Примеры использования Charter amendment на Английском языке и их переводы на Русский язык
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
Proposals requiring Charter amendment.
Those proposals did not achieve the broad-based consensus necessary for eventual adoption as a Charter amendment.
Neither mechanism requires Charter amendment or reform.
The abolition or modification of the veto would not be ratifiable through a Charter amendment.
The reform of the Security Council,which would require Charter amendment, obviously falls under the last category.
Люди также переводят
We are no closer today than we were a year ago to achieving the broad consensus necessary to adopt and ratify a Charter amendment.
They argued that reform of the working methods,which would not require a Charter amendment, should be seen as a continuous process.
Introducing a term like“Charter amendment implications” is not helpful, and even risks disrespect for the Charter and its well-defined voting system.
Proposals not necessarily requiring Charter amendment.
To take another example: what if a draft Charter amendment resolution were to be postponed or submitted to a no-action motion?
Any curtailment of the veto requires Charter amendment.
New Zealand will vote against any proposed Charter amendment on additional permanent membership of the Council that includes such a provision.
Proposals not necessarily requiring Charter amendment.
Indeed, the Charter amendment needed for enlargement of the Council requires support that goes far beyond the numerically necessary two thirds of the membership.
This criterion should also apply to any resolution with Charter amendment implications.
We do not contemplate any Charter amendment, but rather practical measures to restore its status and role, which might require some changes in the rules of procedure.
There has been a lengthy debate about the majority that is needed for a resolution with Charter amendment implications.
Reason: As the elements under A.1. do not require Charter amendment, it is a given that the veto in its present form would be maintained under these scenarios.
As we have previously stated,the United States is not open to an enlargement of the Security Council by a Charter amendment that changes the current veto structure.
If for a vote on an important resolution which does not contain a Charter amendment 180 Member States are present and 170 of them vote, the necessary majority will be 114, which is two-thirds of 170.
And we can still remain seized of, butnot hostage to, issues that may take more time to command general agreement or that require Charter amendment.
The different nature of the two aspects of reform, with only enlargement requiring a Charter amendment, has to be taken into account in this regard.
Over the past year,we do not believe the current proposals before the General Assembly have gained the broad-based support required for adoption and ratification as a Charter amendment.
My delegation is fully aware that no permanent member will at present accept a Charter amendment that results in the abolition of the veto power.
Any resolution with Charter amendment implications must be adopted by the two-thirds majority of the United Nations membership referred to in Article 108 of the Charter. .
Moreover, one of the permanent members has already made it abundantly clear that it would block any Charter amendment granting the veto to developing countries.
In my view, resolution 50/52 did have clear Charter amendment“implications”, but correctly deferred the application of Article 108 to the next stage of amending the Charter in concreto.
All but the most superficial and cosmetic changes have been resisted, even though the most interesting anduseful proposals would not require any Charter amendment or in any way compromise the authority of the permanent members.
This paper does not, for the time being,deal with proposals requiring Charter amendment as presented in section(b) of the above-mentioned annex XI. This does not in any way preclude their being discussed at a later stage.
Some favoured a comprehensive approach. Others deemed the two issues separable andof a different nature: enlargement was an event requiring Charter amendment, whereas the reform of working methods was a continuous process.