Примеры использования To unilateral acts of states на Английском языке и их переводы на Русский язык
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
Both types seem to be fully applicable to unilateral acts of States.
Rules of international law applicable to unilateral acts of States could not be elaborated if there was no clear definition of those acts. .
Undoubtedly, such causes of invalidity, provided for in theVienna Convention of 1969, are also applicable to unilateral acts of States.
The Guiding Principles applied only to unilateral acts of States on the basis of the States' subjective intention to assume international obligations.
In this connection it was worth noting that the ways of expressing consent andthe grounds for invalidity contemplated in the 1969 Vienna Convention seemed to be fully applicable to unilateral acts of States.
Work on the topic should be limited to unilateral acts of States and should not be extended to other subjects of international law such as international organizations.
It seemed impossible to embark on the task of drafting rules of international law applicable to unilateral acts of States if those acts were not well defined in the first place.
With regard to unilateral acts of States(A/54/10, chap. VIII), one issue raised by the topic was whether so-called unilateral legal acts existed in international law.
It would endeavour to provide the Commission with information on its practice with regard to unilateral acts of States in reply to the questionnaire of 31 August 2002 and was pleased with progress to date on the issue.
With regard to unilateral acts of States, a particularly challenging topic, she said that the Guiding Principles adopted by the Commission were a fitting conclusion to the Commission's work on the topic.
Certainly, the situation referred to in the context of the 1969 Vienna Convention, as indicated above,is different from the one referred to in relation to unilateral acts of States. It therefore seems appropriate to depart from the model of the 1969 Convention.
With regard to unilateral acts of States, while welcoming the suggestion that a more focused approach should be taken, she noted that the replies of States to the Commission's questionnaire had been very sparse.
Several delegations addressed the questions whether the scope of the topic should extend to unilateral acts of subjects of international law other than States, such as acts of international organizations or to unilateral acts of States addressed to other subjects of international law.
With regard to unilateral acts of States, having spoken on the topic at length at the fifty-fourth session, his delegation would restrict itself to commenting on the points mentioned in paragraph 621 of the report.
As regards scope of the topic, there was general endorsement of the approach taken by the Special Rapporteur in his report, which concurred with the outline adopted by the Commission at its previous session, andwhich limited the topic to unilateral acts of States issued for the purpose of producing international legal effects.
There was general endorsement for limiting the topic to unilateral acts of States issued for the purpose of producing international legal effects and for elaborating possible draft articles with commentaries on the matter.
With respect to specific comments requested by the Commission, Slovakia agreed that the scope of the topic should be limited to declarations, butdid not see any particular reason why the topic should not be extended to unilateral acts of States issued to other subjects of international law, namely intergovernmental organizations.
As to the extension of the scope of the topic to unilateral acts of States issued to other subjects of international law, his delegation believed that that did not fall within the Commission's mandate.
Although it is true that unilateral acts performed by an organ of an international organization or by an international organization as such may have legal force and hence may contain obligations for third parties,the rules which apply to those acts must be distinguished from those which may apply to unilateral acts of States.
Lastly, with regard to unilateral acts of States, his delegation thanked the Working Group and the Special Rapporteur for their excellent work and said that his Government was giving the Working Group's recommendations careful consideration.
Although the act in question is a unilateral legal one of a collective origin that produces particular legal effects, and despite its legal and even political importance, this act must be excluded from the scope of the study under discussion because it does not fall within the Commission's mandate,which is limited to unilateral acts of States.
With regard to unilateral acts of States, the heterogeneity of the acts compiled in the report of the Special Rapporteur(A/CN.4/542 and Corr.1-3) went a long way towards explaining why the Commission had not made more headway in its work.
Mr. Abraham(France), referring to chapter VI,said that his delegation supported the Commission's decision to limit the topic to unilateral acts of States performed with the intention of producing effects in international law and to begin by establishing a clear definition of such acts by excluding those which were not relevant to the topic.
With regard to unilateral acts of States(chapter VI), he said that, considering the intrinsically complex nature of the topic and the many diverging views on the meaning of“unilateral acts” in theory and practice. The report was commendable for its clarity and intellectual maturity.
The Commission would particularly welcome the Sixth Committee's views on whether the scope of the topic should be limited to declarations, as proposed by the Special Rapporteur or should also encompass other unilateral expressions of the will of the State, and on whether the topic's scope should be limited to unilateral acts of States issued to other States orshould also extend to unilateral acts of States issued to other subjects of international law.
Comments are also welcome on whether the scope of the topic should be limited to unilateral acts of States issued to other States, or whether it should also extend to unilateral acts of States issued to other subjects of international law.
Ms. Huh Jung-ae(Republic of Korea) said,with regard to unilateral acts of States, that before States could submit comments on their practices in that regard, they required further guidance from the Commission concerning the scope and definition of such acts. .
While it was too soon to decide whether the scope of the topic should be limited to unilateral acts of States issued to other States, orshould also extend to unilateral acts of States issued to other subjects of international law, he thought that the Commission should take into account all possible beneficiaries of unilateral acts. .
There had been some divergence of opinion as to whether the scope of the topic extended to unilateral acts of States in respect of subjects of international law other than States or erga omnes, and whether the effects of unilateral acts issued in respect of States could also be extended to other subjects of international law.
Opinions differed as to whether the scope of the topic extended to unilateral acts of States issued in respect of subjects of international law other than States or erga omnes, and on whether, under the present topic, the effects of unilateral acts issued in respect of States could also be extended to other subjects of international law.