Examples of using A wrongdoing in English and their translations into Arabic
{-}
-
Ecclesiastic
-
Colloquial
-
Political
-
Ecclesiastic
-
Computer
AZADEA understands that you maybe reluctant to come forward with information about a wrongdoing.
Paragraph 1 defined the purpose of countermeasures, which was to induce a wrongdoing State to comply with its obligations resulting from the wrongful act.
Therefore, it was misleading to claim that theironly purpose was to induce compliance by a wrongdoing State.
Secondly, it was a long-established principle of customary international law that a wrongdoing State must provide compensation to the specifically injured State.
Part Two goes on to deal with the rights andentitlements of injured States arising from the responsibility of a wrongdoing State.
People also translate
Article 47 allowed an injured State to take countermeasures against a wrongdoing State in order to induce that State to comply with its obligations under articles 41 to 46.
It also provides the initial condition that must be satisfied before a State may take legitimate countermeasures against a wrongdoing State.
The internal law loophole inarticle 5 effectively creates the possibility for a wrongdoing State to plead internal law as a defence to an unlawful act.
And who is a greater wrong-doer than he who fabricateth against Allah a lie even as he is summoned Unto Islam?And Allah guideth not a wrongdoing people.
That distinction meant thatspecific legal consequences applied to the relationship between a wrongdoing State and an injured State in the context of international crimes.
Similarly, under article 14, if a wrongdoing State had seized the diplomatic premises of another State, that other State might under no circumstances seize the diplomatic premises of the violating State.
In addition, the possibility of proportional countermeasures should be allowed in order toinduce a wrongdoing State to comply with its international commitments.
The reference to“capacity” could be read as enabling a wrongdoing State to dispute its liability on the grounds that, while the State organ committed the wrongful act, it acted outside its scope of competence.
It is for States to accuse and it is for States to demand cessation/reparation from a wrongdoing State and to resort eventually to countermeasures.
Countermeasures, another controversial issue, represented a necessary element within a regime ofState responsibility as a legal means for inducing a wrongdoing State to change its behaviour.
The requirement for prior negotiations mayprejudice an injured State's position by enabling a wrongdoing State to compel negotiations that delay the imposition of countermeasures and permit it to avoid its international responsibility.
Given cultural differences, the provision of paragraph 3 limiting the satisfaction available todemands which would not impair the dignity of a wrongdoing State was arbitrary and should be deleted.
In its view the problem might be addressed by focusing on theprotection of" the vital interests of the population of a wrongdoing State as opposed to the vital interests of the State itself": in particular, in its view, countermeasures should not have the result of" depriving the people of a State of their means of subsistence".
Indeed consideration might fruitfully be given by the Commission to the extension of thisprohibition to cover the vital interests of the population of a wrongdoing State as opposed to the vital interests of the State itself.
In such cases," the classicunderstanding of proportionality in the context of countermeasures as a relationship between a wrongdoing and a wronged State may be inappropriate". Secondly, in discussions in the Sixth Committee of the General Assembly, it was suggested that" consideration should be given to the issue of State responsibility in the case of reprisals out of proportion to the original breach".
International law generally permits countermeasures in order to bring about the compliance of a wrongdoing State with its international obligations.
Together with the strict limitations on countermeasures, a challenge to an arbitral body's decision would extend theperiod during which a State must await reparation for a wrongdoing State's violation.
Allowing every contracting party to a multilateral treaty whose“legal”interests are infringed to seek“full reparation” against a wrongdoing State may, more often than not, create more disputes and rather hampera peaceful settlement of the original dispute.
Although it emphasizes the" priority of compensation over restitution in practice", the United States acknowledges that" restitution in kind has long been an important remedy in international law andplays a singular role in the cases where a wrongdoing State has illegally seized territory or historically or culturally valuable property".
The United States understands the phrase" rights in question" to preserve the notion that customary international law recognizes that a degree of response greater than the precipitating wrongmay sometimes be required to bring a wrongdoing State into compliance with its obligations if the principles implicated by the antecedent breach so warrant(A/CN.4/488, para. 127; see also Case Concerning the Air Services Agreement of March 27, 1946 Between the United States of America and France).
It states, without support in customary international law, that reparation shall never“result in depriving the population of a State of its own means of subsistence.” While there may arise extreme cases where a claim for prompt reparation could lead to serious social instability, the language of article 42,paragraph 3 could provide a legal and rhetorical basis for a wrongdoing State to seek to avoid any duty to provide reparation even where it has the means to do so.
Restitution in kind has long been an important remedy in international law andplays a singular role in the cases where a wrongdoing State has illegally seized territory or historically or culturally valuable property.
While it was true that that chapter contained legal concepts that were generally recognized in the internal laws of States, it could not be claimed, as had been done in draft article 30, that the wrongfulness of an act of a State was precluded if the actwas in response to another wrongful act committed by a wrongdoing State, since that would subvert the system of rules which the Commission was attempting to establish in the field of State responsibility.
Draft article 44 states the long-established principle reflected in customary international law and innumerable bilateral andmultilateral agreements that a wrongdoing State must provide compensation to the extent that restitution in integrum is not provided.
With respect to the legal consequences of an internationally wrongful act committed by a State, Italy considers it of the greatest importance that the draft should deal not only with what are referred to as“substantive” consequences,i.e. new obligations for a wrongdoing State, but also countermeasures that may be taken against sucha State, and the conditions relating to resort to countermeasures.