Примеры использования Unilateral declarations made на Английском языке и их переводы на Русский язык
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
Unilateral declarations made by nuclearweapon States can be expanded.
Guidelines 1.2, 1.2.2, 1.2.4, 1.2.5 and 1.2.6 are applicable to unilateral declarations made in respect of bilateral treaties.
Unilateral declarations made by the nuclear-weapons States can be expanded.
That was because the Commission had deemed that it would be impossible to draw any specific conclusions on any aspect of the topic other than unilateral declarations made by States with the intention of creating legal obligations.
Simultaneous or successive unilateral declarations made with the intention of creating a legal act are covered by the law of treaties.
The study of the subject should moreover be limited exclusively to acts capable of producing legal effects, among them, for example,autonomous unilateral declarations made with the express intention of producing legal effects.
In practice, almost all unilateral declarations made by States could be categorized as political acts, even though some might have legal effects.
Thus, as the International Court of Justice stated in its well-known judgments in the Nuclear Tests cases, for example, the unilateral declarations made by representatives of the French State were unilateral acts of a legal nature.
The unilateral declarations made by the nuclear Powers in April 1995 are clearly insufficient, especially in the light of various events which have occurred since then.
Until such time as an international instrument on negative security assurances is adopted, all States parties must abide by the provisions of Security Council resolution 984(1995)of 11 April 1995 and the unilateral declarations made by States in implementation thereof.
The unilateral declarations made with the intent of entering into a commitment on the international legal plane have unquestionable value in international law today.
In other cases, the Court has considered unilateral declarations by States, such as those regarding acceptance of the Court's jurisdiction, which are of great value,regardless of whether they can be considered as formally unilateral declarations made in the context of a treaty relationship.
It was therefore a matter of concern that unilateral declarations made under the Treaty of Tlatelolco continued to invoke selfdefence in order to restrict compliance.
In this context it is important to point out that at the NPT Conference an overwhelming majority of non-nuclear-weapon States merely took note of, butdid not welcome either Security Council resolution 984 or the unilateral declarations made by the five nuclear-weapon States in March and April 1995.
They did not extend to unilateral declarations made under international law or to unilateral acts intended to create rights under international law.
Concerning the negative security assurances granted underSecurity Council resolution 984(1995), in accordance with the unilateral declarations made by the nuclear States, they are very limited and are no more than mere unilateral declarations that do not fall into the category of an international legal commitment.
The unilateral declarations made by four nuclear-weapon States and Security Council resolutions 255 of 19 June 1968 and 984 of 4 November 1995 on security assurances have not fulfilled the expectations and requirements of the non-nuclear-weapon States.
Moreover, in accordance with the very spirit of the definition of reservations,they may be distinguished from other unilateral declarations made with regard to a treaty by the legal effect aimed at by the declarant, i.e. by its intention(inevitably subjective). There is no reason to depart from the spirit of this definition as far as interpretative declarations are concerned.
We note that the unilateral declarations made by five nuclear-weapon States, offering voluntary negative security assurances during the mid-1990s, were not adequate to dispel the security concerns of non-nuclear-weapon States, mainly due to the non-binding nature of such declarations. .
This would be in keeping with unilateral declarations made at the highest levels by the leaders of South Asia, pledging themselves not to acquire, develop or manufacture nuclear weapons.
At the same time, we welcome unilateral declarations made by nuclear States with respect to their policies of rejecting the use or the threat of use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear States.
At the same time, we welcome the unilateral declarations made by the nuclear-weapon States with regard to their policy of rejecting the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon States.
It was emphasized, from this viewpoint, that the unilateral declarations made by the nuclearweapon States, of which the Security Council took note in its resolution No. 984 of 11 April 1995, do not constitute adequate assurances, inter alia because of their nonbinding and unilateral character.
In this context, these States parties consider that the unilateral declarations made by the four nuclear-weapon States, and Security Council resolutions 255(1968) of 19 June 1968 and 984(1995) of 4 November 1995 on security assurances have not fulfilled the requirements of non-nuclear-weapon States.
Although Egypt takes note of and welcomes unilateral declarations made by some nuclearweapon States that provide security assurances against the use of nuclear weapons to nonnuclearweapon States, we believe that these declarations fall short of our security requirements and do not adequately or conclusively deal with the issue.
Moreover, if, as is sometimes asserted, unilateral declarations made in respect of the manner in which their authors will implement their obligations under the treaty at the internal level may constitute genuine reservations(especially in the field of human rights), these declarations must clearly be treated as such; but this is true of all the unilateral declarations listed in this section.
The unilateral acts that have been under consideration by the Commission since 1997,namely unilateral declarations made by one or more States with a view to producing certain legal effects, should be distinguished, at least as far as their formulation or realization are concerned, from equally unilateral conduct which, without being an act in the strict sense of the term, is capable of producing similar legal effects.
Is a unilateral declaration made by a State or an international organization;
In its Judgment in the Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo case, the International Court of Justice had not excluded the possibility that a unilateral declaration made by a State could be invalid.
The Government of the Kingdom of Spain points out that regardless of what it may be called, a unilateral declaration made by a State for the purpose of excluding or changing the legal effects of certain provisions of a treaty as it applies to that State constitutes a reservation.