Примеры использования Rule set out на Английском языке и их переводы на Русский язык
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
In this regard, we welcome the rule set out in article 16, paragraph 2.
It was said that that option most closely reflected the current default rule set out in article 5.
In addition, the rule set out in draft article 9, paragraph 2, does not appear coherent with the later draft articles.
There were, however, two exceptions to the rule set out in Article 2, paragraph 4.
Any rule set out in the new constitution should be reviewed critically, taking into account the possibility of distortion or profanation.
Люди также переводят
As noted by the media,the repeal of the resolution from 2005 only eliminates the duplication rule set out in the Customs Union agreement.
The rule set out in rule 44.3(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules(CPR) that"costs follow the event"; and.
Observation 2001 This draft guideline reproduces the rule set out in article 23 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.
A question was raised regarding what consequences would flow from the situation where the carrier did not follow the rule set out in subparagraph 10.3.1 ii.
There can be no doubt that the rule set out in article 46 of the Vienna Convention of 1969 is fully applicable to unilateral acts.
The International Committee of the Red Cross recognizes that the circumstances of combat may render it difficult to observe the rule set out in article 57.2.a. ii.
This guideline is similar to the rule set out above[in guideline 4.2.1], but is formulated here for the specific case of a treaty which has not yet entered into force.
Although opinion was divided in the Commission, it nevertheless decided that it was useful to recall that the rule set out in guideline 2.8.1 applied only if the treaty did not provide otherwise.
The attempt to address, through the rule set out in article 5, the drawbacks of the above requirement is, however, limited to situations of State succession, as they alone are the object of the present exercise.
On the other hand, the second paragraph of guideline 2.1.6 reproduces the rule set out in subparagraphs(b) and(c) of article 79 of the 1986 Vienna Convention.
The rule set out in draft article 46, which provided that a State or an international organization was entitled as an injured party to invoke the responsibility of another international organization under certain circumstances.
The concept of a constituent instrument is not unambiguous andit may be asked whether the rule set out in article 20, paragraph 3, applies to any normative provisions such instruments may include.
Guideline 2.6.4, which reiterated the rule set out in article 20, paragraph 4(b), of the l969 and 1996 Vienna Conventions, stated that an objecting State or international organization could oppose the entry into force of the treaty as between itself and the author of the reservation.
The Committee held, however,that the exercise of the right to appeal cannot be used as justification for unreasonable delays in the conduct of proceedings, since the rule set out in article 14, paragraph 3(c) also applies to the appeal proceedings.
The Commission nevertheless decided that it was useful to recall that the rule set out in guideline 2.8.2 applied"unless the treaty otherwise provides", to remain in keeping with the text of the Vienna Conventions.
The issue of the subsidiary responsibility of member States in the case of responsibility of an international organization, raised by the Commission with commentary to draft article 1,should be examined within the framework of exceptions to the rule set out in draft article 3, in which responsibility did not presuppose attribution.
With regard to death and disability compensation,his delegation assumed that the rule set out in the guidelines would continue to be followed, in other words, that reimbursement would cover the actual expenditure incurred by States.
The Committee points out that article 14, paragraph 5, of the Covenant guarantees the right to appeal, andthat the exercise of this right cannot be used as justification for unreasonable delays in the conduct of the proceedings, since the rule set out in article 14, paragraph 3(c), also applies to these appeal proceedings.
With regard to the topic of the provisional application of treaties,his delegation was of the view that the rule set out in article 25 of the Vienna Convention, notwithstanding its brevity, contained the essential elements thereof and did not require new treaties.
For instance, the rule set out in draft article 4, paragraph 3, proposed by the Special Rapporteur, was too broad, since under the law of treaties the capacity of the heads of diplomatic missions was limited to acts producing legal effect exclusively vis-à-vis the State to which they were accredited.
In this case, the tribunal did not expressly take a position on the nature of the United Kingdom's"reaction", but it"acted as if it were an objection", namely,by applying the rule set out in article 21, paragraph 3, of the 1969 Vienna Convention, which, however, was not in force between the parties.
The draft guideline below thus reproduces mutatis mutandis the rule set out in article 22, paragraph 3(a), of the 1969 Vienna Convention and reflected in draft guideline 2.5.8 concerning the effects ratione temporis of the withdrawal of a reservation.
The Chairperson recalled that Slovenia had pointed to the inconsistency between the method of calculating a period of time prescribed in draft article 2, paragraph 5, where the starting date was the date of receipt of a notice,and the 15-day rule set out in draft article 13, paragraph 4, where the starting date was the date of the notice.
Paragraph 1 thereof reproduced the rule set out in article 21, paragraph 3, of the Vienna Conventions, indicating that the provisions to which the reservation related did not apply as between the author of the reservation and the objecting State or organization, to the extent of the reservation.
Mr. Holguín González(Mexico) drew attention to his Government's proposal, contained in document A/CN.9/704/Add.6, that the rule set out in paragraph 4 should govern all communications relating to arbitration proceedings and should be set out in a new paragraph under article 2.