Примеры использования State committing на Английском языке и их переводы на Русский язык
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
It was felt that the obligation to negotiate should be incumbent upon the State committing the wrongful act.
Secondly, the injured State must have called upon the State committing the wrongful act to discontinue its wrongful conduct or to make reparation for it.
The provisional measures indicated by the Court on two occasions were merely the first step in that judicial procedure against a State committing a crime.
Paragraph 3 of article 45 should be deleted in order to avoid a State committing a wrongful act being able to invoke the dignity of State as justification.
Resort to countermeasures is an option only when there has been no satisfactory response to the request addressed to the State committing the violation.
It was also suggested that paragraph 3 should be deleted to avoid a State committing a wrongful act being able to invoke the dignity of State as justification.
It went without saying that a State exercising the right of self-defence should not be placed on the same footing as a State committing an act of aggression.
It was also essential to prevent the consequences affecting all the citizens of the State committing the crime: article 53, subparagraph(b), for example, might have implications for the State's population.
A State committing aggression within the meaning of the Charter of the United Nations and resolution 3314(XXXIX) of the General Assembly of the United Nations shall not terminate or suspend the operation of a treaty if the effect would be to benefit that State. .
On the other hand, it should be mentioned that Security Council resolutions 662(1990) and687(1991) declare that a State committing an act of aggression is liable to make full reparation.
A State committing aggression within the meaning of the Charter of the United Nations and Resolution 3314(XXIX) of the General Assembly of the United Nations shall not terminate or suspend the operation of a treaty if the effect would be to benefit that State. .
Article 6 was intended to safeguard the physical conditions allowing effective reparation in the form of restitution in kind,which would be highly improbable if the State committing the wrongful acts were allowed to continue towards its objective.
A State committing aggression within the meaning of the Charter of the United Nations and resolution 3314(XXIX) of the General Assembly of the United Nations shall not terminate, withdraw from, or suspend the operation of a treaty as a consequence of an armed conflict if the effect would be to the benefit of that State. .
The International Court of Justice has recently confirmed this principle by stating that“the injured State must have called upon the State committing the wrongful act to discontinue its wrongful conduct or to make a reparation for it”.
The prohibition against armed aggression is the most important example of this category of obligations; it is not only the State which is the direct victim of the aggression that is injured: all States are injured, andcan invoke the responsibility of the State committing the aggression.
It follows that, subject to any qualifications that the Commission may deem appropriate to introduce in extending the said option to all States, a State committing a crime is in principle considerably more exposed to countermeasures than a State committing a breach.
A State committing aggression within the meaning of the Charter of the United Nations and resolution 3314(XXIX) of the General Assembly of the United Nations shall not terminate or withdraw from a treaty or suspend its operation as a consequence of an armed conflict that results from the act of aggression if the effect would be to the benefit of that State. .
Not only this, but presenting the horrible Israeli practices and violations,the General Assembly had criminalized the State of Israel in an unprecedented speech that describes Israel as a State committing war crimes against the occupied Palestinian territories.
A State committing aggression within the meaning of the Charter of the United Nations and resolution 3314(XXIX) of the General Assembly of the United Nations[A State using force in violation of Article 2, paragraph 4, of the Charter of the United Nations] shall not terminate, withdraw from or suspend the operation of a treaty as a consequence of an armed conflict that results from the act of aggression[from the unlawful use of force] if the effect would be to the benefit of that State. .
The establishment of the two categories of crime and delict altered the traditional view linking the wrongful act to compensation andlimiting the consequences of a breach of international law to a bilateral relationship between the State committing the wrongful act and the injured State. .
Other members expressed concern regarding the possible expansion of the scope of the provision since it would deprive the draft article of the specificity that the reference to a State committing aggression provided, making it easier for the provision to be asserted in practice and thereby increasing the possibility of abuse.
It was described as unobjectionable and solidly anchored in current international practice and as usefully preserving the physical conditions allowing effective reparation in the form of restitution in kind,which would be highly improbable if the State committing the wrongful acts were allowed to continue towards its objective.
In this case, the obligation that has been breached is by definition of essential importance for safeguarding the fundamental interests of the international community; thus the possibility of obtaining appropriate assurances orguarantees of non-repetition from the State committing the“crime” should be, systematically and unconditionally, de jure, whereas in the case of“delicts” the securing of such assurances or guarantees would remain subject to an assessment based on the circumstances of the case.
Secondly, the Court found that Czechoslovakia, as an injured State, by requesting Hungary to resume the performance of its Treaty obligation on many occasions,had called upon the State committing the wrongful act to discontinue its wrongful conduct or to make reparation therefor.
Under customary international law, a demand for cessation or reparation should precede the imposition of countermeasures. See, e.g., Gabcikovo-Nagymaros case, op. cit.(footnote 5), at para.84(“the injured State must have called upon the State committing the wrongful act to discontinue its wrongful conduct or to make reparation for it”); Air Services Case, at p. 420.
We shall continue to cooperate with all States committed to promoting democracy.
No State committed to fostering development can afford to neglect to invest in education.
The States committing such acts bear political, material and any other responsibility and shall be judged by history.
When a State committed a wrongful act, the injured State was entitled to demand the cessation of the act and to require appropriate reparation.
The state committed to purchase 1000 copies of each new title of Norwegian literature conditioned on it meeting minimum standards.