Examples of using To dispute settlement procedures in English and their translations into Arabic
{-}
-
Colloquial
-
Political
-
Ecclesiastic
-
Ecclesiastic
-
Computer
it was clarified that the deliberations of the Working Group on that matter should not be interpreted as taking a position on the question of whether MFN clauses applied to dispute settlement procedures under investment treaties.
While abandoning the requirement of prior recourse to dispute settlement procedures, the 1993 Drafting Committee ' s formulation of article 12 does make an attempt to restrict the injured State ' s faculté to resort to countermeasures.
the present issue is not whether any requirement of prior resort to dispute settlement procedures should be embodied in article 12 of Part Two of the State responsibility draft by way of progressive development of the law of dispute settlement or of the law of State responsibility.
In addition, NAFO agreed to continue work on recommendations to improve the transparency of NAFO proceedings and decisions relating to dispute settlement procedures and on closer interregional cooperation with other regional fisheries organizations with a view to sharing information and promoting compliance with relevant conservation measures by non-Contracting Party vessels.
could be taken to imply that the imposition of countermeasures could precede recourse to dispute settlement procedures, thereby allowing powerful States to take countermeasures
It could be argued, prima facie, that the fact that a State responsibility convention did not require prior recourse to dispute settlement procedures provided for by instruments in force between the parties, as would be the case under the formulation adopted by the 1993 drafting Committee for paragraph 1(a) article 12, would not affect the parties ' obligations under such instruments.
A comment was made that the procedure in article 48 on the obligation to negotiate could be retained, and a reference to dispute settlement procedures applicable between the injured and the wrongdoing State which already existed under international law could be inserted.
Going back to that even more crucial aspect of the 1993 Drafting Committee ' s formulation which consists in the abandonment of the requirement of" prior recourse to dispute settlement procedures", an explanation of that significant change of approach is to be found in the above-mentioned statement of the Chairman of the Drafting Committee to the plenary.
In addition to the abandonment of the requirement of prior recourse to dispute settlement procedures(contemplated in 1985-1986 and in 1992), the 1993 Drafting Committee formulation presents other very important features to which the Commission may wish to give some further thought.
The requirement of recourse to dispute settlement procedures would be even less strict if article 12(1)(a), as adopted by the Drafting Committee in 1993, was to be read, under the second and third alternatives, as referring to third-party procedures only or, even worse, to binding third-party procedures only.
Even if the requirement of prior recourse to dispute settlement procedures had to be waived for continuing breaches- a point which is less certain than it may seem at first sight- it is difficult to see why it should not be insisted upon at least for non-continuing breaches.
Considering the further limitation deriving from the proposition that the requirement of resort to dispute settlement procedures refers only to those procedures envisaged by" relevant" treaties, in the presumably narrow sense of that term, the obligation of the injured State would be far narrower than the obligation that the same provision would envisage in the first alternative.
Failing an agreed solution, the application of the requirement of resort to dispute settlement procedures would result in the involvement of a third party(conciliation commission, arbitral tribunal or ICJ) competent to deal with the dispute under the relevant provisions of Part Three(as proposed by the Special Rapporteur in 1993).
With regard to the peaceful settlement of disputes, he emphasized that the Special Committee should, in dealing with any proposal relating to dispute settlement procedures, always be mindful that the free choice of means laid down in Article 33 of the Charter was a fundamental principle of international law.
the possibility of resorting to dispute settlement mechanisms, it was noted with satisfaction that the Commission had taken into account various concerns by providing that recourse to dispute settlement procedures was no longer the prerogative of the injured State alone since the alleged wrongdoer could now propose such procedures with a view to avoiding countermeasures.
With regard to dispute settlement procedures, the Commission had concluded that the provisions in part three and the relevant provisions of the Charter of the United Nations were sufficient to deal with the characterization of a wrongful act as a" crime" as the term was used in article 19 and that it was unnecessary to design new procedures for that purpose.
the difficulty of so doing(not tackled by the 1993 Drafting Committee any more than by the plenary) was surely not a justification for abandoning- for either kind of alleged breaches- any idea of a prior recourse to dispute settlement procedures.
The exceptions to the requirement of" prior recourse to dispute settlement procedures" set forth in subparagraphs(b) and(c) of paragraph 2 of article 12(concerning interim measures and reaction to non-compliance with an interim measure of protection ordered in the framework of a" third-party" settlement procedure) would not be applicable wherever the measures envisaged were not in conformity with the obligation spelled out in Article 2, paragraph 3, of the Charter of the United Nations.