Examples of using To an interpretative declaration in English and their translations into Russian
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
Silence in response to an interpretative declaration.
Indeed, there was good reason to assert that the two reactions did not produce similar effects,although reclassification might sometimes be seen as a consequence of opposition to an interpretative declaration.
Several delegations agreed that consent to an interpretative declaration should not be inferred from silence.
In other words, it is particularly difficult to determine when andin what specific circumstances inaction with respect to an interpretative declaration is tantamount to consent.
Therefore, in principle, silence in response to an interpretative declaration should not be construed as approval or acquiescence.
The main issues in the debate concerned the relation between conditional interpretative declarations and reservations,as well as the effects of silence as a reaction to an interpretative declaration chap. VI.
There were circumstances in which silence in response to an interpretative declaration could be construed as acquiescence.
Opposition to an interpretative declaration might either restrict or exclude the intended legal consequences of the declaration. .
Therefore, there were cases where silence in response to an interpretative declaration could be taken to constitute acquiescence.
Some members contended that it was not possible to identify in the abstract those situations in which the silence of a State orinternational organization constituted acquiescence or consent to an interpretative declaration.
In most cases, silence in response to an interpretative declaration denoted indifference rather than approval or opposition.
More specificity was required in draft guideline 2.9.9 in order to clarify when silence in response to an interpretative declaration might be equated with 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. .
Draft guidelines 2.9.8, on non-presumption of approval or opposition, and 2.9.9,on silence in response to an interpretative declaration, dealt with two different but related questions.
When it does not constitute acquiescence to an interpretative declaration, silence does not appear to play a role in the legal effects that the declaration can produce.
The same caveat applies, however: if States or international organizations do not adequately publicize their reactions to an interpretative declaration, they run the risk that the intended effects may not be produced.
The United Kingdom does not agree that silence as a response to an interpretative declaration necessarily constitutes acquiescence.
Examples of negative reactions to an interpretative declaration, in other words, of a State or an international organization disagreeing with the interpretation given in an interpretative declaration, while not quite as exceptional, are nonetheless sporadic.
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 formulation in writing of a reaction to an interpretative declaration, whether approval, opposition or recharacterization, makes it easier to disseminate it to the other entities concerned, contracting parties or States or international organizations entitled to become so.
Are there circumstances in which silence in response to an interpretative declaration can be taken to constitute acquiescence in the declaration? .
With respect to guideline 2.9.2(Opposition to an interpretative declaration), his delegation approved the decision to use a separate term("opposition")to denote a negative reaction to an interpretative declaration and to reserve the term"objection" to denote a negative reaction to a reservation.
The view was expressed that the legal consequences of silence in response to an interpretative declaration should be assessed in the light of article 31, paragraph 3(a), of the Vienna Convention.
With regard to draft guideline 2.9.2, on opposition to an interpretative declaration, his delegation shared the view that the expression"excluding or limiting its effect" could be misleading when trying to make a clear distinction between reservations and interpretative declarations. .
New Zealand considers that silence should not necessarily mean acquiescence to an interpretative declaration and acquiescence should be determined according to general international law.
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.
That is why"opposition" might be an apt term for negative reactions to an interpretative declaration, rather than"objection", even though this word has sometimes been used in practice.
With regard to the consequences of silence as a response to an interpretative declaration, particularly in situations where a State had made both reservations and interpretative declarations, silence just meant silence.
The legal consequences of silence in response to an interpretative declaration must be assessed in the light of article 31 of the Vienna Convention.