▾

External sources (not reviewed)

[...] [...] confine itself to an over-rigid terminology (see Annex V to this document: thematic list of wording used in the decisions of the Committee on Conventions and Recommendations).

The provision is formulated in a manner intended to clarify such relationship by giving precedence to the rules of international humanitarian law in situations where they are applicable.

However, the humanitarian crises that persist in such places as the Sudan and the Democratic Republic of the Congo illustrate what the Secretary-General, in his 2008 report on conflict prevention (S/2008/18), characterized as a gap between rhetoric and reality.

[...] [...] wording, as it appears in paragraph 2 of article 31 on the responsibility of States for internationally wrongful acts expresses a concept which “is common to all the international law sub-systems” and expresses “the [...] [...]

Similarly, the formulation “relations between States under a treaty”, found in article 1, is drawn from article 2, subparagraph (c), of the Vienna Convention, and places the focus on the relations existing under the treaty regime in question, thereby making it possible to distinguish the treaty relations between States, which are included within the scope of the draft articles, from the relations between States and international organization or between international organizations arising under the same treaty, which are excluded from the scope of the articles.

Colombia notes that it interprets the language incorporated in paragraph 5 of the resolution in the context of the sovereign rights of each State to decide on the international instruments to which it will become party without affecting the rights of States over their national heritage, pursuant to international law.

In their 2009 joint study on the protection of civilians in peacekeeping operations, the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) and the Department of Peacekeeping Operations highlighted that the lack of clarity in the language of civilian protection mandates could affect the effectiveness of resources and training to meet civilian protection needs.

The expression “may, however, be included” reflects the optional nature of this divergent practice, whereas the final qualification “if no contracting State or contracting organization is opposed in a particular case” safeguards the application of the principle established in paragraph 1 should any one contracting State or contracting organization be opposed to that inclusion.

[...] [...]

In the Medical Services Section, the establishment of 15 additional national posts (6 National Officers and 9 national General Service staff) is proposed, as the Section has over the past years expanded the services it provides, which include round-the-clock operation of the UNOCI headquarters clinic, which is now functioning at level I-plus rather than the previous level I; patients are followed up at their homes after discharge from level III hospitals; patients are regularly visited in the 11 level III hospitals in Abidjan and in Sector West and Sector East; doctors in the regional headquarters perform outreach activity by visiting remote offices twice a week; support is provided to the Government during important functions and to the United Nations country team as part of the United Nations integrated framework; and medical support is proposed to be provided eight hours a day at the logistics base in Koumassi as opposed to the current two hours a day.

Instead of indicating that the decision whether to include a provision on mandatory arbitration should be deferred, it was agreed that the wording should suggest that the countries either reject arbitration at that stage or, alternatively, include the arbitration provision but postpone its entry into force until each country had notified the other that the provision should become effective.

Such unhelpful language had no place in a resolution supporting the good work done by UNRWA.

[...] situation of this type, no problem of permissibility arises; the wording chosen for guideline 3.6.2 leaves the question open.

The words that you heard from the speaker who [...] [...]

(B) If any member shall surrender for cancellation a share certificate representing shares held by him and request the Company to issue in lieu two or more share certificates representing such shares in such proportions as he may specify, the Board may, if it thinks fit, comply with such request subject to the payment of such sum (not exceeding, in the case of any share capital listed on a stock exchange in Hong Kong, the maximum amount prescribed or permitted from time to time by such stock exchange, and, in the case of any other share capital, such sum in such currency as the Board may from time to time determine to be reasonable in the territory in which the relevant register is situate, or otherwise in each case such other sum as the Board may from time to time determine) for every certificate after the first, as the Board shall from time to time determine.

[...] [...] or any part of the railway premises shall hand over the same to an official as soon as is practicable and no person other than an official shall remove from any bus or vehicle of the North-west Railway or any part of the railway premises any property lost or left behind therein, save for the purpose of handing over the same as soon as is practicable [...] [...]

[...] [...] have made it very difficult to develop a common United Nations country programme for which UNCT and the government would have shared ownership; secondly, the profile of the donor community in Iran is very low and it has been very difficult to generate FIT resources and joint United Nations programming; and, thirdly, there is still reluctance and technical barriers among UNCT members to put together [...] [...]

That delegation was of the view that any new proposals should not establish a new interpretation of the existing provisions of international space law and that the language of and the definitions contained [...] [...]

Under the new section 13I, a trader wrongly accepts payment for a product if, at the time of accepting payment or other consideration for the product, he intends not to supply the product, intends to supply a materially different product, or there are no reasonable grounds for believing that he will be able to supply the product within the period specified by him or within a reasonable period.

In that message, Prime Minister Hatoyama urged all parties to the Treaty to bridge their differences in order to pave the way for a world without nuclear weapons in which atomic energy was used only for peaceful purposes.

The attendees expressed their appreciation to the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques, King Abdullah Bin Abdulaziz, for the statement delivered on his behalf that commenced the proceedings of the meeting.

[...] [...] the participants, were not sufficiently explicit in the wording of the IEE report, addressed [...] [...]

As far as the language of the draft was concerned, he had chosen language that directly reflected the Committee’s practice, with the knowledge that it would be improved during the Committee’s discussions of the draft, with everyone’s consensus.

[...] [...] organizations as such do not wage war; there will probably be few cases in which the obligations of [...] [...]

(b) To enter into any guarantee, contract or indemnity or surety and in particular (without prejudice or secure, with or without consideration, whether by personal obligation or by [...] [...]

The General Committee also draws to the attention of the General Assembly that explanations of vote should be limited to 10 minutes; that, when the same draft resolution is considered in a Main Committee and in plenary meeting, a delegation should, as far as possible, explain its vote only once, either in the Committee or in plenary meeting, unless that delegation’s vote in plenary meeting is different from its vote in the Committee; and that delegations should exercise their right of reply at the end of the day whenever two meetings have been scheduled for that day and whenever such meetings are devoted to the consideration of the same item (decision 34/401, paras. 6-8 (A/520/Rev.17, annex V)).

[...] [...] full-screen and not within a "frame" on the linked Web site; and [...] [...]

In a note dated 31 January 1974, the SecretaryGeneral requested that such notification should be made “in the form prescribed”, in other words, that it should be transmitted by one of the three authorities mentioned above; this notification took the form of a new communication (formulated in different terms than that of the preceding year), dated 30 May 1974 and signed this time by the Pakistani Prime Minister (see the pleadings by Sir Elihu Lauterpacht on behalf of Pakistan, 5 April 2000, CR/2000/3, and by A. Pellet on behalf of India, 6 April 2000, CR/2000/4).