Examples of using To an interpretative declaration in English and their translations into Spanish
{-}
- 
                        Official
                    
 - 
                        Colloquial
                    
 
although silence is not in principle equivalent to  approval of or acquiescence to an interpretative declaration, in some circumstances the silent State may be considered as having acquiesced to  the declaration  by reason of its conduct
it had responded to an interpretative declaration by a  certain State on the International Convention against the Taking of Hostages with a declaration  stating that the Government of Japan did not consider that the interpretative declaration  purported to  exclude
Opposition to an interpretative declaration.
Draft guideline 2.9.2 Opposition to an interpretative declaration.
Neither approval of nor opposition to an interpretative declaration shall be presumed.
Furthermore, States that did not react to an interpretative declaration usually did not explain their reasons.
There were circumstances in which silence in response to an interpretative declaration could be construed as acquiescence.
Opposition to an interpretative declaration might either restrict
silence in response to an interpretative declaration denoted indifference rather than approval or opposition.
The United Kingdom does not agree that silence as a  response to an interpretative declaration necessarily constitutes acquiescence.
Therefore, there were cases where silence in response to an interpretative declaration could be taken to  constitute acquiescence.
Observation 2008 France considers that there could be circumstances where silence could constitute acquiescence to an interpretative declaration.
Therefore, in principle, silence in response to an interpretative declaration should not be construed as approval or acquiescence.
The view was expressed that silence in response to an interpretative declaration denoted indifference rather than approval or opposition.
the situation regarding reservations, neither approval of nor opposition to an interpretative declaration could be presumed.
It was observed that there were circumstances in which silence in response to an interpretative declaration could be construed as acquiescence.
Draft guideline 2.9.4 covered the time at which it was possible to  react to an interpretative declaration, and who could react.
The legal consequences of silence in response to an interpretative declaration must be assessed in the light of article 31 of the Vienna Convention.
New Zealand considers that silence should not necessarily mean acquiescence to an interpretative declaration and acquiescence should be determined according to  general international law.
More specificity was required in draft guideline 2.9.9 in order to  clarify when silence in response to an interpretative declaration might be equated with acquiescence.