Примеры использования To the genocide convention на Английском языке и их переводы на Русский язык
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
There are, however, some helpful hints,particularly in the 1951 advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on Reservations to the Genocide Convention.
It has been noted that paragraph(e)was added to the Genocide Convention"almost as an afterthought, with little substantive debate or consideration" Schabas 2000: 175.
An interpretation of this section might be that the tribunal has jurisdiction in regard to genocide once a State party to the Genocide Convention has consented.
For instance, it is absurd to believe that a State could become a party to the Genocide Convention while objecting to the application of articles I, II and III, i.e., the only substantial clauses of the Convention. .
Article 220a of the Criminal Code was inserted into the German Criminal Code by the Act of 9 August 1954 on Germany's accession to the Genocide Convention and entered into force in 1955.
That all Contracting Parties to the Genocide Convention have the obligation thereunder'to prevent' acts of genocide, and partition and dismemberment by means of genocide, against the people and State of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
In this respect, it was noted that for the crime of genocide a complaint could be made to the court by a State party to the Genocide Convention but not party to the statute.
Moreover it is clear any state party to the Genocide Convention may bring proceedings, without the necessity for establishing a national interest in the dispute: the prohibition ongenocide is an obligation erga omnes.
It should not be forgotten that the law on reservations to treaties owed its origin to the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice of 28 May 1951 on Reservations to the Genocide Convention.
In the view of the authors of the precursor to the Genocide Convention, General Assembly resolution 96(I), the purpose ofthe Convention was to prevent the destruction of racial, national, linguistic, religious or political groups of human beings.
It is important to remember that the law on reservations to treaties owes its origin to the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice of 28 May 1951 on Reservations to the Genocide Convention.
There can be no doubt that this decision to notify of the accession to the Genocide Convention, with a reservation to Article IX and not succession(where no reservation is allowed) was motivated by the considerations relating to the present case.
As Israel is a party to the Genocide Convention it is possible for any other state party to the Convention to bring proceedings against Israel for failing to fulfil its obligations under the Convention or for responsibility for genocide. .
It should not be forgotten that the modern law on reservations to multilateral treaties owed its origin to the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on reservations to the Genocide Convention.
Nor does international jurisprudence enable us to define it, even though it is in common use. There are, however, some helpful hints,particularly in the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice of 1951 on Reservations to the Genocide Convention.
In the Genocide Convention case(Preliminary Objections) the Court,after referring to a passage from its judgment in Reservations to the Genocide Convention, said that“the rights and obligations enshrined in the Convention are rights and obligations erga omnes”. I.C.J. Reports 1996, p. 616.
It has been argued that the Security Council's failure to take enforcement action and to lift the arms embargo against the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina has made some of its members,which are also Contracting Parties to the genocide Convention, accomplices to the crime of genocide. .
In their joint opinion,the dissenting judges in 1951 had criticized the solution retained by the majority in the case concerning Reservations to the Genocide Convention, emphasizing that it could not"produce final and consistent results", and this had been one of the main reasons for the Commission's resistance to the flexible system adopted by the Court in 1951.
Serbia raised a preliminary objection by arguing that the Court lacked jurisdiction, first, because Serbia had lacked locus standi before the Court as it was not a Member of the United Nations when Croatia filed its application and, secondly,because Serbia had not consented to the jurisdiction of the Court as it was not a party to the Genocide Convention.
As previously stated,the Sudan is not a party to the Genocide Convention, but article 22 has been formulated in such way as to permit a State such as the Sudan, should it wish to do so, to request the court to exercise its jurisdiction in a case that concerns it and is included under the definition of genocide. .
It must be pointed out, first of all,that the existence of an administrative practice does not in itself constitute a decisive factor in ascertaining what views the contracting States to the Genocide Convention may have had concerning the rights and duties resulting therefrom.
As for international treaties in general,the International Court of Justice has indicated in the Reservations to the Genocide Convention Case(1951) that a State which objected to a reservation on the grounds of incompatibility with the object and purpose of a treaty could, through objecting, regard the treaty as not in effect as between itself and the reserving State.
It must be pointed out, first of all,that the existence of an administrative practice does not in itself constitute a decisive factor in ascertaining what views the contracting States to the Genocide Convention may have had concerning the rights and duties resulting therefrom.
E Although the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties was concluded in 1969 and entered into force in 1980- i.e.,after the entry into force of the Covenant- its terms reflect the general international law on this matter as had already been affirmed by the International Court of Justice in The Reservations to the Genocide Convention Case of 1951.
In their joint opinion, the dissenting judges in 1951 had criticized the solution retained by the majority in the advisory opinion on Reservations to the Genocide Convention, emphasizing that it could not"produce final and consistent results", and that had been one of the main reasons for the Commission's resistance to the flexible system adopted by the Court in 1951.
After the FRY was admitted as a new Member on 1 November 2000, dilemmas concerning its standing have been resolved, and it has become an unequivocal fact that the FRY did not continue the personality of the SFRY, was not a Member of the United Nations before 1 November 2000, was not a State party to the Statute, andwas not a State party to the Genocide Convention.
These considerations, taken together, lead me to the conclusion that the Court should not attach any legal effect to the notification of accession by the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to the Genocide Convention, and should instead consider it bound by that Convention on the basis of the operation of the customary rule of ipso jure succession codified in Article 34 as applied to cases of the dissolution of a State.