Примеры использования Opposition was expressed на Английском языке и их переводы на Русский язык
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
Opposition was expressed against the inclusion of the provision.
Given the importance and the inherent complexity of the subject,it is natural that opposition was expressed.
In the statements by CD member States, although there exists a range of opinions from the perspective of the whole CD schedule,it is a significant fact that no opposition was expressed from any country, including the nuclear-weapon States, to the establishment itself of an ad hoc committee for negotiating an FMCT in the CD.
Considerable opposition was expressed against the inclusion of that provision.
Opposition was expressed as to the existence of the"right" of collective expulsion.
The first recorded use of the term was by the ReverendSydney Smith in 1845, where opposition was expressed to the idea of equal rule for"all units of society"; Smith noted that the young should not have the same authority as the old and challenged isocrats to support voting and political rights for women, which was considered an extremist position at the time.
Opposition was expressed to adding new definitions if that would jeopardize the progress of the Committee's work on the draft revised model law.
At the same time, opposition was expressed to the introduction of references to the inequality of belligerent parties in the draft articles.
Opposition was expressed by some delegations to resorting to the formulation of the crime of aggression in article 8 bis of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.
With respect to footnote 2, opposition was expressed to describing rules of procedure and rules of evidence in detail in any part of the Guide.
Strong opposition was expressed to including such a provision in the Model Provisions.
Strong opposition was expressed to retaining the provisions of article 63 as drafted.
However, opposition was expressed to its inclusion on a number of grounds, including that.
Strong opposition was expressed to any attempt to impose conditions on operational activities for development.
Some opposition was expressed to allowing the arbitral tribunal to act without a request by the parties and without hearing from the parties.
In that connection, opposition was expressed by one member to the possibility of having one very small agency determine pay across the common system.
In Kosovo, similar opposition was expressed by the Director of an NGO, who also questioned the Tribunal's independence and credibility.
Opposition was expressed to the inclusion of subparagraph 8.3.3(b)(ii) because it introduced a novel use for non-negotiable documents that was unknown in European law.
Opposition was expressed to inserting such a text in the beginning of article 27 bis. For further consideration of this issue in the context of article 27 bis, see paras. 154 and 155 below.
Strong opposition was expressed to the inclusion of such a clause, particularly in respect of developing countries where the choice of carriers was often non-existent.
Opposition was expressed with regard to including open-ended general grounds since article 6 on public policy already offered a sufficiently broad scope for refusal of recognition.
Opposition was expressed to that proposal as it could connote that the corresponding provision in the UNCITRAL Arbitration Model Law was insufficient to provide for security for costs.
Opposition was expressed to that suggestion, both because the list of remedies was a list of possible remedies and because the provisions were considered essential as part of an effective system of review.
This opposition was expressed in many forms, including numerous statements and press articles by important political and intellectual figures, actions by Congress and state governments, non-governmental organizations and the business sector.
Opposition was expressed to the suggestion that any specific conditions governing the procuring entity's right to cancel the procurement under article 16 should be provided in the revised model law, as they could not be exhaustive.
Strong opposition was expressed to the retention of this article in the main text, principally on the basis that the issue of the limitation period raised complex technical issues and would be difficult to incorporate into national procedural regimes which took different approaches to the issue.
Opposition was expressed to the approach taken in this draft article, based upon the view that the registered owner of the vessel should not play a role in the draft instrument, but instead should have responsibility in conventions on liability where third parties were involved.
Additional opposition was expressed to the second limb of subparagraph 6.4.1, which recognized the discretion of courts to find delay if delivery did not occur within the time that it would be reasonable to expect of a diligent carrier and allowed for evidence to be brought taking account of normal trade and communications expectations.
However, opposition was expressed to deletion of the term"bareboat" given that the bareboat charterer would, in practice, often be treated in the same way as a ship owner, since it related particularly to a charter for a ship, and should therefore have the same possibilities of rebutting any presumption that were available to the registered owner of the ship.