Examples of using Representatives argued in English and their translations into Russian
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
Several representatives argued for deleting the bracketed term, and another for retaining it.
There was broad support for the provisional adoption of the Toolkit, but several representatives argued that it should be delayed until its data and methodological weaknesses had been addressed.
Other representatives argued that the Montreal Protocol was clearly best suited to address HFCs.
Some representatives argued that to pretend that the proposed amendments raised no legal issues was simply not correct.
Those representatives argued that the Montreal Protocol therefore provided a proper and effective framework for considerations of HFCs.
Some representatives argued against a step-by-step approach, but during the past 20 years, did we ever agree on a comprehensive solution?
Some representatives argued that it was important to distinguish between the types of information to be given to WTO by the Ozone Secretariat.
CNN representatives argued that this was impossible, however, as their reporters were detained shortly after the event began and were not allowed to film the rest.
Some representatives argued that all parties needed to possess a certain level of comfort before they could move forward on any new proposal.
Some representatives argued that football clubs should be increasingly penalized for discriminatory behaviour of their fans and/or athletes.
My representatives argued that the package did not call for unlimited access to Nicosia International Airport for any and all airlines registered in Turkey.
Numerous representatives argued in favour of including trade provisions, however, noting for example that they would help to create a level playing field for trade.
Some representatives argued that it was essential to seek new financing mechanisms; others considered that it would be better to make use of existing institutions such as GEF.
Several representatives argued that the phase-down of HFCs under the Montreal Protocol would complement parties' obligations under the Kyoto Protocol, not reduce them.
Given the above, many representatives argued that trade liberalization should be managed in a deliberate and gradual manner with increased assistance to deal with preference erosion.
Several representatives argued, however, that including a paragraph referring to an agreement to list chrysotile asbestos in Annex III to the Convention, when no such agreement had been reached, could cause confusion.
Some representatives argued that export restrictions should apply to all sources rather than specified sources, particularly in the light of the difficulty of identifying the source of mercury once it had left its source.
Many representatives argued that essential and allowable use exemptions and transitional arrangements were needed during a phase-out period for cases in which viable and affordable alternatives were not readily available.
Some representatives argued that if the parties to the Montreal Protocol were really concerned about HFCs, there was no reason that they could not donate money and expertise to the Framework Convention and Kyoto Protocol to address the problem under those agreements.
Other representatives argued that the legal issues were not so clear-cut, as the rapid growth in the use of HFCs had arisen primarily from decisions taken by the parties to the Montreal Protocol to accelerate the phase-out of CFCs and HCFCs, giving rise to a pressing need to identify and introduce alternatives to those substances.
Several representatives argued that oil and gas production and processing facilities should not be listed as sources of mercury emissions in the instrument, saying that the note by the secretariat on emissions and releases from the oil and gas sector(UNEP(DTIE)/Hg/INC.3/5) showed that such emissions were negligible and posed no genuine threat to human health and the environment.
One representative argued that the demonstrated success of the Montreal Protocol was not an argument for extending its coverage.
One representative argued for using a scale of assessments that took better account of Parties' economic and development situations.
The representative argued that the efforts made by the Canadian authorities to determine where the complainant is as well as his state of well-being have been insufficient.
Another representative argued that parties to the Montreal Protocol could not proceed with discussing the amendments until they had received the endorsement of the Framework Convention on Climate Change.
Another representative argued that in practice industry was already developing many alternatives and did not need further regulation.
The representative argued that such an agreement would open markets for companies with the relevant PPP expertise, increase competition for projects, and develop national markets for PPP projects.
Another representative argued that the working group should not be impinging on other bodies and that there should not be a reallocation of responsibilities in favour of the General Assembly.
One representative argued that the draft decisions should not be discussed at all, saying that they fell outside the remit of the Montreal Protocol, which regulated only the production and consumption of ozone-depleting substances, not their co-production, by-production or use as feedstock.
Another representative argued that while the Framework Convention on Climate Change was informed by the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, the same could not be said of the Montreal Protocol.
