Examples of using Either article in English and their translations into Arabic
{-}
-
Political
-
Colloquial
-
Ecclesiastic
-
Ecclesiastic
-
Computer
No reservation is permitted to either article 4 or article 33 of the 1951 Convention.
We concur with the Committee ' s finding that the facts of the instantcase do not reveal a violation of either article 6 or 7 of the Covenant.
Mr. MAZZONI(Italy) thought that either article 18 should be deleted or the concerns of the representative of Thailand should be accommodated.
We would therefore suggest that the matter be clarified in either article 8 or in article 24.
The text should be more specific. Either article 52 or the commentary should include a provision that" serious breaches" called for damages exceeding the material losses suffered in consequence of the breach.
With regard to paragraph 4,it was suggested that it be moved to either article 37 bis or into a chapeau to Chapter II.
Nevertheless, provision should be made, in either article 7 or the commentary, for the possibility of two States of nationality exercising diplomatic protection simultaneously but separately against a third State on behalf of a dual national.
To the extent that there would be an overlap,an international organization could be regarded as responsible under either article 16 or article 17.
The Committee thus finds no violation of either article 6, or article 2(1)(a), of the Convention.
To the extent that there would be an overlap,an international organization could be regarded as responsible under either article 15 or article 16.
Under the circumstance, the tribunal held that the buyer did not comply with either Articles 38 or 39 CISG nor did it offer any evidence to establish a reasonable excuse pursuant to Article 44.
Concerns over the protection of the ecosystems pertaining to the relevantenvironments should be reflected in the draft, in either article 1 or article 2.
On the merits, the State party rejects a violation of either article 23, paragraph 1, or article 24, paragraph 1.
Although the Committee considered that subparagraph(g) could either be merged with subparagraph(c) or deleted and covered under article 21 bis(now 26)(A/60/266, annex II, para. 106),it does not seem to fit very well in either article.
To the extent that there would be an overlap,an international organization could be regarded as responsible under either article 14 or article 15. This would not give rise to any inconsistency.
And the Committee, in the performance of its duties under either article 40 of the Covenant or under the Optional Protocols, must know whether a State is bound by a particular obligation or to what extent.
Several decisions recognize that where the parties have on-goingrelations the aggrieved party might act under either article as to future instalments or contracts.
In other words, either articles 21(1) and 23 are likewise circular(“for primary rules of a certain content, this is their content”), or they create a presumption of the interpretation of certain primary rules, which is not the function of the draft articles. .
However, it was necessary to introduce the principle of sustainable development in either article 5 or article 6, as its inclusion would facilitate the interpretation of harm in article 7 significantly.
For these reasons, the Committee concludes that the Act in question does not make distinctions based on national origin andthus finds no violation of either article 5(e)(iv) or 2(1)(a), of the Convention.
It should, however, be pointed out that more recently,the Committee has made several explicit references to either article 1 or to the notion of self-determination in the context of indigenous peoples, relevant to the right to participation of indigenous peoples.
There is no evident reason why women should be forced into retirement at an earlier stage than men, and it is hard to see how, if the issue had been litigated between the parties,such a practice could be regarded as consistent with either article 25 or article 26 of the Covenant.
However, in order for an international organization to act as set out in draft articles 12 and 13,but without the application of paragraph(b) of either article, the rule that the international organization would be violating would be a fundamental principle of international law.
The Committee against Torture, acting under article 22, paragraph 7, of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, concludes that the extradition of the complainant toSpain did not constitute a breach of either article 3 or 15 of the Convention.
Despite the assistance of many delegations in seeking a solution,he regretted that his delegation was not in a position to accept either article 13 as drafted or the alternative wording proposed by various delegations.
After carefully weighing the information available to it,the Committee concludes that there has been no violation of either article 14 paragraph 3(b), or of article 17, paragraph 1, of the Covenant.
It is, however, understood that, should such an issue nevertheless arise in respect of an international organization, one would have to apply to that organization by analogy thepertinent rule which is applicable to States, either article 9 or article 10 of the articles on responsibility of States for internationally wrongful acts.
It is however understood that, should such an issue nevertheless arise in respect of an international organization, one would have to apply the pertinent rule whichis applicable to States by analogy to that organization, either article 9 or article 10 of draft articles on Responsibility of States for internationally wrongful acts.
(ii) Other officials and experts on mission of the United Nations who are present in an official capacity in the area where a United Nations peacekeeping operation is being conducted and who enjoy privileges andimmunities of the United Nations pursuant to either articles V or VI of the General Convention, if applicable, or Article 105 of the Charter of the United Nations.