Talk:Ex aequo et bono
![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Case concerning delimitation of the maritime boundary in the Gulf of Maine Area
[edit]Somewhat misleading to present this case as exemplar for "ex aequo et bono", since though it was decided on the basis of "equitable criteria", § 59 reads: "The Chamber is however bound by its Statute, and required by the Parties, not to take a decision ex aequo et bono, but to achieve a result on the basis of law." — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlmaTsuy (talk • contribs) 21:51, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Eritrea-Ethiopia Claims Commission
[edit]I initially deleted all but the first line of the paragraph dealing with the commission, but I undid that to raise the question here first.
Is the text at issue indicating that principals of law are not considered or that principles of equity praeter legem or ;contra legem, outside or against the law, respectively, or not considered. I suspect that the paragraph is incorrect at least in part for confusing, or at least blurring the line between, general principles of law and non-legal concepts of equity.IMHO (talk) 18:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Has this ever been used?
[edit]Outside of both parties agreeing, has this ever been used in modern history (19c+)? I mean, if both parties agree, they can do whatever they want... so that's no bar...
~ender 2009-07-19 08:22:AM MST —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.167.219.101 (talk)
"Term of Art" - Jargon link.
[edit]"Ex aequo et bono (Latin for "according to the right and good" or "from equity and conscience") is a phrase derived from Latin that is used as a legal term of art." links to "Jargon" at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jargon