OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# United Nations Security Council Resolution 648

* related portals: United Nations Security Council Resolutions.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
Adopted unanimously by the Security Council at its 2906th meeting, on 31 January 1990
The Security Council,
Recalling its resolutions 425 (1978) and 426 (1978) of 19 March 1978, 501 (1982) of 25 February 1982, 508 (1982) of 5 June 1982, 509 (1982) of 6 June 1982 and 520 (1982) of 17 September 1982, as well as all its resolutions on the situation in Lebanon,
Having studied the report of the Secretary-General on the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon of 25 January 1990, [1] and taking note of the observations expressed therein,
Taking note of the letter dated 11 January 1990 from the Chargé d’affaires a.i. of the Permanent Mission of Lebanon to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General, [2]
Responding to the request of the Government of Lebanon,
1. Decides to extend the present mandate of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon for a further interim period of six months, that ism until 31 July 1990;
2. Reiterates its strong support for the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Lebanon within its internationally recognized boundaries;
3. Re-emphasized the terms of reference and general guidelines of the Force as stated in the report of the Secretary-General of 19 Match 1978, [3] approved by resolution 426 (1978), and calls upon all parties concerned to co-operate fully with the Force for the full implementation of its mandate;
4. Reiterates that the Force should fully implement its mandate as defined in resolution 425 (1978), 426 (1978) and all other relevant resolutions;
5. Requests the Secretary-General to continue consultations with the Government of Lebanon and other parties directly concerned with the implementation of the present resolution and to report to the Security Council thereon.
[1] Ibid., document S/21102.
[2] Ibid., document S/21074.
[3] Official Records of the Security Council, Thirty-third Year, Supplement for January, February and March 1978, document S/12611.
This work is excerpted from an official document of the United Nations. The policy of this organisation is to keep most of its documents in the public domain in order to disseminate "as widely as possible the ideas (contained) in the United Nations Publications".
Pursuant to UN Administrative Instruction ST/AI/189/Add.9/Rev.2 available in English only, these documents are in the public domain worldwide:
* Official records (proceedings of conferences, verbatim and summary records, …)
* United Nations documents issued with a UN symbol
* Public information material designed primarily to inform the public about United Nations activities (not including public information material that is offered for sale).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# United Nations Security Council Resolution 62

* related portals: United Nations Security Council Resolutions.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
Adopted by the Security Council at its 381st meeting, on 16 November 1948 [1]
The Security Council,
Reaffirming its previous resolutions concerning the establishment and implementation of the truce in Palestine, and recalling particularly its resolution 54 (1948) of 15 July 1948 which determined that the situation in Palestine constitutes a threat to the peace within the meaning of Article 39 of the Charter of the United Nations,
Taking note that the General Assembly is continuing its consideration of the future government of Palestine in response to the request of the Security Council in its resolution 44 (1948) of 1 April 1948,
Without prejudice to the actions of the Acting Mediator regarding the implementation of Security Council resolution 61 (1948) of 4 November 1948,
1. Decides that, in order to eliminate the threat to the peace in Palestine and to facilitate the transition from the present truce to permanent peace in Palestine, an armistice shall be established in all sectors of Palestine;
2. Calls upon the parties directly involved in the conflict in Palestine, as a further provisional measure under Article 40 of the Charter, to seek agreement forthwith, by negotiations conducted either directly or through the Acting Mediator, with a view to the immediate establishment of the armistice, including:
(a) The delineation of permanent armistice demarcation lines beyond which the armed forces of the respective parties shall not move;
(b) Such withdrawal and reduction of their armed forces as will ensure the maintenance of the armistice during the transition to permanent peace in Palestine.
[1] The draft resolution was voted on in parts. No vote was taken on the text as a whole.
This work is excerpted from an official document of the United Nations. The policy of this organisation is to keep most of its documents in the public domain in order to disseminate "as widely as possible the ideas (contained) in the United Nations Publications".
Pursuant to UN Administrative Instruction ST/AI/189/Add.9/Rev.2 available in English only, these documents are in the public domain worldwide:
* Official records (proceedings of conferences, verbatim and summary records, …)
* United Nations documents issued with a UN symbol
* Public information material designed primarily to inform the public about United Nations activities (not including public information material that is offered for sale).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# United Nations Security Council Resolution 63

