Examples of using To interpretative declarations in English and their translations into Spanish
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
Permissibility of reactions to interpretative declarations.
Although the Special Rapporteur is convinced of the soundness of these recommendations,he is hesitant to propose a draft guideline reflecting them because the Commission has not adopted equivalent guidelines with respect to interpretative declarations themselves.
These reasons do not apply to interpretative declarations to the same extent.
Guidelines 2.9.1 to 2.9.10 concerned the formulation of reactions to interpretative declarations.
The same is not true with regard to interpretative declarations, the joint formulation of which comes under the heading of lex lata.
People also translate
Draft guideline 3.6 Permissibility of reactions to interpretative declarations.
Rather, they could be likened to interpretative declarations, since they were an indication of the manner in which the objecting State interpreted the treaty.
Draft guideline 3.6.2 Permissibility of oppositions to interpretative declarations.
Guideline 2.9.2 also recognized that oppositions to interpretative declarations could take various forms, including the formulation of an alternative interpretation.
Also praiseworthy was the Commission's work on clarifying State practice with regard to interpretative declarations.
The same problem arises, mutatis mutandis, with regard to interpretative declarations whose objective may be achieved by other means.
While an opposition made by way of proposing an alternative interpretation was treated as an interpretative declaration by itself,a simple opposition to interpretative declarations should not be treated as such.
Since there was no time limit on reacting to interpretative declarations, it would be hard to determine when the silence of other contracting States could be deemed acquiescence.
It appears that State practice with respect to positive reactions to interpretative declarations is virtually non-existent.
The rationale was that no rule of tacit approval comparable to that laid down in article 20, paragraph 5, of the Vienna Conventions with respect to reservations existed with respect to interpretative declarations.
The following guidelines, which refer in general terms to interpretative declarations without distinguishing between the two categories into which they are divided, apply to both categories.
Since it is not possible to proceed by analogy with reservations, the issue of whether, in the absence of an express reaction,there is a presumption of approval of or opposition to interpretative declarations remains unresolved.
There was no need, in his view, to apply to reactions to interpretative declarations the restriction imposed by draft guideline 2.6.5 on the author of an objection to a reservation.
In addition, the Commission will consider the possibility of referring, under a single caveat, both to reservations, which are the sole object of this guideline, and to interpretative declarations, which, in the view of some members, pose identical problems.
Although such declarations were closer to reservations than to interpretative declarations in that they sought to produce a legal effect on the provisions of the treaty, the Commission did not believe that those two categories of unilateral statements were identical.
Nevertheless, the study had made a significant contribution to the understanding of the law in relation to interpretative declarations and, in particular, their recharacterization.
While a cautious approach was recommended with respect to interpretative declarations, some delegations welcomed their inclusion in the Guide to Practice; it was also suggested that further clarification be sought regarding the legal effects of interpretative declarations. .
The similarity between the wording of draft guidelines 1.1.7[1.1.1] and 1.2.2[1.2.1]does not mean that the same legal regime is applicable to interpretative declarations formulated jointly, on the one hand, and to reservations formulated jointly, on the other.
For the same reasons,it would seem legitimate to transpose to interpretative declarations draft guidelines 2.2.3 and 2.2.4 concerning non-confirmation of reservations formulated when signing an agreement in simplified form or of a treaty making express provision for them.
Recalling the advisory opinion given by the International Court of Justice on the International status of South-West Africa,the Special Rapporteur emphasized that reactions to interpretative declarations were intended to produce legal effects.
The proposed categories of reactions were too restrictive and did not take into account, for example,reactions to interpretative declarations that were positive but not intended to express agreement, or negative but did not reject the interpretation or propose a concrete alternative.
With regard to the permissibility of reactions to interpretative declarations, guideline 3.6 stated the general principle that an approval of, opposition to, or recharacterization of, an interpretative declaration was not subject to any conditions for permissibility.
Some doubts were raised about the usefulness of the guidelines dealing with so-called approvals of or oppositions to interpretative declarations since such reactions to interpretative declarations did not appear to be common practice.
Whether the procedure in case of manifestly impermissible reservations set out in guideline 2.1.8 could be applied to interpretative declarations was a decision that could be taken after it had been decided whether it should be retained in relation to reservations.
That was not, however, a legal obligation. It would be hard to justify making it so,for that would make reactions to interpretative declarations subject to stricter formal and procedural requirements than interpretative declarations themselves.