Examples of using Article could in English and their translations into Arabic
{-}
-
Colloquial
-
Political
-
Ecclesiastic
-
Ecclesiastic
-
Computer
Paragraph 2 of the article could be deleted.
That article could have been about us if anyone appreciated our media department.
If the text wasamended to end with the word" binding", then the article could stand on its own.
This section of the article could therefore end as" other than the acting Prosecutor".
He shared the concern of the German delegation, however, that the draft article could be used for motives other than that intended.
Such an article could establish a precedent that might give rise to claims for treaty exemptions for many other meritorious groups.
In response to a question,it was explained that" another dispute" referred to in the draft article could involve parties other than the parties in the conciliation proceedings.
Paragraph 2 of the article could also be justified by the consent given to the international organization by the member State upon joining it.
Some delegations supported the deletion of the subparagraph,on the grounds that too many details in the article could interfere with existing rights or impose the accordance of rights upon which there had been no agreement.
This article could render it impossible for natural persons to acquire dual nationality and can thus not derive the benefits of dual nationality. 6.
However, article 6, paragraph 6, of the Covenant provided that nothing in that article could be invoked to delay or to prevent the abolition of capital punishment by any State party.
The Special Rapporteur remarked that it had been generally agreed that an article on the exhaustion of local remediesshould be retained in the draft articles, and that the article could be reformulated in broader terms.
It was suggested that the draft article could include a renvoi to the mechanism of suspension or termination provided for by the treaty.
His Government was satisfied with the inclusion in the draft Code of crimes against United Nations and associated personnel,although it believed that some of the key terms used in the article could be defined more precisely.
In fact looking through it, Steinberg's entire article could have been created by a skilled Wordsmith programmer- with the exception of one line.
This suggestion had already been made by the Special Rapporteur in the second report, and since it was not opposed either in the Commission or in the Sixth Committee,it seems that the text of the first paragraph of that draft article could be as follows.
He believes, however, that the acts covered by the draft article could be prosecuted as acts of aggression and that there might, as a result, be no need to devote a separate article to them.
With regard to draft article 23, his delegation supported the Special Rapporteur ' s decision to eliminate the crime of recruitment of mercenaries andagreed that the acts originally dealt with in that article could be prosecuted as crimes of aggression.
It was his understanding that the prohibition on founding a newspaper or publishing an article could subsequently be contested in a court of law. However, he wondered why such petitions had to be referred directly to the Court of Cassation instead of to a court of first instance.
In response, it was said that the transparency convention was not of the same nature as other UNCITRAL instruments,which were private law instruments, and that the article could generate confusion when read alongside article 31 of the Vienna Convention.
The view was expressed that theword" law" in paragraph 2 of the draft article could lead to confusion in certain legal systems and it was suggested that the text should instead refer to the" applicable law" or" applicable rules of law", as appropriate.
This Protocol supplements The delegation of South Africa expressed its concern that referring to the Protocol as a“supplement” to the Conventionwould diminish the importance of the Protocol; it suggested that the article could simply read“This Protocol to the Convention…”(A/AC.254/CRP.6).
Concern was expressed that the article could be abused since it stressed the subjective element, i.e.," reasonably believed", rather than an objective criterion such as emergency measures taken by a person to protect the lives of other persons entrusted to him.
It was also noted that the working assumption with respect to the draft instrument was that it was to cover door-to-door carriage,and that the presumption contained in the draft article could be quite inappropriate in the case where, for example, the carrier that failed to identify itself was a non-vessel operating carrier.
For example, the article could provide that, while no obligation should be imposed on the procuring entity to reserve the right to reject all tenders in the solicitation or equivalent documents, the procuring entity should be required to justify its grounds for rejection of all tenders if it did not do so.
While sympathy was expressed for the view that exhaustion of local remedies affected the admissibility of a claim, it was noted that further thought should be given to the issue of whether admissibility ofclaims had a place in Part One, or whether the article could be located in Part Two or Three.
It was alsonoted that the protections currently contained in the draft article could be found elsewhere in the draft articles, in particular article 3 on protection by the State of nationality and article 17 on actions or procedures other than diplomatic protection.
According to another view, although the current text in article 4 of the draft convention was preferable,the proposal by Mexico for a new paragraph to be included in that article could constitute a possible compromise in addressing the concerns which had been expressed on the" armed forces of States" exclusion issue in relation to the article. .
A concern was expressed that this article could be interpreted to mean that any State could bring action against the defaulting State, whether or not it was affected by the internationally wrongful act, rather than permitting only the affected State to bring action, and only then if it could prove damage.