Примеры использования Formulating reservations на Английском языке и их переводы на Русский язык
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
Formulating reservations upon signature, ratification, acceptance, approval or accession.
It was pointed out that the function of such a mechanism should be limited to offering technical assistance to States in formulating reservations or objections.
States formulating reservations should provide the Director-General with reasons for the reservations. .
Lastly, it was important to bear in mind the actual practice of States in formulating reservations, as well as the ways in which States examined and objected to reservations. .
Indeed, if succession is considered to take place ipso jure in cases involving the uniting or separation of States, it is difficult to contend that asuccessor State may avoid or alleviate its obligations by formulating reservations.
That was not to diminish the importance of formulating reservations in a clear and well-defined manner that allowed their precise scope to be determined.
In the view of the European Union, it was important for States, when becoming parties to a treaty,to limit their reservations and to refrain from formulating reservations that were incompatible with the spirit of that instrument.
The term could mean three things:compliance with the formal procedures for formulating reservations or objections; fulfilment of the substantive requirements for validity of reservations or objections, for example, that they were not contrary to the object and purpose of the treaty or to jus cogens; or the capacity of reservations or interpretative declarations or reactions to them to produce legal effects.
The Special Rapporteur considers that the recognition of such limited extensions to competence for the purpose of formulating reservations would constitute a limited but welcome progressive development.
Indeed, if succession is considered to take place ipso jure in cases involving the uniting or separation of States, it is difficult to contend that a successorState may avoid or alleviate its obligations by formulating reservations.
One can legitimately maintain that the recognition of such limited extensions to competence for the purpose of formulating reservations would constitute a limited but welcome progressive development.
In opposition to any possibility of formulating reservations to a non-derogable provision, it has been argued that, when any suspension of the obligations in question is excluded by the treaty,"with greater reason one should not admit any reservations, perpetuated in time until withdrawn by the State at issue; such reservations are… without any caveat, incompatible with the object and purpose of those treaties.
It may legitimately be considered that the recognition of such limited extensions to competence for the purpose of formulating reservations would constitute a limited but welcome progressive development.
The mechanism may also provide a State orinternational organization with technical assistance in formulating reservations to a treaty or objections to reservations formulated by other States or international organizations.
While there did not seem to be any reason for not recognizing such a freedom when succession occurred on the basis of a notification to that effect, in those cases in which succession to a treatytook place ipso jure, it was difficult to contend that the successor State might lighten its obligations by formulating reservations; therefore, paragraph 2 of the guideline ruled out the freedom of such a successor State to formulate new reservations to the treaty.
It is, however, a source of confusion anduncertainty in the sense that the depositary could rely on States formulating reservations to perform the function expressly conferred on him by article 78, paragraph 1(e), and the final phrase of article 79 a.
If assistance mechanisms were to be established, their main function should be limited to providing States with technical assistance,on request, in formulating reservations to a treaty or objections to reservations formulated by other States.
It is, however, a source of confusion anduncertainty in the sense that the depositary could rely on States formulating reservations to perform the function expressly conferred on him by article 78, paragraph 1(e), and the final phrase of article 79(a) of the 1986 Vienna Convention.
This is particularly true of the rules applicable to reservations with regard to the authorities competent to formulate reservations at the international level and the consequences(or rather the absence of consequences)of the violation of rules of internal law when formulating reservations, the rules relating to the notification and communication of reservations and the rules relating to the functions of the depositary in this area.
Moreover, Governments should formulate reservations as precisely and as narrowly as possible.
States often formulate reservations without giving any reason for them.
It was important to avoid giving States andinternational organizations complete freedom as to the moment when they formulated reservations, since that could introduce legal uncertainty into treaty relations.
In both cases, it was clear that a State oran international organization could formulate reservations that were not contrary to the object and purpose of the treaty.
Article 19 of the Vienna Convention specified the circumstances in which a State could formulate reservations but did not state the legal consequences of violating the article.
While it is true that a State can formulate reservations or certain conditions when performing a unilateral act, in such cases we would no longer be dealing with an autonomous unilateral act of the kind that is of interest to the Commission at present.
It seems that in the light of the regime established by the Vienna Convention of 1978 for cases involving the uniting or separation of States,there are serious doubts as to whether a successor State other than a newly independent State may formulate reservations.
As shown by the opposition to the amendment proposed by the German delegation at the 1977-1978 Vienna Conference,there are serious doubts as to whether a successor State other than a newly independent State may formulate reservations.
In both cases the United States of America formulated reservations to the recognition of the right to food as a legal right, but this only can make that country a persistent objector and does not preclude the formation of the right to food as a customary norm.
Similarly, it is probable that Bangladesh, Egypt, Malaysia, the Maldives and Mauritania modified, or even withdrew in whole orin part, their initially formulated reservations in light of the objections made by other States parties.
It had also invited the bodies responsible for monitoring the conventions to raise with national authorities the question of whether already formulated reservations needed to be retained or might be withdrawn, a decision that echoed guideline 2.5.3 of the Commission's Guide to Practice.