▾

External sources (not reviewed)

Because of numerous objectionable provisions, including inaccurate textual descriptions of the underlying right to food, his delegation had, as in the past, voted against the draft resolution.

[...] [...] no objection to the adoption of the proposed amendment.

[...] [...] opinion in their favour.

The use of the inclusive phrasing “contrary to the aims of the law” would also provide the competent authority with the flexibility to prohibit other potentially objectionable activities of private military and security companies.

[...] [...] or appeal against a ruling [...]

[...] [...] Whole for its consideration and that, [...] [...]

The appeal shall stand unless overruled by a two-thirds majority of the members, representing a two-thirds majority of members from Annex I Parties and a two-thirds majority of members from non-Annex I Parties.

[...] [...] objection, the Conference decides to [...] [...]

Some members agreed with the Special Rapporteur that it was unnecessary to formulate an additional draft article on appeals against an expulsion decision, as draft article C1 set out the right to challenge an expulsion decision, which seemed sufficient.

One should not exclude the application of the entirety of the provision or provisions to which a reservation relates, but only of the parts of those provisions concerning which the parties have expressed disagreement.

[...] [...] officer does not dispute.

the time limit, reasonable under the circumstances, for filing a request for review of or appeal against the provisional refusal or for filing a response to the opposition, and the authority to which such request for review or appeal shall lie; if such request for review or appeal must be filed through the intermediary of a representative whose address is within the territory of the Contracting Party whose Office has pronounced the refusal, this will also be indicated.

[...] [...] approval of the proposed revision to the [...]

As requested by the Executive Board in its decision 2010/25 and in line with decisions 2001/11 and 2006/36, the agency component of the common country programme for the United Republic of Tanzania will be approved on a no-objection basis, without presentation or discussion, unless at least five members have informed the secretariat in writing before the meeting of their wish to bring the common country programme document before the Board.

[...] [...] claims and objections, presented evidence, [...] [...]

Recommendations were also made on capacity management, prompt implementation of conservation and management measures by members and use of an allocation system of fishing quota, as well as in regard to decision-making, including the use of the voting procedure, amendment of the objection procedure to make it more rigorous and adoption of a provision on dispute settlement in line with the Agreement.

During the same period, objections to reservations were made by the following States parties: Austria, Czech Republic, Slovakia and Spain to reservations made by Qatar; (see section D and annexes I, II and III).

In regard to bank reconciliation in respect of field offices, UNESCO has in its possession the documents required for such reconciliation (last bank statement, statement of operations unrecorded by the bank or in the accounts and final reconciliation status), and no comment is required on sample-checked operations.

The validation of budgeted action programmes by component and activity for the following year or semester; of implementation reports on the past six months; and of any possible reorientation acceptable to the partners.

If he heard no objection, he would take it that the Committee wished to approve the [...] [...]

It urged the authorities to ensure that such individuals be allowed to challenge the decision to apply a cessation of protection in their case, and expressed the view that they should also be allowed access to a process to assess their continued protection needs in order for non-refoulement obligations to be met.

The Comité Français de l’Arbitrage therefore proposed that the wording of the final sentence of draft article 13, paragraph 4, should be changed accordingly, with, in addition, the introduction of a reasonable time limit, so that it would read: “In that case, within 30 days from the date of the notice of the challenge, it shall seek a reasoned decision on the challenge by the appointing authority within a reasonable time”.

Any representative to whose admission a Member has made objection shall be seated provisionally with the same rights as other representatives until the Credentials Committee has reported and the General Assembly has given its decision.

However, when the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea launched “Kwangmyongsong 3”, an artificial satellite for peaceful purposes, on 13 April last, the United States took issue with it, arguing that the space launch was based on the same technology as the long-range missile launch, and went ahead with unilaterally abrogating the 29 February agreement, upgrading sanctions on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

The Executive Board of IFAD, by a resolution adopted at its ninety-ninth session, on 22 April 2010, acting within the framework of article XII of the annex to the Statute of the Tribunal and article XIII of the Agreement between the United Nations and IFAD, decided to challenge Judgement No. 2867 of the Tribunal and to refer the question of the validity of the judgement to the International Court of Justice for an advisory opinion.

[...] [...] looking plan based on these facts.

On this particular point, the Committee takes note of the State party’s explanation that even though the author and his privately retained lawyer were given the opportunity to study and make comments or objections on the trial transcript, they did not made any comment.

The whole map of the African Union High-level Implementation Panel is accepted with one exception in the international border-line, and that is the portion regarding the area of 14 miles south of Bahr el Arab.

A.39 In the event that a Volunteer disputes an administrative decision of the Organization, the conditions of contract provide that the dispute will be submitted to arbitration and that the award of the arbitration panel will be accepted by the parties as the final resolution of the dispute.