Примеры использования Objection could на Английском языке и их переводы на Русский язык
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
The moment when an objection could be formulated was not mentioned.
Turning to the question raised in paragraph 23(d) of the report, he said that as one of the relatively small number of States that formulated objections to reservations,Germany considered that a State should not assume that its objection could fully bind the reserving State to a universal treaty, although a different situation might prevail in the case of human rights instruments.
Justifying the objection could have an informative or even an educational value.
In its judgment in the The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia v. Greece,the International Court of Justice referred to the State responsibility articles when rejecting the respondent's claim that"its objection could be justified as a countermeasure precluding the wrongfulness of the Respondent's objection to the Applicant's admission to NATO.
Draft guideline 2.7.1 stated that an objection could be withdrawn at any time; it was self-evident that the consent of the reserving State was not required.
It was also proposed that the definition of objection should make clear that an objection formulated by a State or international organization would not affect relations between the reserving party andother contracting parties; such objection could prevent(totally or partially) a reservation from having effect only in relations between the reserving and the objecting States.
Such an objection could put strong pressure on the reserving State to withdraw its reservation or to amend it to bring it into line with the object and purpose of the treaty.
The marked formalism was justified by the highly significant effects that an objection could have on the reservation and its application as well as on the entry into force and the application of the treaty itself.
An objection could produce at least two kinds of effects: either the objecting party would declare that the reservation was prohibited under article 19 or the objection would produce the effects envisaged in articles 20 and 21.
In the view of her delegation,therefore, it was preferable not to suggest in the definition that an objection could have such an effect; however, the phrase"exclude or modify the effects of the reservation" allowed for that possibility.
An objection could cause the reserving State to realize that there might be doubts as to the reservation's permissibility and thus prompt a dialogue between it and the objecting State and other interested parties.
Should there bea formal objection during the sixty-seventh session to the participation of Guinea-Bissau, then such an objection could, within the framework of the rules of procedure of the Assembly, be referred to the Credentials Committee for its consideration.
Justifying the objection could have an informative or educational value; moreover, the indication of what was not acceptable to the objecting State could amount to relevant State practice, should questions concerning the development of customary law arise.
Should there be a formal objection during the sixty-fourth session to the participation of either Guinea or Madagascar,then such an objection could, within the framework of the rules of procedure of the General Assembly, be referred to the Credentials Committee for its consideration.
The Electoral Act provided that an objection could only be made on the ground(a) that the voter was not the person described in the voter's eligibility document which he or she had submitted;(b) that the voter had already voted in the election; or(c) that the voter was not entitled to vote.
Moreover, the examination in his twelfth report(A/CN.4/584) of the acceptance of reservations was of considerable interest, given that an objection could be made in writing whereas acceptance could be tacit under article 20, paragraph 5, of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.
As noted in the Special Rapporteur's report, an objection could only exclude the application of one or more provisions of the treaty, or the application of the treaty as a whole, in bilateral relations between the author of the objection and the author of the reservation.
Draft guideline 2.8.2(" Tacit acceptance of a reservation requiring unanimous acceptance by the other States and international organizations"), as currently drafted, could be understood as restricting acceptance of a reservation to the 12-month period following notification, whereas article 20,paragraph 5, of the Vienna Conventions provided that objection could be made either within that period or by the date on which the State or international organization expressed its consent to be bound by the treaty, whichever was later.
In addition, the interplay between the reservation and the objection could have consequences in the event of a dispute as to the provision or provisions affected by the reservation and the objection. .
It was preferable not to suggest in the definition that an objection could have such an effect; the term"objection" should be defined in the light of established principles of international law, including that of State sovereignty; however, the phrase"exclude or modify the effects of the reservation" allowed for that possibility.
The text of article 21, paragraph 3, of the 1986 Vienna Convention, which reflected that simple effect of an objection, was reproduced in draft guideline 4.3.5 with a minor addition,which sought to convey that an objection could only affect the part of the provision to which the reservation related, as pointed out by the Court of Arbitration in the Case concerning the delimitation of the continental shelf between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the French Republic.
He agreed with the permissibility school that an objection could be made only to a permissible reservation, if that meant a reservation that had met the requirements of article 19, but disagreed that there was a unilateral right to determine whether the article 19 requirements had been met, since a reservation that one State held to be plainly incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty might not be viewed in the same way by another State.
The negotiating process leading to the Convention suggested that an objection could produce at least two kinds of effects: either the objecting party would declare that the reservation was prohibited(in the Special Rapporteur's language"invalid") under article 19, or the objection would produce the effects envisaged in articles 20 and 21.
In certain cases, however, objections could have major consequences for relations between States.
Preliminary objections could arise in respect of any of those bases of jurisdiction.
Moreover such objection can paralyze termination until the moment when these"circumstances" are eliminated.
Reservations and objections could cover a wide range of subjects ranging from the substantive to the purely procedural.
Grounds for objections could range from the(alleged) incompatibility of the reservation with the object and purpose of the treaty to political grounds.
Since conditional objections could produce the same effects as ordinary ones, the same logic should apply to late objections, although the commentary denied that that was so.
The Commission's general approach to late objections(draft guideline 2.6.15) was endorsed,although it was suggested that late objections could be equated with simple interpretative declarations.