Examples of using Approval of an interpretative declaration in English and their translations into Russian
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
Draft guideline 2.9.1 Approval of an interpretative declaration.
An approval of an interpretative declaration shall not be inferred from the mere silence of a State or an international organization.
This is the eventuality envisaged in guidelines 3.6.1 and 3.6.2, which refer,respectively, to the approval of an interpretative declaration and to opposition to such a declaration.
The approval of an interpretative declaration constituted subsequent agreement on the interpretation in accordance with article 31, paragraph 3(a), of the Vienna Convention.
Lastly, the revised version of draft guideline 3.6 provided for the impermissibility of approval of an interpretative declaration which was expressly or implicitly prohibited by the treaty.
The Commission should focus on matters of practical importance and devote less time to issues on whichthere was little practice, such as approval of an interpretative declaration.
It is also important to differentiate between approval of an interpretative declaration and agreement between the parties on the interpretation of the treaty.
In view of these considerations, a draft guideline 2.9.1 worded as follows could be placed at the beginning of section 2.9(Formulation of reactions to interpretative declarations) to define the expression"approval of an interpretative declaration.
Concerning guideline 2.9.9,her delegation agreed that as a general rule, approval of an interpretative declaration should not be inferred from the mere silence of a State.
Approval of an interpretative declaration, opposition to an interpretative declaration and reclassification of an interpretative declaration shall not be subject to any conditions for substantive validity.
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.
For example, the exceptional cases in which approval of an interpretative declaration or opposition thereto could be inferred were not clearly explained, and the provisions failed to clarify in what manner and to what extent silence could be considered tacit approval. .
Draft guideline 2.9.9 on silence with respect to an interpretative declaration was a welcome improvement over the text originally proposed in the thirteenth report on the topic(A/CN.4/600)in that it defined far more clearly the situation in which silence might constitute approval of an interpretative declaration.
Similarly, an in-depth consideration of the analogy between approval of an interpretative declaration and agreement between the parties regarding the interpretation of the treaty would go far beyond the scope of the topic.
As approval of an interpretative declaration constituted subsequent agreement on the interpretation, in accordance with article 31, paragraph 3(a), of the 1969 Vienna Convention, the general rules governing how an agreement could be entered into were sufficient.
As we have already stated in commenting on draft guideline 2.9.1(Approval of an interpretative declaration), in Portugal's view the word"approval" has a specific legal meaning that is not coherent with the matter being dealt with.
Approval of an interpretative declaration could not be assimilated to acceptance of a reservation inasmuch as acceptance of a reservation could render the treaty relationship binding or alter the effects of the treaty as between the author of the reservation and the author of the acceptance.
Similarly, in-depth consideration of the analogy between approval of an interpretative declaration and agreement between the parties regarding the interpretation of the treaty would go far beyond what was necessary for a draft text on reservations to treaties.
Approval of an interpretative declaration could nevertheless result from silence on the part of States or international organizations if they could legitimately be expected expressly to voice their opposition to the interpretation put forward.
Although the report in several places noted that silence could not be understood to indicate approval of an interpretative declaration, the second paragraph of proposed draft guideline 2.9.9 stated that in certain circumstances a State could be considered as having acquiesced to an interpretative declaration by reason of its silence or its conduct.
Explicit approval of an interpretative declaration did not raise any particular problems;an analogy could be drawn with the"subsequent agreement between the parties regarding the interpretation of the treaty" which, under article 31, paragraph 3(a), of the Vienna Conventions, must be taken into account.
The problem arose differently, however,in the case covered by draft guideline 4.7.3, in which the approval of an interpretative declaration was unanimous, thus constituting an agreement regarding the interpretation of the treaty that, depending upon the circumstances, was covered by article 31, paragraph 2 or paragraph 3(a), of the Vienna Conventions.
Notwithstanding guidelines 2.9.1 and 2.9.2, an approval of an interpretative declaration or an opposition thereto may be inferred, in exceptional cases, from the conduct of the States or international organizations concerned, taking into account all relevant circumstances.
With regard to the means of expressing approval of an interpretative declaration, his delegation considered that it would be incorrect simply to adopt wholesale the procedure provided for in the Vienna Convention.
Rules applicable to the formulation of an approval, opposition or reclassification in respect of an interpretative declaration.
An approval, opposition or reclassification in respect of an interpretative declaration shall be formulated in writing.
An approval, opposition or recharacterization in respect of an interpretative declaration should preferably be formulated in writing.
An approval, opposition or reclassification in respect of an interpretative declaration should indicate the reasons why it is being made.
An approval, opposition or recharacterization in respect of an interpretative declaration should, to the extent possible, indicate the reasons why it is being formulated.
Guideline 4.7.1 established the function of an interpretative declaration in clarifying the terms of a treaty and stipulated that account must be taken in interpreting the treaty of reactions(approval or opposition) to an interpretative declaration. .