Примеры использования Turku declaration на Английском языке и их переводы на Русский язык
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
In the light of the choice concerning the characterization of situations, the Turku Declaration would need redrafting.
It was stressed that the Turku Declaration in article 17 explicitly addressed the problem of non-recognition of non-State actors.
The Government of Finland supports the adoption of a declaration on minimum humanitarian standards on the basis of further elaboration of the Turku Declaration.
Revised version of the Turku Declaration on Minimum Humanitarian Standards United Nations document E/CN.4/1995/116 dated 31 January 1995.
If it was to be supported by the community of States, the Turku Declaration would not develop international law in any way.
The Turku Declaration is more cautious, proposing a smaller list of due process guarantees modeled on those protected by the Geneva Conventions and Protocols.
Selected provisions of this law are reaffirmed in the Turku Declaration on Minimum Humanitarian Standards now before the Commission on Human Rights.
However, the participants did not attempt to define the method to be used: whether in the form of“hard law” or“soft law” provisions orwhether in the form of a declaration similar to the Turku Declaration.
Another document that could be usefully studied in this context is the Turku Declaration of Minimum Humanitarian Standards, which was adopted by a group of experts in December 1990.
It was argued that rules in this regard must be understandable by the general public, and that the wording of the Martens clause might need to be illustrated andclarified by wording along the lines of the Turku Declaration.
The most recent of these produced the Turku Declaration of Minimum Humanitarian Standards, which the Commission on Human Rights decided in 1995 to forward to Governments for their comments.
The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations(FAO)notes with interest that in the Turku Declaration, as contained in document E/CN.4/1995/116, there is the following provision.
It was also argued that the drafters of the Turku Declaration implicitly had in mind certain conflict situations; they wished to fill lacunae or deficiencies in the protective systems but they also wished to avoid defining situations.
The Norwegian Government is looking forward to further discussion within the Commission on Human Rights on the basis of the ideas andconcepts contained in the Turku Declaration, with a view to the adoption of a United Nations declaration of minimum humanitarian standards.
In the first place, the material scope of the Turku Declaration contradicts the definition of non-international armed conflicts contained in article 1 of Additional Protocol II to the 1949 Geneva Conventions.
Early discussions on the issue resulted in the adoption, by a group of non-governmental experts, of the Declaration on Minimum Humanitarian Standards(the"Turku Declaration") in 1990, which was submitted to the Commission on Human Rights for consideration initially in 1995 see E/CN.4/1995/116.
Estonia welcomes the ideas expressed in the Turku Declaration and considers them appropriate to be taken as a basis for a further elaboration by the Commission on Human Rights, in order to draft a United Nations Declaration on Minimum Humanitarian Standards.
The Workshop discussed in conceptual terms the issue of minimum humanitarian standards applicable in all situations andwas not based on the drafting of the so-called Turku Declaration, although several speakers referred to that text in their interventions see chap. C, Documentation and reference material, below.
The Government of Estonia notes that the purpose of the Turku Declaration which combines elements of both humanitarian law and human rights law is to list the most basic standards that should be applicable in all situations, during peacetime as well as wartime.
An inter-ministerial committee appointed in February 1995 to review domestic legislation pertaining to situations of public emergency submitted its final report in October this year, in which it stressed the need to take into account not only applicable provisions of international law, butalso recent international standard-setting developments, including the Turku Declaration.
In the light of the foregoing, the Government of Mexico considers that the Turku Declaration is not an appropriate instrument for improving the situation of the victims of armed conflicts, particularly the civilian population, and for promoting greater respect for international humanitarian law.
Since there is substantial authority for the position that the essential components of the right to a fair trial are non-derogable, it would be reasonable to begin the process of identifying the specific procedural guarantees which must be respected in all circumstances with those rights already protectedby international humanitarian law, as proposed by the Turku Declaration. .
The Government of Finland notes that the purpose of the(Turku) Declaration of Minimum Humanitarian Standards(E/CN.4/Sub.2/1991/55) is to list as minimum humanitarian standards the irreducible core of basic human rights and humanitarian norms applicable to everybody in every situation.
As for additional sources for identifying fundamental standards, the International Institute of Humanitarian Law suggested the application of the Martens clause to refugees adopted in 1989,the rules of combat applicable in non-international armed conflicts adopted in 1990, the Turku Declaration adopted in 1990 and the Guiding Principles on the Right to Humanitarian Assistance of 1993.
Wanting to formulate rules to govern internal situations, as the Turku Declaration does, thus constitutes interference in matters which are within the internal jurisdiction of States, in accordance with Article 2, paragraph 7, of the Charter of the United Nations, regardless of the humanitarian objectives that may be sought.
In this respect, the 1990 Turku Declaration could serve to show the way forward, as it constitutes a commendable attempt at providing in a single instrument a comprehensive list of minimum humanitarian standards, thus shedding light upon the legal grey-zone into which situations of internal violence, disturbance, tension and public emergency fall.
The Sub-Commission resolution in 1994 which forwarded the Turku/Åbo Declaration on Minimum Humanitarian Standards to the Commission on Human Rights recommended its“… further elaboration and eventual adoption”.
For these situations, as well as borderline cases, the Declaration of Turku, which largely reflects the provisions embodied in Additional Protocol II, provides the civilian population concerned with the necessary protection.
In developing a body of principles, due consideration will be taken of related exercises, such as the Turku/Abo Declaration of Minimum Humanitarian Standards, the San RemoDeclaration on the Rules of international humanitarian law governing the conduct of hostilities in non-international armed conflicts, and relevant work of the Sub-Commission.
Portugal recognizes the importance of andendorses the principles embodied in the Declaration on Minimum Humanitarian Standards, adopted in 1990 in Turku/Åbo Finland.