* related portals: United Nations Security Council Resolutions.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
Adopted by the Security Council at its 392nd meeting, by 7 votes to none, with 4 abstentions (Belgium, France, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, [1] Union of Soviet Socialist Republics), on 24 December 1948
The Security Council,
Noting with concern the resumption of hostilities in Indonesia,
Having taken note of the reports of the Committee of Good Offices,
1. Calls upon the parties:
(a) To cease hostilities forthwith;
(b) Immediately to release the President of the Republic of Indonesia and other political prisoners arrested since 18 December 1948;
2. Instructs the Committee of Good Offices to report to the Security Council fully and urgently by telegraph on the events which have transpired in Indonesia since 12 December 1948, and to observe and report to the Security Council on the compliance with sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) above.
[1] The representative of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic was absent, and the President ruled that he should be counted as having abstained.
This work is excerpted from an official document of the United Nations. The policy of this organisation is to keep most of its documents in the public domain in order to disseminate "as widely as possible the ideas (contained) in the United Nations Publications".
Pursuant to UN Administrative Instruction ST/AI/189/Add.9/Rev.2 available in English only, these documents are in the public domain worldwide:
* Official records (proceedings of conferences, verbatim and summary records, …)
* United Nations documents issued with a UN symbol
* Public information material designed primarily to inform the public about United Nations activities (not including public information material that is offered for sale).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# United Nations Security Council Resolution 64

* related portals: United Nations Security Council Resolutions.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
Adopted by the Security Council at its 395th meeting, by 8 votes to none, with 3 abstentions (Belgium, France, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland), on 28 December 1948
The Security Council,
Noting that the Netherlands Government has not so far released the President of the Republic of Indonesia and all other political prisoners, as required by Council resolution 63 (1948) of 24 December 1948,
Calls upon the Netherlands Government to set free these political prisoners forthwith and report to the Security Council within twenty-four hours of the adoption of the present resolution.
This work is excerpted from an official document of the United Nations. The policy of this organisation is to keep most of its documents in the public domain in order to disseminate "as widely as possible the ideas (contained) in the United Nations Publications".
Pursuant to UN Administrative Instruction ST/AI/189/Add.9/Rev.2 available in English only, these documents are in the public domain worldwide:
* Official records (proceedings of conferences, verbatim and summary records, …)
* United Nations documents issued with a UN symbol
* Public information material designed primarily to inform the public about United Nations activities (not including public information material that is offered for sale).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# United Nations Security Council Resolution 620

* related portals: United Nations Security Council Resolutions.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
Adopted by the Security Council at its 2825th meeting on 26 August 1988
The Security Council,
Recalling its resolution 612 (1988),
Having considered the reports of 20 and 25 July and 19 August 1988 (S/20060 and Add.1, S/20063 and Add.1, S/20134) of the missions dispatched by the Secretary-General to investigate allegations of the use of chemical weapons in the conflict between the Islamic Republic of Iran and Iraq,
Deeply dismayed by the missions' conclusions that there had been continued use of chemical weapons in the conflict between Iran and Iraq and that such use against Iranians had become more intense and frequent,
Profoundly concerned by the danger of possible use of chemical weapons in the future,
Bearing in mind the current negotiations in the Conference on Disarmament on the complete and effective prohibition of the development, production and stockpiling of chemical weapons and on their destruction,
Determined to intensify its efforts to end all use of chemical weapons in violation of international obligations now and in the future,
* Condemns resolutely the use of chemical weapons in the conflict between Iran and Iraq, in violation of obligations under the Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare, signed at Geneva on 17 June 1925, and in defiance of its resolution 612 (1988);
* Encourages the Secretary-General to carry out promptly investigations, in response to allegations brought to his attention by any Member State concerning the possible use of chemical and bacteriological (biological) or toxin weapons that may constitute a violation of the 1925 Geneva Protocol or other relevant rules of customary international law, in order to ascertain the facts of the matter, and to report the results;
(Resolution S/RES/620 (1988))
This work is excerpted from an official document of the United Nations. The policy of this organisation is to keep most of its documents in the public domain in order to disseminate "as widely as possible the ideas (contained) in the United Nations Publications".
Pursuant to UN Administrative Instruction ST/AI/189/Add.9/Rev.2 available in English only, these documents are in the public domain worldwide:
* Official records (proceedings of conferences, verbatim and summary records, …)
* United Nations documents issued with a UN symbol
* Public information material designed primarily to inform the public about United Nations activities (not including public information material that is offered for sale).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# United Nations Security Council Resolution 647

