Примеры использования Obligations of result на Английском языке и их переводы на Русский язык
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
Extended obligations of result.
Distinction between obligations of conduct and obligations of result.
They encompass obligations of result and obligations of conduct.
However, the distinction between obligations of result and of conduct was not reflected in the proposed draft article 14 bis.
Articles 20 and 21 draw a distinction between obligations of conduct and obligations of result.
It is tempting to analyse obligations of prevention as“negative” obligations of result.
The distinction between obligations of conduct and obligations of result is critical to understanding the right to health.
As a working hypothesis, it would be useful to maintain the distinction between obligations of conduct and obligations of result.
By contrast, obligations of result do not do so, leaving it to the State party to determine the means to be used. Ibid., para. 8.
The obligations emanating from these resolutions are obligations of result of paramount importance.
The breach was constituted at the moment it occurred andcontinued during the time required by the obligations of conduct and obligations of result.
Paragraph 2 treats obligations of prevention in the same way as obligations of result, thereby allowing the deletion of former article 23.
But there seemed to be no reason to treat obligations of prevention, at least prima facie,as anything other than negative obligations of result.
That said, the difference between obligations of conduct and obligations of result referred to by Mr. Murphy was worth taking up in the Drafting Committee.
The obligation established in article 2, paragraph 3, of the Covenant entails, in our view,both obligations of means and obligations of result.
Article 2 specifies the nature of these rights as obligations of conduct and obligations of result and provides for the progressive realization of these rights.
In the case of treaty regimes, it was always necessary to examine the actual content of the obligations assumed by States,which were sometimes obligations of result.
Indeed, it considers that draft article 21 states all that is necessary in this context in relation to obligations of result, and that draft article 22 could advantageously be omitted.
Under this conception, it is clear that obligations of result are more onerous, and breach of such obligations correspondingly easier to prove, than in the case of obligations of conduct or means.
However, the nature of ICESCR raises the question of the type of obligations andwhether the Covenant imposes obligations of result or obligations of means.
The observation was made that the distinction between obligations of result and obligations of conduct had become commonplace in international legal discourse, not only at the academic level but also at that of inter-State relations.
This is a general point,applicable to the distinctions drawn by the Commission between obligations of conduct and obligations of result, between the various kinds of breach, and so on.
The distinction between obligations of conduct and obligations of result set forth in draft articles 20 and 21 was far from academic and had major implications for the secondary rules that would be developed to determine State responsibility.
Those obligations include both what may be termed(following the work of the International Law Commission)obligations of conduct and obligations of result.
For example, no distinction was drawn between obligations of means and obligations of result, which was of undoubted importance for the law of State responsibility.
Later articles attempt to encapsulate some of these differences by drawing distinctions between so-called obligations of conduct,obligations of prevention and obligations of result; these are discussed in due course.
The fact that courts had found the distinction between obligations of conduct and obligations of result useful, even if only occasionally, was an argument against abandoning the distinction.
The proposed language-- an obligation to"take all necessary measures to ensure the protection of relief personnel"-- could be construed as an obligation of result,whereas he believed the Special Rapporteur had intended to blend obligations of result and conduct.