Примеры использования Victims of transboundary damage на Английском языке и их переводы на Русский язык
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
To ensure prompt andadequate compensation to victims of transboundary damage; and.
Paragraph 2 encourages States, as appropriate, to include in such arrangements various financial security schemes whether through industry funds or State funds in order tomake sure that there is supplementary funding for victims of transboundary damage.
One principle which did appear to enjoy consensus was that of the right of victims of transboundary damage to appropriate compensation.
The importance of ensuring prompt andadequate compensation to victims of transboundary damage has its underlying premise in the Trail Smelter arbitration and the Corfu Channel case, as further elaborated and encapsulated in Principle 21 of the Stockholm Declaration, namely.
It had expressed its support for the establishment of a credible regime including adequate compensation for victims of transboundary damage.
It should be noted, however, that principle 6 did not specify that victims of transboundary damage were under an obligation to exhaust domestic remedies before seeking international redress.
States should provide appropriate procedures to ensure that compensation is provided in furtherance of draft principle 4 to victims of transboundary damage from hazardous activities.
Firstly, the objective of the draft principles-- to ensure compensation for victims of transboundary damage-- was the right one, for the situation of the victims should be the primary focus of the liability regime.
That obligation could be supplemented by guidance in the form of principles, but the obligation should be spelled out as such so as toensure that innocent victims of transboundary damage were not left uncompensated.
Victims of transboundary damage should have access to remedies in the State of origin that are no less prompt, adequate and effective than those available to victims that suffer damage, from the same incident, within the territory of that State.
It is important that States enact suitable domestic legislation to implement these principles, lest victims of transboundary damage be left without adequate recourse.
In one sense, draft principles 4 and 6 together encompass the substantive and procedural measures reflected in the expectation that the State of origin and other States concerned would provide minimum standards without which it would be difficult or impossible to implement the requirement to provide effective remedies, including the opportunity to seek payment of prompt andadequate compensation to victims of transboundary damage.
The notion of prompt andadequate compensation in paragraph(a) reflects the understanding and the desire that victims of transboundary damage should not have to wait long in order to be compensated.
Although there was no direct reference to the liability of the State in terms of compensation for loss, subparagraph(h) of draft principle 3 and draft principles 4 to 8 concentrated on the State's obligation to take the necessary measures to ensure prompt andadequate compensation for victims of transboundary damage.
This is an important matter without which the principle of equal access envisaged in paragraphs 1,2 and 3 for victims of transboundary damage cannot be realized expeditiously or without much expense.
At the substantive end is principle 4, the provision of prompt andadequate compensation for victims of transboundary damage comprising assignation of liability without proof of fault, specification of minimum conditions, and establishing insurance, bonds or other financial guarantees to cover liability.
The present draft principles aim at ensuring prompt and adequate compensation to natural or legal persons, including States,that are victims of transboundary damage, including damage to the environment.
She endorsed its decision to exclude from the scope of draft principle 4 an obligation for States to compensate victims of transboundary damage, stipulating merely that each State"should take all necessary measures" to ensure the payment of compensation.
Considering that the preferred operator's liability is strict but limited, there was also support for the possibility for supplementary funding fromdifferent sources to allocate loss and to minimize as far as possible the burden on the victims of transboundary damage to bear the loss, due to such limited liability.
For example, the basic objective of the draft principles, the obligation to provide prompt andadequate compensation to victims of transboundary damage, is well accepted in State practice and national judicial decisions, and some commentators treat it as a general principle of international law.
It could be supplemented by guidance in the form of general principles, but, in any case, should take the form of an international obligation to ensure that innocent victims of transboundary damage would not be deprived of compensation.
The States concerned shall take the necessary measures to establish supplementary funding mechanisms to compensate victims of transboundary damage who are unable to obtain prompt and adequate compensation from the operator for a[legally] established claim for such damage under the present principles.
Paragraph 2 encourages States to cooperate in setting up, at the international level, various financial security systems whether through industry funds or State funds in order tomake sure that victims of transboundary damage are provided with sufficient, prompt and adequate remedy.
The Forum expressed its support for the establishment of a credible civil nuclear liability regime including adequate compensation for the victims of transboundary damage in accordance with the principles of the Rio Declaration by incorporating a dedicated transboundary fund of sufficient size.
It could be supplemented by guidance in the form of principles, butshould itself take the form of an obligation to ensure that innocent victims of transboundary damage would not be left uncompensated.
The obligations of conduct and the due diligence obligations which the draft principles suggest that the State should bear to give full effect to the principle of prompt andadequate compensation to the victims of transboundary damage arising out of hazardous activities, in contrast to the obligations of due diligence imposed upon the State in the context of prevention, require greater and more uniform acceptance in the practice of States.
The States concerned shall ensure the availability of prompt, adequate and effective administrative andjudicial remedies to all the victims of transboundary damage arising from the operation of hazardous activities.
Moreover, the principles on the allocation of loss in the case of transboundary harm arising out of hazardous activities(resolution 61/36, annex) had a dual purpose: on the one hand, to ensure prompt andadequate compensation to victims of transboundary damage, and on the other, to preserve and protect the environment in the event of transboundary damage, especially with respect to mitigation of damage to the environment and its restoration or reinstatement.
First, each State should take measures to ensure that mechanisms were in place to facilitate prompt andadequate compensation for victims of transboundary damage from hazardous activities within its territory.
This point is made on the assumption that nationals of States of origin would stand to be compensated even for trivial damage while the victims of transboundary damage would be entitled to compensation only in the case of significant damage. .