▾

External sources (not reviewed)

One member commented that the wording of the draft decision proposed [...] [...]

The expression “may, however, be included” [...] [...]

[...] explicitly upon the wording and approach [...]

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.

[...] [...] reflected in the wording of priorities [...] [...]

[...] [...] competence should be worded similarly as [...]

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 in such proposals should be clear and consistent with the language and terminology used by the Committee and in international space law.

Recalling the wording he had proposed at the Committee’s previous meeting on the draft general comment, he said that in the first sentence of the paragraph, the word “uncensored” should be replaced with the word “unhindered” and the phrase “in a democratic society”, with the phrase “in any society”; following the latter phrase, a new sentence should be inserted which would read: “It constitutes a foundation of democratic society”.

She added that, on the issue of indicators, one group of States had felt that the indicators should be addressed by the Working Group, while another had pointed out that the Working Group had no mandate to do so, although it would be open to examining the possibility of adapting the language in such a manner as to subsume certain indicators under the category sub-criteria, if that was considered appropriate.

[...] [...] also to present my Government’s protest, in [...]

Attention was also drawn to the provisions of section VI of General Assembly resolution 45/248 B, in which the Assembly reaffirmed that the Fifth Committee was the appropriate Main Committee of the Assembly entrusted with responsibilities for administrative and budgetary matters, and to paragraph 67 of the first report of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions on the proposed programme budget for the biennium 2000-2001, in which it noted that the use of the phrase “within existing resources” or similar language in resolutions had a negative impact on the implementation of activities; therefore, every effort should be made to avoid the use of that phrase in resolutions and decisions.

She furthermore suggested simpler, more elegant language for the paragraph, particularly with regard to the phrase “The Covenant embraces” in the second sentence and the word “corollary” in the penultimate sentence; as the latter sentence was currently drafted, it was unclear whether the public had a right to receive information from journalists or the Government, and the public was represented as less important than professional journalists.

[...] position and agreed on wording.

[...] [...] departure from the wording of the OECD Model [...] [...]

However, the language in subparagraphs (i) and (ii) provides flexibility on this point: first, for procuring entities in States in which acceptance of tender securities not issued in the enacting State would be a violation of law; and secondly, in domestic procurement where the procuring entity stipulated in the solicitation documents in accordance with paragraph (1)(b) that a tender security must be issued by an issuer in the enacting State.

OHCHR required only very general guidelines to be able to continue with its work, and although no agreement had been reached thus far, she hoped that delegations would continue to work constructively on that issue and find a compromise that addressed delegations’ genuine concerns while sending a clear signal of support for the very important work of OHCHR.

As with other GPA provisions, it is sufficiently ambiguous to allow for varying interpretations.

Moreover, we are deeply troubled by the choice of terminology that appears to devalue the lives of Palestinians by making the deaths on the Palestinian side seem less important or serious. For example, a sentence in paragraph 7 of the report states, “… an estimated 1,300 Palestinians lost their lives and 5,300 were injured in the conflict”, and in the same sentence, in reference to Israeli deaths, states, “… and 14 Israelis were killed, and more than 530 injured”.

The Government of the United States and the indigenous peoples concerned are urged to review the language of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act in order to ensure its consistency with that of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, specifically in relation to: the right of indigenous peoples to self-determination, particularly to maintain and develop their political, economic and social systems or institutions of self-government; to determine their own identity or membership in accordance with their customs and to be secure in the enjoyment of their own means of subsistence and development, or for just and fair redress for its impairment; to denounce the policy of “extinguishment” of Alaska Native aboriginal hunting and fishing rights; and to address the outstanding issue of transfer of lands to traditional institutions of the Alaska Native people.

Such a radical remark is qualified, however, by the use of the expression “as such”: while the Court does not consider itself bound by the unilateral interpretation proposed by Romania, that does not preclude the unilateral interpretation from having an effect as a means of proof or a piece of information that might corroborate the Court’s interpretation “in accordance with Article 31 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties”.

[...] [...] containing the wording of a proposed [...] [...]

The Panel recommends that the Kimberley Process reconsider the wording of the administrative decision for sharing information with United Nations panels/ groups of experts to ensure that the mandates of these Security Council bodies are not affected by delays or the unwillingness of some Participants to share necessary information.

Under subprogramme 1, General Assembly and Economic and Social Council affairs, the view was expressed that expected accomplishment (b) should be reformulated, given that mandates originate from the General Assembly.

It further notes the State party’s argument that the Planning and Building Act is applied equally to all, whether the person has a disability or not, and that the Act contains no clauses that would indirectly lead to discrimination against persons with disabilities.

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

The wording reflects the fact [...] [...]

[...] [...] 49:7-22) is so worded as to betray [...]

[...] [...] penultimate sentence of subparagraphs (a), [...] [...]

The choice of terminology to report deaths on the Palestinian side as “lost their lives” and for the Israeli side as “were killed” may imply to the reader that the loss of life of the 1,300 Palestinians was simply a result of their own doing without attributing these deaths to a specific action such as killing or military aggression or violence, while it is clearly implied that those on the Israeli side were killed intentionally by the Palestinian side.