Примеры использования Delegation had no objection на Английском языке и их переводы на Русский язык
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
His delegation had no objection to the inclusion of aggression.
The representative of China said that his delegation had no objection to the Board's decision.
His delegation had no objection to the deletion of the word"mandatory.
Mr. LLOYD(Australia) said that his delegation had no objection to the proposed amendments.
His delegation had no objection to keeping draft article 3 as it stood.
Mr. Tikhaze(Russian Federation)said that his delegation had no objection to retaining the title as drafted.
His delegation had no objection to considering the various proposals contained therein.
Mr. Bolton(United States of America)said that his delegation had no objection to the idea of suspending the meeting.
However, his delegation had no objection to the idea that the matter should be addressed in the Guide.
At its 36th meeting(fourth session) on 27 April 2006, the Committee discussed further methods of work in relation to the consideration of States parties' reports anddecided to give an opportunity to the national human rights institution of the State concerned to make a statement during the consideration of the State party's report, if the State party's delegation had no objection.
Mr. LLOYD(Australia) said his delegation had no objection to the United States amendment.
His delegation had no objection to the Security Council referring a matter to the Prosecutor of the Court, pursuant to Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter.
Mr. Lehmann(Denmark) said that his delegation had no objection to the mandate and objectives of the Institute.
His delegation had no objection to article 7 ter, which set out the guiding principle for acceptance of jurisdiction.
Mr. BENMOUSSA(Morocco) said that his delegation had no objection to the adoption of draft decision IDB.21/L.16.
His delegation had no objection to calling the jurisdictional mechanism a tribunal according to the Nuremberg precedent of a body composed of a court registry and procuracy.
Mr. D'Allaire(Canada) said that his delegation had no objection to deletion of the reference to cancellation in paragraph 3.
His delegation had no objections concerning the floor of the scale or the phasing-out of the scheme of limits by the year 2001.
Mr. Komizo(Japan) said that while his delegation had no objection to the adoption of the draft decision, he wished to make a comment.
His delegation had no objection to adopting a resolution calling for elimination or modification of the review procedure provided for under article 11.
Mrs. DASKALOPOULOU-LIVADA(Greece) said that her delegation had no objection to the provisions contained in article 32, which were standard in legal assistance agreements.
His delegation had no objection to holding one rather than two informational meetings annually, provided that the one meeting took place before the session of the Committee on Conferences.
Ms. PEÑA(Mexico) said that her delegation had no objection to the conclusions and recommendations of CPC contained in paragraph 53 of its report A/51/16 Part II.
His delegation had no objection to the convening of a diplomatic conference on the matter in 1996, although it hoped that 1995 would be used effectively to finalize discussion on the instrument.
Mr. TELL(France) said that while his delegation had no objection to the United States proposal, it found the second part of paragraph 53 to be questionable and too formalistic.
Her delegation had no objection to the appropriation of $27,952,000 for the one-time costs associated with the alteration and improvement of the Headquarters building and its infrastructure systems.
Ms. Navarro Barro(Cuba)said that her delegation had no objection to taking note of the report but sought clarification regarding the agenda item to which the note by the Secretary-General related.
His delegation had no objection to the gradual implementation of the paper-smart concept and other measures to improve conference services on the condition that they did not affect the quality or scope of such services.
Mr. MacBride(Canada) said that his delegation had no objection to removing the specific names of the instruments, but proposed retaining"with related international legal instruments" to clarify that the recommendation related to structures outside the framework of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons.
Mr. MANSOUR(Tunisia) said that his delegation had no objection to the articles on admissibility, but had questions regarding what would happen when certain individuals were prevented from being brought before the Court, and what standards would be applied by the Court in determining issues of admissibility under article 15.