Примеры использования Governments stated на Английском языке и их переводы на Русский язык
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
Many Governments stated that the draft articles should not affect the existing agreements.
In the debate at the fifty-fourth session of the General Assembly, Governments stated that globalization has created a new imperative for international dialogue and cooperation.
Some Governments stated that both articles 1 and 2 were acceptable as currently drafted.
One of the most important issues that surfaced through the responses was a country's geographical location as a logistics competitive advantage. Twenty-three Governments stated that their country had a logistics- transport competitive advantage and six said that the logistics advantage of the country is directly connected with private sector initiatives and investments.
Several Governments stated that article 5 as currently drafted was acceptable to them.
Люди также переводят
In addition, a few Governments noted that the focus of a conference should be on migrants in a regular situation, and two Governments stated that the focus should be on some of the categories of migrants covered by the Regional Conference to Address the Problems of Refugees, Displaced Persons, Other Forms of Involuntary Displacement and Returnees in the Countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States and Relevant Neighbouring States of 1996 also known as the CIS conference.
Many Governments stated that the ramifications of the right of self-determination as contained in article 3 needed to be clarified.
With reference to article 37, several Governments stated that it was at the discretion of States to set fiscal and policy priorities and that a non-binding instrument could not infringe upon this discretion.
Governments stated that it is imperative for the assessment to reflect the specificities, challenges and aspirations of diverse countries and regions.
Most respondent Governments stated that everyone legally authorized to work in their territory was protected by domestic legislation and employment standards.
Other Governments stated that the linkage between the permanent forum and the Working Group on Indigenous Populations needed to be considered.
Several Governments stated that inclusion of the right of self-determination was acceptable to them if a qualification was included in the declaration.
Many Governments stated that a declaration is non-binding and could therefore not create obligations or requirements for States. .
Some Governments stated that these were not rights and could not be considered a reasonable evolution from existing human rights law.
Some Governments stated that they would prefer language which emphasized that disputes would be solved through negotiations or existing legal mechanisms.
Several Governments stated that the phrase"which they have traditionally owned" contained in articles 25 and 27 was too broad and far-reaching and had to be redrafted.
Furthermore, these Governments stated, in spite of the foregoing, the lack of definition has appeared as a major issue in the Sub-Commission's Working Group on Minorities.
Several Governments stated, with regard to article 11(b), that children as such should not be recruited into the armed forces, regardless of whether they were indigenous.
Almost all Governments stated that the Commission has the jurisdiction to award compensation for losses arising from the evacuation and repatriation of employees or nationals as the case may be.
Certain Governments stated that their legal systems recognized indigenous peoples as"peoples" in the legal sense but this had not led to claims of independence.
In the latter, governments stated that they would"make further use of the existing framework, resources and experience of the ECE in areas of significance for the implementation of the recommendations of the CSCE.
Several Governments stated that the draft declaration, and in particular Part VI, should be flexible enough to take into account the diversity in the national situations of indigenous people.
Some Governments stated that they had national institutions specifically charged with preventing racism, racial discrimination and related intolerance and/or investigating such cases.
In addition, several Governments stated that the provisions of Part VI could not run counter to national policies and regulations of nature conservation, strategic resources and State security.
Several Governments stated that ultimate control over the land must lie with the Government of a country and that land rights could only be considered within the framework of national legislation.
Several Governments stated that collective rights should be seen as a reinforcement for the enjoyment of individual rights and that their exercise should not lead to the denial of individual rights.
Several Governments stated that the scope of certain terms contained in Part III had to be clarified and their consistency with international law, especially intellectual property law, reviewed.
Other Governments stated that the articles in Part III contained repetitive language and that they touched in summary fashion on several separate, difficult issues which demand more precise and considered treatment.
A number of Governments stated that it would also provide an occasion to consider measures to improve the functioning of the intergovernmental and technical bodies involved in international drug control.
Other Governments stated that land alienation for the common good or legitimate sale should be recognized but added that in such cases compensation or other forms of reasonable redress should be provided to indigenous people.