereign immunity, while in Safra v. Palestinian Authority and Sokolow v. PLO, it took the contrary position in order to assert lack of personal jurisdiction (since in those [&#8230;]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] and therefore entitled to FSIA sovereign immunity, while in Safra v. Palestinian Authority and Sokolow v. PLO, it took the contrary position in order to assert lack of personal jurisdiction (since in those [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
