Примеры использования State on whose territory на Английском языке и их переводы на Русский язык
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
Receiving Party" shall mean a State on whose territory a peacekeeping operation is taking place;
While such a link was easy to identify,it should not replace the claims of either the custodial State or the State on whose territory the crime was committed.
In her delegation's view, the State on whose territory the crime had been committed should have jurisdiction in the first instance.
His view in the latter case was that preference should be given to the State on whose territory the crime had been committed.
A State on whose territory an alleged offender is found can extradite him or her to the State of nationality or to another State that has established jurisdiction.
If the Prosecutor initiates an investigation on the basis of the above communications he needs the cooperation of Palestine as the state on whose territory the conduct in actions occurred.
Second, that jurisdiction could be exercised if the State on whose territory the crime had been committed or of which the accused person was a national was a party to the Statute.
It was also noteworthy that jurisdiction could be accepted by either the State which had custody of the suspect or the State on whose territory the act in question occurred.
In his opinion, the formulation used in article 63-"any State on whose territory the accused person may be found"- was the correct one, and the provisions of article 33 should be adjusted accordingly.
Furthermore, the draft articles do not state clearlywho has the primary obligation to pay, the operator or the State on whose territory or under whose jurisdiction or control it operates.
The host State is the State on whose territory the crime was committed and there is little doubt that it may establish jurisdiction over conduct within its territory. .
In respect of ceded jurisdiction,his delegation supported the idea that both the custodial State and the State on whose territory the crime was committed would need to accept the court's jurisdiction.
To enable it to act effectively, the State on whose territory the crimes were committed and the State of nationality of the perpetrators of the crime would have to be parties to the Statute.
A proposal was made to indicate to which military forces the definition in paragraph 4 applied, whether to the State on whose territory the offence was committed or to States that had jurisdiction over the offence.
That might be the State on whose territory a crime had occurred but, in the case of peacekeeping or international conflict, it might be another State: the State which had sent the troops concerned.
Indeed, the bearer of human rights obligations is easy to identify:the main duty-bearer being the State on whose territory the violation took place or the State which exercises control over that territory. .
It affirms strongly that the State on whose territory the insurrectional movement is located is not responsible for the latter's conduct, unless in very special circumstances where the State should have acted to prevent the harm.
Only if the State or States in question refuse to seek extradition or are patently unable orunwilling to bring the person to justice may the State on whose territory the person is present initiate proceedings against him or her.
In his delegation's view,the formulation used in article 63-"any State on whose territory the accused person may be found"- was the correct one, and the provisions of article 33 should be brought into line with it.
The Coordination Committee consists of elected members of the Executive Committees of the Paris or the Berne Unions, one-fourth of the States party to the WIPO Convention which are not members of any of the Unions,and Switzerland, as the State on whose territory the Organization has its headquarters.
How, he wondered, could the Court exercise jurisdiction if the State on whose territory the act had been committed as well as the State of nationality of the accused were not parties to the Statute?
However, in addition to the nationals of the States party to this Convention,the provision of the above Convention also gives the right to compensation to nationals of all member States of the Council of Europe who are permanent residents in the State on whose territory the crime was committed.
It is true, as international practice shows, that a State on whose territory or in whose waters an act contrary to international law has occurred, may be called on to give an explanation.
The States whose acceptance was needed as a precondition for the exercise of jurisdiction should be confined to the State on whose territory the act took place and the State which had custody of the person suspected of the crime.
The Convention provides that a State on whose territory a person suspected of a terrorist bombing crime is found must either prosecute the suspect or extradite him to another State willing to prosecute art. 8 1.
To do so, it was said, would mean that neither the State that had lodged the complaint, northe State which had custody of the suspect, nor the State on whose territory the act was committed, need have accepted the jurisdiction of the Court over the crime of genocide.
The State on whose territory the act or omission had taken place, the State with custody of the person who had committed the crime and the State of which the accused was a national must be parties to the Statute or accept the jurisdiction of the Court for the crime in question.
It would prefer subparagraph 2(b)to be reformulated in order to refer to the State on whose territory the accused or suspect was present, rather than to the State that had custody, a wording that could be interpreted too narrowly.
Generally speaking, the State on whose territory the crime had been committed and the State of nationality of the accused or the custodial State would have to be parties to the Statute, or have accepted the competence of the Court, for the Court to be in a position to exercise its jurisdiction.
Expanding the scope of the draft articles to cover internal armed conflicts is incompatible with the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties,which already applies to internal armed conflicts: the State on whose territory the upheaval occurs may take advantage of a whole range of measures, provided for in the Convention, and attempt termination, withdrawal from or suspension of the operation of a treaty.