求高手英译中,机译免进95.To enable the remainder of the procedure to take its course,the parties have includedalternative conditions in the 1975 Statute:either that the activity planned by one party should beliable,in CARU’s opinion,to cau

求高手英译中,机译免进95.To enable the remainder of the procedure to take its course,the parties have includedalternative conditions in the 1975 Statute:either that the activity planned by one party should beliable,in CARU’s opinion,to cau
求高手英译中,机译免进
95.To enable the remainder of the procedure to take its course,the parties have includedalternative conditions in the 1975 Statute:either that the activity planned by one party should be
liable,in CARU’s opinion,to cause significant damage to the other,creating an obligation of prevention for the first party to eliminate or minimize the risk,in consultation with the other party;or that CARU,having been duly informed,should not have reached a decision in that regard within the prescribed period.
96.The Court notes that the Parties are agreed in considering that the two planned mills were works of sufficient importance to fall within the scope of Article 7 of the 1975 Statute,and thus for
CARU to have been informed of them.The same applies to the plan to construct a port terminal at Fray Bentos for the exclusive use of the Orion (Botnia) mill,which included dredging work and
use of the river bed.
97.However,the Court observes that the Parties disagree on whether there is an obligation to inform CARU in respect of the extraction and use of water from the river for industrial purposes by the Orion (Botnia) mill.Argentina takes the view that the authorization granted by the Uruguayan Ministry of Transport and Public Works on 12 September 2006 concerns an activity of sufficient
importance (“entidad suficiente”) to affect the régime of the river or the quality of its waters and that,in this matter,Uruguay should have followed the procedure laid down in Articles 7 to 12 of the 1975 Statute.For its part,Uruguay maintains that this activity forms an integral part of the Orion (Botnia) mill project as a whole,and that the 1975 Statute does not require CARU to be informed of each step in furtherance of the planned works.
98.The Court points out that while the Parties are agreed in recognizing that CARU should have been informed of the two planned mills and the plan to construct the port terminal at Fray
Bentos,they nonetheless differ as regards the content of the information which should be provided to CARU and as to when this should take place.
99.Argentina has argued that the content of the obligation to inform must be determined in the light of its objective,which is to prevent threats to navigation,the régime of the river or the
quality of the waters.According to Argentina,the plan which CARU must be informed of may be at a very early stage,since it is simply a matter of allowing the Commission to “determine on a
preliminary basis”,within a very short period of 30 days,whether the plan “might cause significant damage to the other party”.It is only in the following phase of the procedure that the substance of the obligation to inform is said to become more extensive.In Argentina’s view,however,CARU must be informed prior to the authorization or implementation of a project on the River Uruguay.

求高手英译中,机译免进95.To enable the remainder of the procedure to take its course,the parties have includedalternative conditions in the 1975 Statute:either that the activity planned by one party should beliable,in CARU’s opinion,to cau
这篇是关于海牙法院对阿根廷和乌拉圭界河上的造纸厂产生的污染纠纷的裁决.
我尽力翻译了,希望对你有所帮助.
以上
希望对你有所帮助.

95. To enable the remainder of the procedure to take its course, the parties have includedalternative conditions in the 1975 Statute: either that the activity planned by one party should be
liable...

