Примеры использования Primary and secondary rules на Английском языке и их переводы на Русский язык
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
Primary and secondary rules.
Iii Consistency with the distinction between primary and secondary rules.
Distinction between"primary" and"secondary" rules of State responsibility.
This issue has already been referred to in the context of the distinction between primary and secondary rules.
The distinction between primary and secondary rules has had its critics.
Primary and secondary rules were not set in stoneand the distinction between them was not absolutely clear-cut.
One of those issues concerned the distinction between primary and secondary rules of State responsibility.
The distinction between primary and secondary rules, it was suggested, also affected the relationship between responsibility and wrongfulness.
The Special Rapporteur pointed out that the discussion had brought to light a real problem of differentiation between primary and secondary rules.
There was thus an evident need for primary and secondary rules, an essential attribute of State responsibility.
That was commendable in the light of the conceptual difficulties involved in the consideration of the topic,especially the distinction between primary and secondary rules.
No distinction should be made between primary and secondary rules of diplomatic protection, given that the matter was broadly governed by international law.
The remark was made that the Commission in its consideration of diplomatic protection should distinguish the two categories of primary and secondary rules as clearly as possible.
The adoption of a distinction between primary and secondary rules had made it possible to avoid a whole range of theoreticaland practical obstacles.
According to doctrine, exceptio inadimpleti contractus appeared to be a primary rule, although the distinction between primary and secondary rules had still not been clearly established.
Whatever the inspiration for the distinction between primary and secondary rules as employed by the Commission may be, it does not rest on a clear jurisprudential foundation.
The view was expressed that the distinction clearly related to primary rules, and that its retention might to some extent lessen the separation between primary and secondary rules.
For all its imperfections,the reliance on the distinction between primary and secondary rules seemed the most suitable approach in a codification instrument.
Lastly, on the subject of the"self-contained regime", the Commission's members seemed to agree on the difficulty of differentiating between primary and secondary rules.
First, there was an imbalance between the codification of primary and secondary rules that could in the long term be detrimental to the coherence of international law.
The Commission itself, by introducing in article 19 the concepts of“international delicts” versus“international crimes”,clearly admitted that primary and secondary rules are necessarily intertwined.
As to the thorny problem of the relationship between primary and secondary rules, it was noted that the difficulty lay in the lack of an agreed definition of the distinction.
Some delegations drew attention to the complexity of the topic, which was described as relatively new and one which raised controversial theoretical questions,in particular that of the demarcation between primary and secondary rules.
This argument, however, fails to take into account the distinction between primary and secondary rules of international law, a distinction which is fundamental to the present draft articles.
It agreed that the notion was constantly used in the narrower sense(i.e. special secondary rules of State responsibility) and a broader sense i.e. special primary and secondary rules on a specific problem.
The view was expressed that the adoption of a distinction between primary and secondary rules had made it possible to avoid a whole range of theoreticaland practical obstacles.
However, as pointed out in the commentary to draft article 10, the distinction between primary and secondary rules is of uncertain value in the present codification exercise.
Theories and concepts such as the distinction between primary and secondary rules could not helpfully be discussed before addressing the institutionsand rules of diplomatic protection.
Articles 41 and 42 in attempting to define"serious breaches" infringe on this distinction between primary and secondary rules, as primary rules must be referenced in order to determine what constitutes a"serious breach.
Theories and concepts such as the distinction between primary and secondary rules could not helpfully be discussed before addressing the institutionsand rules of diplomatic protection.