Примеры использования Support of that proposal на Английском языке и их переводы на Русский язык
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
My delegation took careful note of the various statements made in support of that proposal.
In support of that proposal, it was recalled that the PCA was a unique inter-governmental organization with broad membership.
Ms. Ferrer Gomez asked for a description of the main changes being included in the reform of the Labour Code presented by the non-governmental organizations to the Ministry of Labour,as well as of the participation of the Presidential Secretariat for Women in support of that proposal.
In support of that proposal, it was pointed out that each of the alternatives currently contained in paragraph(1) had its own merits.
In support of that proposal, it was observed that that language was clear and simple and left open the question of the concept underlying the provision.
In support of that proposal, it was explained that, in urgent situations, the arbitral tribunal would not necessarily have the ability to consult the parties.
In support of that proposal, Finland noted that, according to the International Organization for Migration, the number of international migrants had grown worldwide over recent years.
In support of that proposal, it was pointed out that there were cases where the parties might avail themselves of the platform but not require the services of a provider in order to resolve their dispute.
In support of that proposal, it was stated that such an approach would be sufficient to address situations involving international factoring arrangements which were the main focus of paragraph 3.
In support of that proposal it was said that the phrase in question was not needed since the possible spectrum of interim measures mentioned therein was already covered by the words"any temporary measure.
In support of that proposal, it was said that these words would be useful to encourage a liberal interpretation of the form requirement under article II, paragraph(2), of the New York Convention.
In support of that proposal, it was stated that a distinction must be made between, on the one hand, agreeing on the principle of the right of substitution and, on the other, setting out the procedure for effecting the substitution.
In support of that proposal it was observed that if the secured assets were to be included in the estate as recommended in(27), there would be no need to include a further provision such as recommendation 44.
In support of that proposal, it was pointed out that the definition of a regional economic integration contained in the first sentence of paragraph(1) was not necessary, as that matter was covered under article 6(1) see above, para. 161.
In support of that proposal, it was said that the arbitral tribunal would be best placed to determine the documents that should be published, as well as issues of public interest that should be brought to the attention of civil society.
In support of that proposal, it was said that one obstacle to greater use of conciliation was that settlement agreements reached through conciliation might be more difficult to enforce than arbitral awards.
In support of that proposal, it was observed that some States had very specific national rules to deal with particular geographical areas, such as deserts, and would like to preserve those special rules once the draft Convention came into force.
It was said in support of that proposal that it did not give any discretion to an ODR administrator or neutral and that it implied that technology could be used to provide for multiple languages in the event parties did not have a common language.
In support of that proposal, it was pointed out that paragraph(3) required an enacting State to give careful consideration to possible exclusions, while the proposed language implemented existing restrictions and could include future restrictions in the general law.
In support of that proposal, it was said that it provided for a language in which the ODR administrator or platform could commence proceedings, with a mechanism for parties to express a preference for another language if that initial choice was not acceptable.
In support of that proposal, it was said that it would be preferable to leave it to arbitral practice over time to determine how the balance of inconvenience reflected in subparagraph(a) should be used as a standard.
In support of that proposal, it was pointed out that personally identifiable information was already available to actual sellers at the time of the transaction and that the collection of such information by an imposter posing as a seller could put a buyer at risk for fraud and identity theft.
In support of that proposal, it was said that, in the absence of a specific treaty between States, there might be no legal basis for a State court to refuse to recognize an interim measure of protection issued by an arbitral tribunal, which had been terminated or suspended, by the court of another State.
In support of that proposal, it was suggested that paragraph(4), which required that the hearings be held in camera, when read in conjunction with paragraph(5), which referred to evidence by witnesses also being presented in the form of written signed statement, could be understood as excluding witness evidence presented in any other form.
In support of that proposal, it was said that: the PCA was a unique intergovernmental organization with broad membership; the proposal would preserve the right of the parties to designate an appointing authority; and in expressing a default rule, the proposal provided the parties with a simple, streamlined and efficient procedure A/CN.9/619, para. 73.
In support of that proposal, it was said that a review for"manifestly excessive" fees"taking account the arbitral tribunal's proposal" was intended to cover situations, for example, where an arbitrator had determined final fees that technically complied with his or her proposal for an hourly rate but that were based on a questionably high number of hours.
In support of that proposal, it was also said that the Rules were intended to address a new system of online dispute resolution containing elements of mediation and of arbitration, but that the Rules did not contemplate full-fledged mediation with exchanges of confidential or ex parte information that may be considered prejudicial in certain circumstances or jurisdictions.
It was said in support of that proposal that it served to make mechanical the principle set out in article 6( 6), as contained in paragraph 7 of document A/CN.9/WG. II/WP.181-- namely, that there ought to be a shorter period of time for a withdrawal or modification that provided for greater transparency to take effect, and simultaneously a 12-month period for modifications or withdrawals that reduced transparency to take effect, as an anti-abuse measure.
The substance of that proposal received support as it included an additional level of flexibility.
Support was expressed in favour of that proposal.