全部展开

95. To enable the remainder of the procedure to take its course, the parties have includedalternative conditions in the 1975 Statute: either that the activity planned by one party should be
liable, in CARU’s opinion, to cause significant damage to the other, creating an obligation of prevention for the first party to eliminate or minimize the risk, in consultation with the other party;or that CARU, having been duly informed, should not have reached a decision in that regard within the prescribed period.
96. The Court notes that the Parties are agreed in considering that the two planned mills were works of sufficient importance to fall within the scope of Article 7 of the 1975 Statute, and thus for
CARU to have been informed of them. The same applies to the plan to construct a port terminal at Fray Bentos for the exclusive use of the Orion (Botnia) mill, which included dredging work and
use of the river bed.
97. However, the Court observes that the Parties disagree on whether there is an obligation to inform CARU in respect of the extraction and use of water from the river for industrial purposes by the Orion (Botnia) mill. Argentina takes the view that the authorization granted by the Uruguayan Ministry of Transport and Public Works on 12 September 2006 concerns an activity of sufficient
importance (“entidad suficiente”) to affect the régime of the river or the quality of its waters and that, in this matter, Uruguay should have followed the procedure laid down in Articles 7 to 12 of the 1975 Statute. For its part, Uruguay maintains that this activity forms an integral part of the Orion (Botnia) mill project as a whole, and that the 1975 Statute does not require CARU to be informed of each step in furtherance of the planned works.
98. The Court points out that while the Parties are agreed in recognizing that CARU should have been informed of the two planned mills and the plan to construct the port terminal at Fray
Bentos, they nonetheless differ as regards the content of the information which should be provided to CARU and as to when this should take place.
99. Argentina has argued that the content of the obligation to inform must be determined in the light of its objective, which is to prevent threats to navigation, the régime of the river or the
quality of the waters. According to Argentina, the plan which CARU must be informed of may be at a very early stage, since it is simply a matter of allowing the Commission to “determine on a
preliminary basis”, within a very short period of 30 days, whether the plan “might cause significant damage to the other party”. It is only in the following phase of the procedure that the substance of the obligation to inform is said to become more extensive. In Argentina’s view, however, CARU must be informed prior to the authorization or implementation of a project on the River Uruguay.
95。为使该过程的其余部分采取的过程中，双方都includedalternative条件在1975年规约：要么一方的活动计划，应承担责任，在CARU认为，造成重大损害的其他，创造一个预防的第一方的义务，以消除或尽量减少风险咨询，与其他党，或CARU后，事先应适当告知，不应该达到在规定的期限内决定在这方面。
96。法院指出，各缔约方在考虑这两个计划的工厂都足够重视工程属于1975年第7范围规约同意，从而为
CARU已通知他们。这同样适用于该计划兴建的猎户座（Botnia）轧机，其中包括疏浚工作，并独家使用在弗赖本托斯港码头
利用河床。
97。但是，法院指出，各缔约方是否有责任告知的提取和使用水资源方面的供猎户座（Botnia）磨河CARU工业用途不同意。阿根廷采取的是授权由运输工务乌拉圭部授予2006年9月12日关注的活动的看法足够
重要性（“entidad suficiente”）在这个问题影响的河流或水域的质量和这一制度，乌拉圭应该会按照规定在第7至第12条的程序，1975年章程。就其本身而言，乌拉圭认为，这种活动形式是猎户座（Botnia）轧机项目作为一个整体不可分割的一部分，1975年规约不要求CARU成为每个计划中的工程推进步骤的情况。
98。法院指出，虽然双方同意在承认CARU应已通知这两个计划的造纸厂，计划兴建港口码头弗雷
本托斯，但它们不同的方面，应提供给CARU和信息内容，何时应该如何进行。
99。阿根廷认为，义务的告知内容，必须在其目标，即以防止导航威胁而定，在河或政权
质量的水域。据阿根廷，其中CARU必须是可以在非常早的阶段通知计划，因为它只是一种让委员会“决定对此事
初步的基础“，在很短的30天期间，该计划是否”可能造成重大损害的其他当事方“。正是在这一程序下阶段只是义务的告知内容是说变得更加广泛。在阿根廷的观点，但是，CARU必须事先通知的授权或对乌拉圭河沿岸的项目实施。

收起

95。为使该过程的其余部分采取的过程中，双方都includedalternative条件在1975年规约：要么一方的活动计划，应
承担责任，在CARU认为，造成重大损害的其他，创造一个预防的第一方的义务，以消除或尽量减少风险咨询，与其他党，或CARU后，事先应适当告知，不应该达到在规定的期限内决定在这方面。
96。法院指出，各缔约方在考虑这两个计划的工厂都足够重视工程属于197...

全部展开

95。为使该过程的其余部分采取的过程中，双方都includedalternative条件在1975年规约：要么一方的活动计划，应
承担责任，在CARU认为，造成重大损害的其他，创造一个预防的第一方的义务，以消除或尽量减少风险咨询，与其他党，或CARU后，事先应适当告知，不应该达到在规定的期限内决定在这方面。
96。法院指出，各缔约方在考虑这两个计划的工厂都足够重视工程属于1975年第7范围规约同意，从而为
CARU已通知他们。这同样适用于该计划兴建的猎户座（Botnia）轧机，其中包括疏浚工作，并独家使用在弗赖本托斯港码头
利用河床。
97。但是，法院指出，各缔约方是否有责任告知的提取和使用水资源方面的供猎户座（Botnia）磨河CARU工业用途不同意。阿根廷采取的是授权由运输工务乌拉圭部授予2006年9月12日关注的活动的看法足够
重要性（“entidad suficiente”）在这个问题影响的河流或水域的质量和这一制度，乌拉圭应该会按照规定在第7至第12条的程序，1975年章程。就其本身而言，乌拉圭认为，这种活动形式是猎户座（Botnia）轧机项目作为一个整体不可分割的一部分，1975年规约不要求CARU成为每个计划中的工程推进步骤的情况。
98。法院指出，虽然双方同意在承认CARU应已通知这两个计划的造纸厂，计划兴建港口码头弗雷
本托斯，但它们不同的方面，应提供给CARU和信息内容，何时应该如何进行。
99。阿根廷认为，义务的告知内容，必须在其目标，即以防止导航威胁而定，在河或政权
质量的水域。据阿根廷，其中CARU必须是可以在非常早的阶段通知计划，因为它只是一种让委员会“决定对此事
初步的基础“，在很短的30天期间，该计划是否”可能造成重大损害的其他当事方“。正是在这一程序下阶段只是义务的告知内容是说变得更加广泛。在阿根廷的观点，但是，CARU必须事先通知的授权或对乌拉圭河沿岸的项目实施。

收起

，使剩下的过程的，双方在1975年法令includedalternative条件:这项计划的一方应该对在caru的意见，造成严重的损失，造成一种预防的义务