Sentences with phrase «take under the treaty»

Chinese leaders have resisted binding limits on greenhouse gas emissions, and a major issue ahead of the talks is what steps developing countries with rising emissions would agree to take under the treaty.

Not exact matches

What is not yet clear is whether Trump plans to initiate a formal withdrawal from the Paris accord, which under the terms of the agreement could take three years, or exit the underlying U.N. climate change treaty on which the accord was based.

to take forward the most appropriate procedure under which an independent Scotland will become a signatory to the EU Treaties».

First, international agreements (regardless of their title, designation, or form) whose entry into force with respect to the United States takes place only after two thirds of the U.S. Senate has given its advice and consent under Article II, section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution are «treaties.»

[39][40] The treaty further provides that the most recent European elections should be «taken into account» when appointing the Commission, although the President is still proposed by the European Council; the European Parliament «elects» the Commission rather than «approves» it as under the Treaty of Nice.

Mr Corbyn added that if parliament approved Trident renewal it «takes away any opportunity of fulfilling our obligations under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty to reduce the number of vessels and warheads».

When Castro took over in 1959 his administration tried to void the agreement saying that the original treaty had been procured under threat.

I replied, «Under ordinary circumstances, I would agree, but the reinsurer has taken a significant loss from this treaty.»

Enroute to wed his fiancée Luna on a road trip with his best friends, Prince Noctis is advised by news reports that his homeland has been invaded and taken over under the false pretense of a peace treaty — and that he, his loved one and his father King Regis, have been slain at the hands of the enemy.

With regard to the economic cost - benefit analyses of global warming, or of a climate treaty to brake it, it should be pointed out that economists must ignore the alternate new pathways that the economy will doubtless take under the vibrancy of capitalism, because these do not presently exist.

Advocates for tackling the issue under the Montreal treaty expressed disappointment that the Obama administration was taking such a cautious approach to a chemical that could, by some estimates, account for as much as 30 percent of all atmospheric warming by 2040.

Some within the administration, as well as several Democratic committee chairs on Capitol Hill, urged that the United States take the lead in calling for the elimination of HFC's under the treaty.

The rest is well worth reading — from the media strategy to the keystone point, made repeatedly in Copenhagen by the United States, that from here on in there are two kinds of developing countries and that «advanced developing countries» (meaning China) «must be part of any meaningful solution to climate change including taking responsibilities under a legally binding treaty.»

Implementation - Implementation describes the actions taken to meet commitments under a treaty and encompasses legal and effective phases.

New Zealand, which renounced a second round of commitments to the Kyoto Protocol, can still take advantage of carbon - market mechanisms under the United Nations treaty until at least 2015, the government said.

Under this approach, a «framework» treaty is agreed to first that generally does not involve any binding commitment, but represents a political commitment to take action at a later date.

«If the Paris agreement establishes a set of procedural requirements to implement and elaborate commitments that the US has already taken under a Senate - approved treaty, it may not require new approval by Congress,» says Elliot Diringer, executive vice president at the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, an Arlington Va. - based think tank.

Given that in ratifying the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) the United States in 1992 agreed under Article 3 of that treaty to not use scientific uncertainty as an excuse for postponing climate change policies, do you believe the United States is now free to ignore this promise by refusing to take action on climate change on the basis of scientific uncertainty?

Given that in ratifying the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) the United States and almost every country in the world in 1992 agreed under Article 3 of that treaty to not use scientific uncertainty as an excuse for postponing climate change policies, do you believe the United States is now free to ignore this promise by refusing to take action on climate change on the basis of scientific uncertainty?

Instead of serving up an all - encompassing formal treaty that requires ratification of a certain mix of countries to take effect under international law, an agreement's legal force on emissions could stem from domestic laws countries pass to implement the emission - control efforts they pledge.

The idea I'll deal with in this post is that developed countries would sign an entirely new treaty under the LCA, leaving the Kyoto Protocol behind and starting afresh, while developing countries would take on their own commitments as per their abilities.

Given Japan's delivery to date on its emission reductions under the protocol, and its willingness to take on fully half of the $ 30 billion fast start financing pledge from Copenhagen by itself, the real issue among their critics may not be their commitment to a legally binding treaty but rather the kind of legally binding treaty the Japanese are signaling they want with this decision.

