Examples of using Non-disputing in English and their translations into Arabic
{-}
-
Colloquial
-
Political
-
Ecclesiastic
-
Ecclesiastic
-
Computer
Non-disputing Party to the treaty".
Intervention by non-disputing State(s).
The words" or to non-disputing Parties to the treaty" have been added in paragraph(5) for the sake of consistency with paragraph(1).
(b) Article 5(6)-- Submission by a non-disputing Party to the treaty.
(d) The words" or to non-disputing parties" should be inserted after" to the public" to ensure consistency with paragraph(1); and.
Draft article 5: Submission by a non-disputing party to the treaty.
Under some rules, however, non-disputing parties may be able to make submissions under very limited circumstances and at the discretion of the tribunal.
III. Draft article 5-- Submission by a non-disputing Party to the treaty 3.1.
The arbitral tribunal shall also ensure that both parties aregiven an opportunity to present their observations on any submission by a non-disputing Party to the treaty.".
Article 5(6) was meant to limit non-disputing State intervention to issues of law and matters of interpretation.
In the preceding Articles,no distinction is made between the public and the" non-disputing Parties to the treaty.".
We are of the opinion that the participation of non-disputing Parties to the treaty should be limited solely to issues of treaty interpretation.
It was pointed out that paragraph(1)was addressing submissions on issues of treaty interpretation from a non-disputing party to the treaty.
Moreover, it was observed that were a non-disputing Party to the treaty to make a submission, it would be unusual or unlikely for an arbitral tribunal to reject it.
Therefore, support was expressedfor excluding from the scope of paragraph(1) of article 5 non-disputing States Parties, and retaining paragraph(6).
A suggestion was made to delete the phrase" non-disputing parties to the treaty" from paragraphs(1),(3) and(5) on the basis that the phrase" the public" was sufficiently broad.
The Working Group considered article 5 as contained in paragraph 38 of document A/CN.9/WG. II/WP.176,which provided for submission by a non-disputing Party to the treaty.
A view wasexpressed that the ability of the arbitral tribunal to invite the non-disputing Party to make submissions with respect to treaty interpretation may prejudice the rights of the other Party to that treaty.
The arbitral tribunal shall ensure that the disputing parties are given areasonable opportunity to present their observations on any submission by a non-disputing Party to the treaty.
Concerns were expressed that, under paragraph(2),there would be a risk that the submission by the non-disputing party to the treaty might come very close to relying on diplomatic protection.
After discussion, the Commission agreed that the term" the public" was a generic term, which, when used in the rules,included also both third persons and non-disputing parties.
It was furthersuggested that the provision could be restructured in case the non-disputing Party would be subject to the same regime as third parties.
In conclusion, as a general observation, we note that the UNCITRAL draft has taken into consideration relevant aspects of the free trade agreements concluded by the Dominican Republic,such as those relating to the participation of non-disputing Parties.
In addition, the question of whether issues of law andfact should be part of the scope of an intervention by a non-disputing Party was also considered an open question for further consideration.
It was said that several investment treaties allowed for the participation of a non-disputing State, such as the North American Free Trade Agreement(NAFTA), which included an article 1128 entitled" Participation by a Party".
It was clarified that discussions on article 5, paragraphs 1 to 5,would focus on submission by third party and not on submission by a non-disputing State Party to the treaty.
(5) Nothing in these Rules requires arespondent State to make available to the public or to non-disputing Parties to the treaty information the disclosure of which it considers to be contrary to its essential security interests.
Rather the rules impose a duty on the Tribunal, in furtherance of transparency,to" accept" submissions from non-disputing parties to the treaty as a matter of right.
The Working Group invited States to review theirtreaties to identify if they contained provisions giving the non-disputing Party the right to submit its opinion on treaty interpretation to the tribunal.
That limited scope of intervention wasmeant to address concerns raised that an intervention by a non-disputing State, of which the investor was a national, could resemble aspects of diplomatic protection.