「general-view」に関連した英語例文の一覧と使い方(4ページ目) - Weblio英語例文検索

Article 1105, paragraph 1 of NAFTA provides an obligation to accord fair and equitable treatment “in accordance with international law.” However, in the Pope and Talbot case it was held that because NAFTA was entered into for the purpose of building a closer economic relationship between the three countries of North America, there is not only an obligation to provide treatment consistent with the minimum standard under international law, but also obligations in addition to such minimum standard. In addition, in the S.D. Myers case it was held that a breach of other provisions under NAFTA automatically establishes a breach of general treatment obligations. Criticisms regarding the interpretation of this provision were raised mainly in the U.S. With a view to posing limitations on the expansive reading of this obligation, the NAFTA Free Trade Commission, in response to such criticisms, published “Notes of Interpretation of Certain Chapter 11 Provisions” on August 1, 2001 confirming that general treatment obligations do not exceed that which is required by the customary international law minimum standard for treatment of aliens, and a breach of another provision of NAFTA, or of a separate international agreement, does not establish that there has been a breach of the general treatment obligations.例文帳に追加

なお、NAFTA 第1105条第１項は、「国際法に従って」公正衡平待遇を与える義務を規定しているが、Pope and Talbot 事件で、NAFTAが北米三国間により一層強固な経済関係を築く目的で締結されたものであることなどから一般国際法上の義務のみでなく、これに付加的なものであるとの判断が下されたこと、また、S.D.Myers事件ではNAFTA 上のこの他の規定に違反している場合、必然的に一般待遇義務にも違反するとの判断が下されたことから、米国を中心にこの規定の解釈について批判の声があがり、これを受ける形で2001年８ 月１ 日にNAFTA 自由貿易委員会（NAFTA FreeTrade Commission）は、公正衡平待遇義務は慣習国際法上の最低基準を付与するものであり、それ以上の待遇を求めるものではないこと、NAFTA 上又は他の国際協定の公正衡平待遇義務以外の義務違反があったことによって、公正衡平待遇義務違反があったこととはならないことを確認する覚書（Notes of Interpretationof Certain Chapter 11Provisions）を公表し、この義務の範囲に制限をかけた。 - 経済産業省

There are many theories about in what year the Kamakura period truly began, of which the 1192 theory, the year MINAMOTO no Yoritomo was made Shogun (Seii taishogun (literally, "great general who subdues the barbarians")), is the orthodox view, but in addition, theories include: the 1180 theory, focusing on Yoritomo raising his army and leading his gokenin (lower-ranking warrior vassals) into battle to destroy the Taira clan, and also establishing the Samurai Dokoro (Board of Retainers, which oversaw rewards for service); the 1183 theory, in which the key moment is the official recognition of the shogunate's right to control Eastern Japan (everything along the Tokaido and Tosando highways) proclaimed by the imperial court in the tenth month; the 1185 theory, which focuses on Yoritomo's use of his struggle to destroy his younger brother MINAMOTO no Yoshitsune as a pretext to usurp the right to appoint and control the offices of shugo (provincial governor) and jito (estate steward); the 1190 theory, in which it was Yoritomo's visit to the capital and subsequent court appointments to Gon Dainagon (Deputy Major Counselor) and Ukone Taisho (Commander of the Guardsmen of the Right) that is considered the decisive moment; and a handful even believe it wasn't until 1196 that the Kamakura period truly began. 例文帳に追加

始期については、従来源頼朝が将軍（征夷大将軍）に任じられた1192年とするのが一般的であるが、頼朝が平家打倒のために挙兵し御家人を統率する侍所を設置した1180年説、寿永二年十月宣旨で東国（東海道および東山道）の支配権を朝廷に公認された1183年説、対立する弟・源義経追討の名目で惣追捕使（後の守護）・地頭の設置権を獲得した1185年説、頼朝が上洛し権大納言・右近衛大将に任命された1190年説、また一部では1196年説など様々な考え方がある。 - Wikipedia日英京都関連文書対訳コーパス

KIPO states that “the matters directly derivable from the facts in view of the common general knowledge as of the working can also be a basis for the finding of a publicly worked invention,” “In the case where the filing date of a patent application is the same as the date of the publication, the claimed invention does not lose novelty under the Article 29 paragraph (1) subparagraph (ii) of the Patent Act, except when the filing time of application is clearly after the time of publication,” and “The time of publication for a thesis is being when the thesis is distributed to an unspecific person in public or enters into university libraries after the final thesis examination, except when the contents of the thesis are announced in an open space before the final thesis examination.” 例文帳に追加

KIPOは、「実施当時の技術常識を参酌して、事実から直接導き出される事項も、公然実施をされた発明の認定の基礎とすることができる」、「出願日と刊行物の発行日が同日の場合には、特許出願時点が刊行物の発行時点以降であるという事実が明白な場合を除き、その出願発明は新規性が喪失されず、特許法第29条第1項第2号を適用しない」、及び「論文の頒布時点は、その内容が論文審査の前に公開された場所で発表されたものでない限り、最終論文審査を経て大学の図書館等に入庫され、又は不特定の者に配布された時点を頒布時期とする」と規定している。 - 特許庁