Примеры использования State cannot invoke на Английском языке и их переводы на Русский язык
{-}
- 
                                                                                        Official
                                                                                    
 - 
                                                                                        Colloquial
                                                                                    
 
A State cannot invoke immunity from jurisdiction in a proceeding before a court of another State  if it has.
A State  making a counterclaim in a proceeding instituted against it before a court of another State cannot invoke immunity from the jurisdiction of the court in respect of the principal claim.
A State cannot invoke immunity from jurisdiction in a proceeding before a court of another State  with regard to a matter or case if it has expressly consented to the exercise of jurisdiction by the court with regard to the matter or case.
The minimum international standard is based on the premise that international law provides certain standards with respect to the treatment of aliens and that a State cannot invoke its national law as a reason for failing to comply with such standards.
Counsel notes in this connection that a State cannot invoke provisions of its national law to justify its failure to comply with its international obligations.
In the opinion of the Czechoslovak Government these reservations are in contradiction to the generally recognized principle of international law according to which a State cannot invoke the provisions of its own internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty.
It is a well-established principle that a state cannot invoke its municipal legislation as a reason for avoiding its international obligations.
If a State  engages in a commercial transaction with a foreign natural or juridical person and, by virtue of the applicable rules of private international law,differences relating to the commercial transaction fall within the jurisdiction of a court of another State,  the State cannot invoke immunity from that jurisdiction in a proceeding arising out of that commercial transaction.
Unless otherwise agreed between the States  concerned, a State cannot invoke immunity from jurisdiction before a court of another State  which is otherwise competent in a proceeding which relates to.
The Slovak Republic regards the general reservation made by the State  of Qatar upon signature of the Convention on the Rights of the Child as incompatible with the object andpurpose of the said Convention as well as in contradiction with the well-established principle of the Law of Treaties according to which a State cannot invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform its treaty obligations.
Finally, it provides that a State cannot invoke immunity from jurisdiction before a court of another State  in a proceeding which relates to the carriage of cargo on board a ship owned by that State  if“the ship was used for other than government non-commercial purposes” para. 4.
Article 23: If a State  property including a segregated State  property is entrusted by the State  to a State  enterprise for commercial purposes, the State cannot invoke immunity from a measure of constraint before a court of a forum State  in respect of that State  property.
Furthermore, the tribunal referred to the requirement in article 25 that the State cannot invoke necessity if it has contributed to the situation giving rise to a state  of necessity, which it understood to be a mere"expression of a general principle of law devised to prevent a party from taking legal advantage of its own fault.
A State cannot invoke immunity from jurisdiction in a proceeding before a court of another State  with regard to a matter or case if it has expressly consented to the exercise of jurisdiction by the court with regard to the matter or case(a) by international agreement,(b) in a written contract, or(c) by a declaration before the court or by a written communication in a specific proceeding.
Unless otherwise agreed between the States  concerned, a State cannot invoke immunity from jurisdiction before a court of another State  which is otherwise competent in a proceeding which relates to a contract of employment between the State  and an individual for work performed or to be performed, in whole or in part, in the territory of that other State. .
A State cannot invoke immunity from jurisdiction before a court of another State  which is otherwise competent in a proceeding which relates to its participation in a company or other collective body, whether incorporated or unincorporated, being a proceeding concerning the relationship between the State  and the body or the other participants therein, provided that the body.
Unless otherwise agreed between the States  concerned, a State cannot invoke immunity from jurisdiction before a court of another State  which is otherwise competent in a proceeding which relates to the carriage of cargo on board a ship owned or operated by that State  if, at the time the cause of action arose, the ship was used for other than government non-commercial purposes.
A State cannot invoke immunity, in connection with a proceeding before a court of another State,  from measures of constraint on the use of its property or property in its possession or control[, or property in which it has a legally protected interest,] if and to the extent that it has expressly consented to the taking of such measures in respect of that property, as indicated:(a) by international agreement;(b) in a written contract; or(c) by a declaration before the court in a specific case. 2.
According to the Committee's General Comment No. 31, a State could not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty.
Moreover, States cannot invoke provisions of domestic law to justify the violation of their human rights obligations under international law, including the prohibition of corporal punishment.
States cannot invoke any cultural discourses, including notions of custom, tradition or religion, to justify or condone violence against women.
States could not invoke a difficult internal situation- the presence of rebels or paramilitary organizations which also violated human rights- in order to justify their failure to respect those rights.
The fact that a State could not invoke its domestic provisions to avoid its international obligations was also covered by an article in the Vienna Convention and had not  been mentioned.
A State could not invoke a rule of its internal law to justify its failure to comply with an international obligation, and similarly, an international organization could not invoke  one of its internal operating rules to justify an act entailing responsibility.
Mr. Charles(Trinidad and Tobago) said that under article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties andcustomary international law, a State could not invoke its internal law as justification for its failure to comply with its international legal obligations.
In this regard, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights has consistently affirmed that States cannot invoke economic hardship to justify imprisonment conditions that do not  comply with the minimum international standards and respect the inherent dignity of the human being.
These norms establish the primacy of women's right to live a life free of gender-based violence and provide that States cannot invoke any cultural discourses, including notions of custom, tradition or religion, to justify or condone any act of violence.
Just as States could not invoke their domestic laws to avoid obligations under international law, international organizations could not invoke  their own rules to evade responsibilities.
Moreover, in their time the Charter's founders had stressed that if serious andflagrant violations of basic rights and freedoms took place which were a threat to international peace and security, States could not invoke their domestic affairs, and sovereignty could  be restricted.
With regard to State  immunity from measures of constraint(art. 18),he sought clarification of the meaning and exact scope of the provision that a State could not invoke immunity from execution where it had“allocated or earmarked property for the satisfaction of the claim which is the object of that proceeding” art. 18, para. 1 b.