Примеры использования Obligation to make reparation на Английском языке и их переводы на Русский язык
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
Rights and duties arising out of the obligation to make reparation.
The existence of an obligation to make reparation has often been acknowledged by international organizations.
Principle 36: Rights andduties arising out of the obligation to make reparation.
It is reminded of its obligation to make reparation for the violation of article 3.
It is a principle of international law that the breach of an engagement involves an obligation to make reparation in an adequate form.
Given the unique nature of the obligation to make reparation in such cases, the rules on reparation should embody certain principles supplementary to those governing liability for unlawful acts.
For instance, when the victims of an international crime suffer damage,the responsible individual may have an obligation to make reparation.
Further, the Court determined that Israel is under an obligation to make reparation for all damage caused by the construction of the Wall.
Part Three addresses the legal consequences flowing for the responsible organization,in particular the obligation to make reparation.
It was argued that, secondly,Israel is under a legal obligation to make reparation for the damage arising from its unlawful conduct.
The commentary noted that this obligation for the organization may be considered as"implied in the obligation to make reparation.
Still other representatives questioned the existence of a consensus with regard to the obligation to make reparation, even as a residuary obligation, and insisted on the"polluter pays" principle and on the liability of operators.
Violation by the expelling State of a legal obligation with respect to expulsion gives rise to an obligation to make reparation.
It also reminded the State party of its obligation to make reparation for the violation of article 3 and that serious consideration should be made of any future request by the complainant to return to the State party.
It is a principle of international law that the breach of an engagement involves an obligation to make reparation in an adequate form.
The Secretariat is of the view that the obligation to make reparation, as well as the scope of such reparation, must be subject, in the case of the United Nations,to the rules of the organization, and more particularly, to the lex specialis rule within the meaning of draft article 63.
It is a principle of international law that the breach of an engagement involves an obligation to make reparation in an adequate form.
Although it was widely accepted that international responsibility and the obligation to make reparations for wrongful acts had a solid basis under customary norms, such was probably not the case with liability for lawful acts, which was more exceptional in nature and dependent on conventional rules.
The preceding paragraph does not imply that members acquire towardsthe injured State or international organization any obligation to make reparation.
It would be preferable to indicate simply that such breaches entailed an obligation to make reparation in accordance with draft articles 35 et seq.
However, the majority of the Commission considered that such a provision was not necessary,because the stated obligation would already be implied in the obligation to make reparation.
Whereas the notion of international responsibility was accepted in legal theory and the obligation to make reparation for unlawful acts was a customary norm, liability for lawful acts tended to be governed by conventional rules.
Another important consequence of this presumption is that, absent proof that the State is not responsible,the State has an obligation to make reparations to the victim's family.
Some other delegations considered that States members of international organizations had no additional obligation to make reparation for the organization's wrongful act or that subsidiary responsibility remained subject to the characteristics and rules of the organization.
Turning to article 42(4),this makes the obvious point that a State may not rely on its internal law in order to avoid its obligation to make reparation for wrongful conduct.
Though it was largely accepted in the doctrine that international responsibility and the obligation to make reparation for wrongful acts were solid customary norms, that was probably not the case with liability for lawful acts, which was of a more exceptional nature and was dependent on conventional rules.
Following the forty-second session, the Committee considered that the State party should be reminded of its obligation to make reparation for the violation of article 3.
Since in such cases the obligation to make reparation was of a special nature, the rules concerning it should comply with certain special principles and supplement the principles relating to responsibility for an unlawful act, for example, the fact that a State had complied with the due diligence requirement did not exonerate it from liability, or the existence of limits to the reparation payable.
It was suggested that it would be preferable to indicate simply that such breaches entailed an obligation to make reparation in accordance with draft articles 35 et seq.
Although it addressed the central issue-- that appropriate measures should be taken in accordance with the rules of the organization-- it did not make clear whether that obligation was owed only to other members of the organization as a function of the rules of the organization or also to non-members,or what role member States might have in ensuring that the organization could meet its obligation to make reparation.