Examples of using Interpretative declaration could in English and their translations into French
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
An interpretative declaration could be invalid if it did not comply with those restrictions.
A reservation was formulated at a specific time, while an interpretative declaration could be made at any time.
The view was expressed that the interpretative declaration could serve as an aid to interpretation for its author or for a State or an international organization that had approved it.
There were circumstances in which silence in response to an interpretative declaration could be construed as acquiescence.
It was observed that a conditional interpretative declaration could only constitute a reservation if it was made at the right time and if it was not contrary to the object and the purpose of the treaty.
Lastly, there was no reason to set temporal limits, since an interpretative declaration could be formulated at any time.
It was observed that a conditional interpretative declaration could only constitute a reservation if it was made at the right time and was authorized by the treaty or was not contrary to its object and purpose.
It was observed that there were circumstances in which silence in response to an interpretative declaration could be construed as acquiescence.
The effects of silence as a reaction to an interpretative declaration could only be determined in connection with the interpretative nature of that type of declaration. .
In contrast to the situation regarding reservations,neither approval of nor opposition to an interpretative declaration could be presumed.
It was not sufficiently clear, however, how an interpretative declaration could effectively be subject to the regime of reservations.
Some delegations also required further clarification regarding the exceptional cases and relevant circumstances in which, according to draft guideline 2.9.8,approval of, or opposition to, an interpretative declaration could be inferred from conduct.
Therefore, there were cases where silence in response to an interpretative declaration could be taken to constitute acquiescence.
The Commission had not deemed it necessary to devote a specific draft guideline to the successor State's capacity to formulate interpretative declarations, including declarations that the predecessor State had not formulated, since the existence of that capacity followed directly from guideline 2.4.3,which stated that an interpretative declaration could, with some exceptions, be formulated at any time.
Mr. HARRIS(United States of America) said that an interpretative declaration could be attached to subparagraph(c) to allay the concerns of the Chinese delegation.
The former could of themselves produce legal effects, only in the circumstances mentioned in previous Commission reports, namely, that under the rules of estoppel, which did not form part of the law of treaties,a simple interpretative declaration could be invoked by a State against the State which had formulated it.
The view was also expressed that,while silence in respect of an interpretative declaration could in some cases be construed as acceptance, objections and recharacterizations should always be expressed and formulated in writing.
It was pointed out that circumstances could not be envisaged in which silence in response to an interpretative declaration could be taken definitively to constitute acquiescence.
The view was expressed, however, that an interpretative declaration could be impermissible if the interpretation it formulated was contrary to the object and purpose of the treaty or if it violated article 31 of the 1969 Vienna Convention.
The Guide stated that silence in response to a reservation implied tacit acceptance of the reservation but that approval of an interpretative declaration could not be inferred from the mere silence of a State or an international organization.
Such a distinction would be useful, because a conditional interpretative declaration could be equated to a reservation and produce the same legal effects, whereas an interpretative statement had no legal effects.
Reservations were expressed as to whether courts would followsuch a non-binding recommendation, although it was noted that an interpretative declaration could be seen in some legal systems as the functional equivalent of"doctrine" or case-law.
In addition, uncertainty about the effect of silence on a specific interpretative declaration could lead to the undesirable result that States would increasingly lodge and object to interpretative declarations.
Draft guideline 2.5.12 on withdrawal of interpretative declarations provided that, since an interpretative declaration could be formulated at any time, it could also be withdrawn at any time without any special procedure.
On the other hand, the Special Rapporteur was not convinced by the arguments that an interpretative declaration could violate article 31 of the 1969 Vienna Convention or deprive the treaty of its object and purpose; in both cases, what was at issue was not the permissibility of the declaration but, at most, the incorrectness of the interpretation proposed.
According to a different view, approval of or opposition to an interpretative declaration could be permissible or impermissible, like the declaration itself.
Moreover, removing any mention of a limited period of time from the definition of an interpretative declaration could ultimately weaken the time element characteristic of reservations; legal insecurity could result.
An interpretative declaration can also be formulated with a view to recalling the position taken by a State during the negotiations which led to the adoption of the treaty.
It is obvious that,if a treaty provides that an interpretative declaration can be made only at specified times, it follows a fortiori that such a declaration cannot be modified at other times.
Since, on the one hand, draft guideline 2.1.8 hasmet with criticism and, on the other, it is far from clear that an interpretative declaration can be"valid" or"invalid", it seems unnecessary to make such a mention.