Примеры использования United states could not support на Английском языке и их переводы на Русский язык
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
The United States could not support language that would infringe on the sovereign right of the United States. .
There are multiple resolutions within the report that target Israel,resolutions the United States could not support for many reasons, but in large part because they attempt to isolate and criticize the Government of Israel with no mention of Hamas.
The United States could not support language that would infringe on the sovereign right of the United States. .
In a statement made at the 73rd meeting of the General Assembly on 11 December 2002,a representative of the United States said that the United States could not support the draft resolution on the implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples.
In that regard, he said, the United States could not support the draft resolution on the implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples.
In a statement made at the 72nd plenary meeting of the General Assembly, on 9 December 2003(see A/58/PV.72),a representative of the United States said that the United States could not support the draft resolution(A/58/L.21) on the implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples.
The United States could not support commencing such an effort without being sure that such a convention was likely to be an effective solution to whatever problems currently existed.
In a statement made to the General Assembly at its 72nd plenary meeting, on 9 December 2003(A/58/PV.72),a representative of the United States said that the United States could not support the draft resolution(A/58/L.21) on the implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples.
The United States could not support language that would infringe on the sovereign right of the United States Government to plan its military activities in accordance with its national security interests.
In a statement made at the 72nd plenary meeting of the General Assembly on 9 December 2003(see A/58/PV.72),a representative of the United States said that the United States could not support the draft resolution(A/58/L.21) on the implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, because by adopting a narrow definition of decolonization, the draft resolution failed to take into account the complex reality of Non-Self-Governing Territories.
The United States could not support the working paper submitted by the Russian Federation and Belarus with regard to requesting an advisory opinion on the use of force from the International Court of Justice, because it considered that the provisions of the Charter were adequate; however, there appeared to be an opportunity for further discussion on the issue.
Mr. DeLaurentis(United States of America): The United States could not support resolution 62/85, entitled"The Syrian Golan", under agenda item 17.
The representative of the United States stated that her delegation objected to the language in paragraph above-- specifically the recognition of sustainable development as being"based on the Rio Principles,and in particular the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities"-- which her Government regarded as prejudging key portions of the outcome of the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, and that, therefore, the United States could not support the environment and development section of the report.
For that reason, the United States could not support the resolutions and urged the States Members to refrain from supporting the standard appeal made to the Special Committee year after year to continue its work.
In a statement made at the 72nd plenary meeting of the General Assembly on 9 December 2003(see A/58/PV.72),the representative of the United States said that the United States could not support the draft resolution(A/58/L.21) on the implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples because, by adopting a narrow definition of decolonization, the draft resolution failed to take into account the complex reality of Non-Self-Governing Territories.
Clearly, the United States could not support the global ban on anti-personnel landmines under the proposed terms, not because of its unwillingness or lack of sympathy towards this goal, but because the security situation on the Korean Peninsula and its own national interests imposed the continued need to rely on this weapon.
At that meeting, the representative of the United States said that the United States could not support the draft resolution(A/58/L.21) on the implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples because, by adopting a narrow definition of decolonization, the draft resolution failed to take into account the complex reality of Non-Self-Governing Territories.
The United States cannot support the draft resolution under consideration.
Therefore, the United States cannot support this paragraph.
For those reasons, the United States cannot support the draft resolution and must abstain.
Mr. Siegel(United States of America): The United States cannot support resolution 61/27, on the Syrian Golan.
In that regard, the United States cannot support the draft resolution on the implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples.
Mr. Ross(United States of America): The United States cannot support resolution A/ES-10/L.20/Rev.1 and has thus voted against.
As the draft document circulated for comment does not reflect this understanding, the United States informed the Chair of the Regional Conference that the United States cannot support paragraph 4.
Mr. Marsh(United States of America):Unfortunately, the United States cannot support draft resolution A/57/L.52, on the implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples.
The United States cannot support such language, since its strict application would have the effect of penalizing applicants for United Nations positions whose mother tongue is not one of the official six languages.
The United States cannot support tying pragmatic and voluntary TCBMs to what is in our view such a fundamentally flawed proposal for arms control as a treaty on the prevention of placement of weapons in outer space treaty.
Nonetheless, the United States cannot support this particular draft resolution, because it fails to include language on the need for the Palestinian Authority Government to accept the three Quartet principles: renunciation of violence and terror; recognition of Israel; and acceptance of previous agreements and obligations, including the Road Map.
As such, the United States cannot support it.
The United States could not, and does not, support those resolutions for many reasons, largely because they attempt to delegitimize the Government of Israel and make no mention of the serious violations of international law deliberately committed by Hamas.