Примеры использования Dispute could на Английском языке и их переводы на Русский язык
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
Had parties not accepted the same procedures, a dispute could always be submitted to arbitration.
The parties to a dispute could mutually agree that custom would not apply and request application of the rules of the Civil Code.
The international wrong was not affected and the dispute could be decided by an international tribunal.
The dispute could only be resolved through negotiation, and any action that would change the current situation to the detriment of Argentina must be avoided.
There was no doubt that with political will andexemplary leadership by all parties concerned, the dispute could be fully resolved.
However, the parties to any dispute could choose not to refer to custom, in which case primary responsibility for its application rested with the judge.
The establishment of an equilibrium between the legal andpolitical status of the two sides to the dispute could be a starting point for a rethinking process.
However, I realized that the dispute could only be settled in court, after the editor of 1in. am said that I had to apologize to them", Arpi Voskanian wrote on her Facebook page.
The Indian delegation therefore considered that it was not desirable to recommend elaborate rules when parties to a dispute could adopt their own procedure.
A dispute could not only end up costing a Government tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars, but also harm a country's reputation as a safe place for investment.
Failing the conclusion of a special agreement within a period of three months, the dispute could be brought before the Arbitral Tribunal by an application by either party art. 3, para. 8.
Parties to a dispute could refer a case either to the Tribunal as a full court, or to a standing chamber, and could also request the Tribunal to establish a special chamber to deal with a particular dispute. .
While providing for various possibilities of non-binding settlement,in the end result every dispute could be submitted to a court or tribunal for a binding decision.
In the present case, practically every international dispute could be cast in terms of a dispute concerning the nature and extent of the international responsibility of a respondent State for the actions of which complaint is made.
In the absence of declarations under article 287 of the Convention, orif the parties had not selected the same forum, the dispute could only be submitted to arbitration, unless the parties otherwise agreed.
The dispute could be resolved only through bilateral negotiations between the Governments of Spain and the United Kingdom, taking into account the interests of the people of Gibraltar, as stipulated in the 1984 Brussels Agreement.
Mr. Loizaga(Observer for Paraguay) noted that,as had been repeatedly stated, the dispute could be resolved only through direct negotiations between Argentina and the United Kingdom, which should take into account the islanders' interests.
He also reminded the delegations that in the absence of declarations under article 287 of the Convention, orif the parties had not selected the same forum, the dispute could only be submitted to arbitration, unless the parties otherwise agreed.
Another approach put forward was that both parties to the dispute could"opt-in" to an arbitration agreement, in that way making clear the stage at which the arbitration agreement became applicable.
In some cases, the traditional justice system used by those minorities was considered the best way to settle a dispute, just as a dispute could be settled by any recognized public or indigenous authority.
In the view of his delegation, that dispute could be resolved on the basis of General Assembly resolution 44/112 of 15 December 1989, paragraph 5 of which accorded an exclusive mandate to the Conference on Disarmament and its Ad Hoc Committee on the Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space.
Another inconsistency in Pakistan's argument was that Jammu andKashmir was disputed territory and that the dispute could only be settled if the people of the area exercised their right to self-determination through a plebiscite.
The arbitral tribunal held that a dispute could arise under more than one treaty, and indeed did so in the present case, in keeping with article 30(3) of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, thus rejecting the claim by Japan that the dispute concerned only the 1993 Convention.
Secondly, in view of the broad definition of conciliation given in draft article 1,any third party invited to participate in a discussion with a view to resolving a dispute could unwittingly become subject to liability in relation to the duty of confidentiality.
States parties to the dispute could choose to submit their dispute to one of the four binding procedures: the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea; the International Court of Justice; arbitrations and special arbitration, which deals with specific types of disputes. .
His delegation had noted with particular interest article 33(b),under which the parties to a dispute could have recourse to fact-finding, mediation or conciliation procedures before submitting the dispute to arbitration or judicial settlement.
Following a review of recent arbitral practice, including Maffezini and subsequent developments, the paper stated that one of the important conclusions was that the particular form in which a MFN clause was drafted in a particular agreement mattered anddepending on the wording of the applicable clause, a dispute could lead to different outcomes, giving rise to the need for legal certainty.
It was questioned why the Administrator from the same region as the parties to the dispute could oppose the activation of the Service, particularly if such service was acceptable to the parties, and whether this rule would also apply if such Administrator was a national of one of the parties.
The Court, citing the consolidated doctrine of Spanish case law, under which company arbitration in equity was permissible, said that equity was not the same as discretion, nordid it imply that a dispute could not be settled in accordance with the law: it simply meant that the criteria to be used by the arbitrator to decide the dispute could be applied more flexibly.
While a trade dispute could result from the failure of the“control authorities of the exporting countries” to apply(enforce) the requirements of the Standards“at the export control point,” resolution would be achieved in accordance with a relevant dispute resolution procedures, such as, possibly, any dispute resolution procedures provided in the World Trade Organization(WTO) Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement TBT.