This week, the Supreme Court of Canada will hear five appeals including a number of significant cases that will determine the rights of the Crown to «take up» Aboriginal lands under treaty; the right of public - sector workers in Saskatchewan to strike; and the extent of solicitor - client privilege as it pertains to money laundering laws.

In its judgment, the SCC explained that even though EU law is not itself part of the constitutional canon, «both international treaties and agreements, including European secondary legislation, may provide valuable interpretative criteria of the meaning and scope of the rights and freedoms that the Constitution recognises,» taking into account the interpretive decisions rendered «by the bodies of guarantee established under those same international treaties and agreements.»

The SCC will review whether Ontario has the authority to «take up» the lands under the treaty.

Under Article 260 TFEU if the ECJ finds that a Member State has failed to fulfil an obligation under the Treaties, «the State shall be required to take the necessary measures to comply with the judgment of the Court.&rUnder Article 260 TFEU if the ECJ finds that a Member State has failed to fulfil an obligation under the Treaties, «the State shall be required to take the necessary measures to comply with the judgment of the Court.&runder the Treaties, «the State shall be required to take the necessary measures to comply with the judgment of the Court.»

[35] Considering all of the foregoing, and keeping in mind that «[i] nterpretations of treaties and statutory provisions which have an impact upon treaty or aboriginal rights must be approached in a manner which maintains the integrity of the Crown» (Badger, above), the Minister clearly erred in reaching his decision by failing to take into account the First Nations Applicants» Treaty Rights and the honour of the Crown in interpreting his mandate under subsection 80 (2).

Under the treaty, the government was given the right to «take up» land for forestry, mining, and other uses and the First Nation retained the right to hunt and fish in those lands at least until that time.

This line of argument, then, seems to lead to a duty — under EU law — to interpret treaties in accordance with international law: after all, the GC's legal interpretation of the Agreement in which it failed to take international law into account led to an error in law.

Be that as it may, in so far as Eurozone Member States are no longer able to fulfil their obligations under the IMF Articles of Agreement without encroaching upon the Union's exclusive competence, it can be argued that they have a duty to take «all appropriate steps to eliminate the incompatibilities» between the Union Treaties and the Articles of Agreement (see Article 351 TFEU).

The approach to be taken under s. 35 in preserving existing Aboriginal and treaty rights is different from the division of powers analysis required in respect of lands reserved for Indians within the meaning of s. 91 (24).

He proposes three alternative views one might take of the nature of the «rights» accorded to investors under investment treaties: that they are «direct rights», similar to those found in the regime of human rights (p 622 - 623); «third party rights», akin to those accorded by treaty parties to third states under Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (p 624); or «delegated rights», where the individual is an agent exercising rights that belong to their home State treaties: that they are «direct rights», similar to those found in the regime of human rights (p 622 - 623); «third party rights», akin to those accorded by treaty parties to third states under Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (p 624); or «delegated rights», where the individual is an agent exercising rights that belong to their home State Treaties (p 624); or «delegated rights», where the individual is an agent exercising rights that belong to their home State (p 625).

The Governing Council shall adopt the guidelines and take the decisions necessary to ensure the performance of the tasks entrusted to the ESCB under these Treaties and this Statute.

This is because not all government action that affects treaty rights constitutes a «take up» under treaty.

Métis, however, is a term of uncertain application, used variously to describe everyone of mixed Aboriginal / non-Aboriginal ancestry, or those who took land scrip rather than treaty (see Aboriginal Treaties); those entitled to Métis lands under the Manitoba Act, 1870; those registered under the Alberta Métis Betterment Act; or the francophone segment of the mixed - blood communities of the Northwest.

There is no federal supervisory role over Ontario's taking up of lands under the treaty or pursuant to section 91 (24) of the Constitution Act.

Unless all 27 other member states agreed to an extension, the court said, «Once a notice is given, it will inevitably result in the complete withdrawal of the UK from membership of the EU and from the relevant Treaties at the end of the two year period... The effect of the giving of notice under Art 50 on relevant rights is direct, even though the Art 50 process will take a while to be worked through» (at [11]-RRB-.

By taking on the Canadian state, Jeannette Corbiere Lavell, Sandra Lovelace and Yvonne Bédard directly contributed to section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, which was amended in 1983 to guarantee that Aboriginal and treaty rights would be equally accessible to men and women under the law.