* related portals: United Nations Security Council Resolutions.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
Adopted unanimously by the Security Council at its 2904th meeting, on 11 January 1990
The Security Council,
Recalling the letters dated 14 and 22 April 1988 ([1]) from the Secretary-General to the President of the Security Council concerning the Agreements on the Settlement of the Situation Relating to Afghanistan, signed at Geneva on 14 April 1988, ([2])
Recalling also the note by the Secretary-General of 15 February 1989 ([3]) and his report of 20 October 1989, ([4])
Recalling further its resolution 622 (1988) of 31 October 1988,
Taking note of the letter dated 9 January 1990 from the Secretary-General to the President of the Security Council, ([5])
1. Confirms its agreement to the measures envisaged in the Secretary-General's letter of 9 January 1990 ([5]) concerning the arrangements for the temporary deployment in Afghanistan and Pakistan of military observers from existing United Nations operations to assist in the mission of good offices for a further period of two months,
2. Requests the Secretary-General to keep the Security Council informed of further developments in accordance with the Agreements on the Settlement of the Situation Relating to Afghanistan, signed at Geneva on 14 April 1988. ([2])
[1] Ibid., documents S/19834 and S/19835. [2] Official Records of the Security Council, Forty-third Year, Supplement for April, May and June 1988, document S/19835, annex 1. [3] Ibid., Supplement for January, February and March 1989, document S/20465. [4] Official Records of the Security Council, Forty-fourth Year, Supplement for October, November and December 1989, document S/20911. [5] S/21071.
This work is excerpted from an official document of the United Nations. The policy of this organisation is to keep most of its documents in the public domain in order to disseminate "as widely as possible the ideas (contained) in the United Nations Publications".
Pursuant to UN Administrative Instruction ST/AI/189/Add.9/Rev.2 available in English only, these documents are in the public domain worldwide:
* Official records (proceedings of conferences, verbatim and summary records, …)
* United Nations documents issued with a UN symbol
* Public information material designed primarily to inform the public about United Nations activities (not including public information material that is offered for sale).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Union Pacific Railroad Company v. Mason City & Fort Dodge Railroad Company

United States Supreme Court
222 U.S. 237
Union Pacific Railroad Company v. Mason City & Fort Dodge Railroad Company
Argued: November 2, 1911. --- Decided: December 11, 1911
Messrs. Maxwell Evarts and N. H. Loomis for appellants.
Mr. John Barton Payne for appellee.
Mr. Justice McKenna delivered the opinion of the court:

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Union Pacific Railroad Company v. Mason City Fort Dodge Railroad Company

United States Supreme Court
199 U.S. 160
Union Pacific Railroad Company v. Mason City Fort Dodge Railroad Company
Argued: October 19, 20, 1905. --- Decided: November 6, 1905
On a bill filed by the Mason City & Fort Dodge Railroad Company (hereinafter called the Mason City company), the circuit court of the United States for the district of Nebraska entered a decree, August 19, 1903 (124 Fed. 409), requiring the Union Pacific Railroad Company (hereinafter called the Union Pacific company) to let the plaintiff into the joint use of the railroad bridge between Omaha and Council Bluffs, and the approaches thereto. On appeal this decree was affirmed by the circuit court of appeals for the eighth circuit, February 29, 1904. 64 C. C. A. 348, 128 Fed. 230. Thereupon the Union Pacific company appealed to this court.
Messrs. John N. Baldwin and Maxwell Evarts for appellant.
Messrs. Frank B. Kellogg, James M. Woolworth, William D. McHugh, and Cordenio A. Severance for appellee.
Statement by Mr. Justice Brewer:
[Argument of Counsel from pages 162-164 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Justice Brewer delivered the opinion of the court:

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Union Pacific Railroad Company v. Hall/Dissent Bradley

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Dissenting Opinion Bradley
United States Supreme Court
91 U.S. 343
Union Pacific Railroad Company v. Hall
MR. JUSTICE BRADLEY dissenting.
I am obliged to dissent from the judgment of the court in this case. The Missouri River is, by common acceptation, the western boundary of Iowa; and the fair construction of the charter of the Union Pacific Railroad Company, which adopts that boundary as its eastern terminus, is, that the road was to extend from the Missouri River westwardly. The subsequent express authority given to construct a bridge across the river, in my judgment, confirms this view of the subject; and as a mandamus is a severe remedy, requiring a clear right and clear duty to support it, I think it ought not to be granted in this case, especially as it requires the company to use the bridge as a part of their continuous line with all their trains, which may impose much inconvenience on them, without corresponding benefit to the public.
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Union Pacific Railroad Company v. Hall
## Dissenting Opinion

