Examples of using Conditional interpretative declaration in English and their translations into Spanish
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
A conditional interpretative declaration must be formulated in writing.
According to the definition contained in draft guideline 1.2.1, a conditional interpretative declaration is.
The conditional interpretative declaration is in fact a conditional reservation.
In both cases the widening is understood as the late formulation of a new reservation or a new conditional interpretative declaration.
Thus, the validity or non-validity of the conditional interpretative declaration as an"interpretative declaration" has no practical effect.
The view was expressed that the draft guideline should be more precisely worded since there would seem to be no criterion for distinguishing between an interpretative declaration and a conditional interpretative declaration.
That procedure might not apply in the case of a conditional interpretative declaration, an interesting possibility mentioned in paragraph 512 of the report.
Observations 2000 and 2002 Unless draft guideline 1.2.1 is more precisely worded,there would seem to be no criterion for drawing a definite distinction between an interpretative declaration and a conditional interpretative declaration.
This would seem to establish a contrario that it could have been a conditional interpretative declaration and not a reservation in the strict sense of the term.
The"conditional interpretative declaration", whether or not it was a"disguised reservation", introduced distorting elements and therefore called for further consideration by the Commission.
What is more, it is not the author of the negative reaction,but the author of the conditional interpretative declaration, that has the responsibility to take the action that follows from the refusal.
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.
In any event, maintaining a distinction between"interpretative declaration" and"conditional interpretative declaration" complicated the response provided by the Guide to the effects of silence.
Since a conditional interpretative declaration had the same effect as a reservation, it was quite natural that the draft articles should accord it the same treatment as a reservation.
Furthermore, it would seem to be out of the question that a State orinternational organization could formulate a conditional interpretative declaration/ See draft guideline 1.2.1[1.2.4] and the commentary thereto.
If the content of a conditional interpretative declaration purports to modify the treaty's legal effects with regard to the declarant then it is a reservation.
Although some of the reasons that had led the Special Rapporteur to establish the distinction were clear,the category of"conditional interpretative declaration" was contrived, appearing to be a tertium genus between an authentic interpretative declaration and a reservation.
Guideline 1.4 defined a conditional interpretative declaration as a unilateral statement whereby its author subjected its consent to be bound by the treaty to a specific interpretation of the treaty or of certain provisions thereof.
But, here again, if the proposed interpretation is ultimately accepted as the correct and authoritative interpretation,the author of the conditional interpretative declaration has achieved its aim, despite the non-validity of its declaration. .
In this case-- but in this case only-- the conditional interpretative declaration must be equated to a reservation and may produce only the effects of a reservation, if the corresponding conditions have been met.
She also agreed with the Special Rapporteur that guideline 2.4.3 bis should not mention guideline 2.1.8,as the question of the permissibility of an interpretative declaration should be distinguished from that of an impermissible reservation or conditional interpretative declaration.
So long as the correct interpretation has not been established, the conditional interpretative declaration remains in a legal vacuum and it is impossible to determine whether it is a mere interpretation or a reservation.
A conditional interpretative declaration must be communicated in writing to the contracting States and contracting organizations and other States and international organizations entitled to become parties to the treaty under the same conditions as a reservation.
It was therefore appropriate to recognize the right of States to recharacterize a conditional interpretative declaration as a reservation and to apply with respect to conditional interpretative declarations the rules on reactions to reservations.
A conditional interpretative declaration could only constitute a reservation, in the strict sense of the term, if it was made at the right time and was authorized by the treaty or, failing that, did not contradict the spirit and purpose of the treaty.
In the case of this second hypothesis,the Commission noted that if the conditional interpretative declaration was formulated when signing the treaty, it would"probably" be"confirmed at the time of the expression of definitive consent to be bound.
A conditional interpretative declaration must be communicated in writing to the contracting States and contracting organizations and other States and international organizations entitled to become parties to the treaty under the same conditions as a reservation.
On the other hand,recent practice had shown that the difference between a conditional interpretative declaration and a reservation was far from clear, of which the interpretative declaration of States parties to the Treaty establishing the European Stability Mechanism of 2 February 2012 was an example.
A State or an international organization may not formulate a conditional interpretative declaration concerning a treaty after expressing its consent to be bound by the treaty except if none of the other Contracting Parties objects to the late formulation of the conditional interpretative declaration. .
Moreover, the formulation whereby the rules on the widening or limitation of a conditional interpretative declaration were explained by reference to draft guideline 2.3.5("Widening of the scope of a reservation"), which in turn referred the reader to draft guideline 2.3.1("Late formulation of a reservation"), was not entirely successful.