Примеры использования Vienna definition на Английском языке и их переводы на Русский язык
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
Such a distinction follows neither explicitly nor implicitly from the Vienna definition.
Under the Vienna definition, the name applied to a unilateral statement was of little importance.
The relevant judicial decision confirms that the Vienna definition is very widely accepted.
It seemed to him too formalistic to adhere strictly to the wording"certain provisions" as contained in the Vienna definition;
To remove any ambiguity andavoid possible problems in future, the Vienna definition should therefore be clarified as follows.
Summarizing the debate,the Special Rapporteur first stressed the true meaning of the terms used in the Vienna definition.
Taken literally, the Vienna definition/ See guideline 1.1, report of the International Law Commission on the work of its fiftieth session, ibid., p.
This is also the position of the Commission,some members of which nevertheless drew attention to lacunae or ambiguities in the Vienna definition.
However, as one delegation and the Special Rapporteur noted,that would amount to amending the Vienna definition, which the Commission had decided to avoid as far as possible.
On the other hand, many writers pointed out that, in some cases,reservations could validly take place at times other than those provided for in the Vienna definition.
This definition, which is very different from the Vienna definition, nevertheless introduces a“substantive” element that is absent from the one proposed by Miller.
Contrary to the Commission's commentary to guideline 1.1.1,his delegation did not share the criticism concerning the use of the word“provisions” in the Vienna definition.
The Special Rapporteur drew attention to the fact that, in the Vienna definition, the long list of moments when reservations could be made was neither exhaustive nor rigorous.
But each of these reservations was nonetheless formulated individually by each of the States concerned, andthis thus poses no problem in relation to the Vienna definition.
Although within these limits the Vienna definition has undoubtedly become firmly established, it nevertheless raises difficult problems, due to what it says and also what it does not say.
He queried, however, the precision of the term“purports to exclude orto modify the legal effect” contained in the resulting“Vienna definition” set out in draft guideline 1.1.
And doctrine leave little doubt that the Vienna definition is now customary in nature, as expressly acknowledged by the European Commission of Human Rights in the Temeltasch case.
Nonetheless, according to the Special Rapporteur, certain problems persisted, andhence the Commission could make a useful contribution by refining and supplementing the Vienna definition.
The premise for that conclusion had been that the Vienna definition See draft guideline 1.1, interpreted by draft guideline 1.1.1, adopted(the latter, provisionally) by the Commission in 1998 A/53/10, para. 540.
However, each of these reservations was still formulated individually by each of the States or international organizations concerned, andthis thus poses no problem in relation to the Vienna definition.
The Vienna definition provides the following clarification: in entering its reservation, the State“purports to exclude or to modify the legal effect[of certain provisions] On the meaning of the square brackets, see draft paragraph 1.1.4 of the Guide to Practice, para. 159 above.
There is no doubt that the practice of formulating“across-the-board” reservations relating not to specific provisions of the treaty, but to its provisions as a whole,is contrary to the letter of the Vienna definition.
Taken literally, the Vienna definition which the Commission has included in paragraph 1 appears to exclude from the general category of reservations unilateral statements that concern not one specific provision or a number of provisions of a treaty, but the entire text.
They pointed out that it was the application of the treaty as a whole, and not specific provisions of it, that was excluded between the party making the statement and the non-recognized party,which did not follow the Vienna definition to the letter.
These unilateral statements constitute reservations within the meaning of the Vienna definition: when formulated on one of the occasions specified, they purport to exclude or to modify the legal effect of the entire treatySee draft guideline 1.1.1[1.1.4] above.
However, the adoption of the 1969 Convention put an end to the chaotic proliferation of doctrinal definitions, whose purpose thereafter was simply to complete or clarify the Vienna definition without calling it in question.
In simpler terms, the Vienna definition uses both formal and procedural criteria(a unilateral statement which must be formulated at a particular time) and a substantive element(resulting from the effects intended by the State formulating it), whatever the wording adopted.
Draft guideline 1.1.3 concerned unilateral statements by which a State purported to exclude the application of a treaty in whole or in part in respect of one or more territories under its jurisdiction;such statements constituted reservations within the meaning of the Vienna definition.
The inclusion in the Vienna definition of a list of the cases in which a reservation may be made has been criticized, inter alia, on the ground that the listing was incomplete and would have been more in place in the articles of the Conventions relating to the legal regime for reservations than in the article defining them.
Without going into extensive detail and subject to the clarifications to be provided below with regard to the distinction between reservations and interpretative declarations,it does not appear possible to include further explanations in the Guide to Practice on the criteria contained in the Vienna definition.