    Bradley
United States Supreme Court
91 U.S. 343
Union Pacific Railroad Company v. Hall
ERROR to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Iowa.
Submitted on brief by Mr. A. J. Poppleton for the plaintiff in error, and by Mr. John N. Rogers, contra.
Mr. JUSTICE STRONG delivered the opinion of the court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Union Pacific Railroad Company v. Laramie Stock Yards Company

United States Supreme Court
231 U.S. 190
Union Pacific Railroad Company v. Laramie Stock Yards Company
Argued: October 14, 1913. --- Decided: December 1, 1913
Messrs. John W. Lacey, N. H. Loomis, and Herbert V. Lacey for plaintiff in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 191-193 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. Roderick N. Matson and T. Blake Kennedy for defendant in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 193-196 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Justice McKenna delivered the opinion of the court:

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# United States v. Bland/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
283 U.S. 636
United States v. Bland
Argued: April 27, 1931. --- Decided: May 25, 1931
This case is ruled by the decision just announced in United States v. Macintosh, 283 U.S. 605, 51 S.C.t. 570, 75 L. Ed. 1302.
The respondent, an applicant for citizenship, was a native of Canada and came to the United States in 1914. She had duly declared her intention to become a citizen. She refused to take the oath of allegiance prescribed by the statute to defend the Constitution and laws of the United States against all enemies, etc., except with the written interpolation of the words, 'as far as my conscience as a Christian will allow.' It is unnecessary to review her testimony. The only difference between the position she took, and that taken by the respondent in the Macintosh Case, is that, in addition to refusing positively to bear rms in defense of the United States under any circumstances, she required an actual amendment of the oath as already stated, instead of reserving the point by parol. As we said in the Macintosh Case, this is a circumstance which has no distinguishing effect. The substance of the oath has been definitely prescribed by Congress. The words of the statute do not admit of the qualification upon which the applicant insists. For the court to allow it to be made is to amend the act and thereby usurp the power of legislation vested in another department of the government.
The examiner reported against the applicant, and the court of first instance, after a full hearing, denied the application. We think its decree was right.
The decree of the Court of Appeals is reversed and that of the District Court is affirmed.
Mr. Chief Justice HUGHES, dissenting.
What I have said in the case of United States v. Macintosh, 283 U.S. 605 51 S.C.t. 570, 75 L. Ed. 1302, with respect to the interpretation of the provisions of the Naturalization Act and of the prescribed oath, I think applies also to this case. The petitioner is a nurse who spent nine months in the service of our government in France, nursing United States soldiers and aiding in psychiatric work. She has religious scruples against bearing arms. I think that it sufficiently appears that her unwillingness to take the oath was merely because of the interpretation that had been placed upon it as amounting to a promise that she would bear arms despite her religious convictions. It was the opinion of the Circuit Court of Appeals that the appellant may properly take the oath according to its true significance and should be permitted to take it. 42 F.(2d) 842, 844, 845. I think that the judgment below should be affirmed.
Mr. Justice HOLMES, Mr. Justice BRANDEIS, and Mr. Justice STONE concur in this opinion.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# United States v. Blue

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
384 U.S. 251
United States v. Blue
Argued: April 21, 1966. --- Decided: May 23, 1966
Solicitor Gen. Thurgood Marshall, for appellant.
Ernest R. Mortenson, Pasadena, Cal., for appellee.
Mr. Justice HARLAN delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# United States v. Blair

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
321 U.S. 730
United States v. Blair
Argued: Feb. 1, 1944. --- Decided: April 10, 1944
See 322 U.S. 768, 64 S.Ct. 1052.
Hon. Francis M. Shea, Asst. Atty. Gen., for petitioner.
Messrs. H. Cecil Kilpatrick and Richard S. Doyle, both of Washington, D.C., for respondent.
Mr. Justice MURPHY delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# United States v. Bliss & Laughlin, Inc. (371 U.S. 70)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
371 U.S. 70
United States v. Bliss & Laughlin, Inc.
Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Loevinger and Lionel Kestenbaum, for the United States.
W. Donald McSweeney and Maurice Jones, Jr., for appellee.
PER CURIAM.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# United States v. Bliss & Laughlin, Inc. (371 U.S. 70)/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
371 U.S. 70
United States v. Bliss & Laughlin, Inc.
The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded for reconsideration in light of Brown Shoe Co., Inc., v. United States, 370 U.S. 294, 82 S.Ct. 1502, 8 L.Ed.2d 510.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse