Home

Amend the functions of the IFCS8 There may be advantage in defining the respective roles of the IFCS and/or the IOMC more closely, so that interfaces are more clearly set out and the efficiencies of the system can be improved. (...) As a result the Executive Heads of WHO, ILO and UNEP agreed to cooperate in IPCS, within the framework of their respective mandates to strengthen international cooperation. (...) Because intergovernmental organisations are mandated by their respective governing bodies and funded by governments, the latter benefit directly from the IOMC through efficiencies which can be obtained through optimal co-ordination of the work of the IOMC participants.

[Further]decides to allow the registration under the joint implementation modalities and procedures of existing projects determined in accordance with paragraph 23 of the annex to decision 9/CMP.1 (hereinafter referred to as joint implementation Track 1), where the project participants and the respective host Party agree to continue the project, subject to updating the baseline and monitoring plans of the project and meeting other requirements under the joint implementation modalities and procedures[, which requirements shall, inter alia, ensure that the additionality of the project is assessed according to the criteria established on the basis of the joint implementation modalities and procedures]; 10. [Also]decides to allow the registration under the joint implementation modalities and procedures of existing projects determined in accordance with paragraphs 30–45 of the annex to decision 9/CMP.1 (hereinafter referred to as joint implementation Track 2), where the project participants and the respective host Party agree to continue the project[ and where the additionality of the project is assessed according to the criteria established on the basis of the joint implementation modalities and procedures]; 11. (...) Registration is considered the formal approval of the respective joint implementation activity by the host Party.

Decides to allow the registration under the joint implementation modalities and procedures of existing projects determined in accordance with paragraph 23 of the annex to decision 9/CMP.1 (hereinafter referred to as joint implementation Track 1), where the project participants and the respective host Party agree to continue the project, subject to updating the baseline and monitoring plans of the project and meeting other requirements under the joint implementation modalities and procedures; 9bis. Decides to allow the registration under the joint implementation modalities and procedures of existing projects determined in accordance with paragraphs 30–45 of the annex to decision 9/CMP.1 (hereinafter referred to as joint implementation Track 2), where the project participants and the respective host Parties agree to continue the project; 9ter. (...) Registration is considered the formal approval of the respective joint implementation activity by the host Party.

Still others made it clear that their respective countries did not have a position on the proposal as yet and needed more time, background information and analysis before taking a position on this far- reaching proposal. (...) With regard to the backlogs that still exist, the view was expressed that additional meeting time, possibly allocated by a bureau of the seven chairpersons as suggested by CRC, was required in order to enable the respective treaty bodies to deal with this problem. (...) It was noted that participants in the inter-committee meeting should be mandated to take decisions by their respective committees. It was suggested that enhanced use could be made of inter-committee meetings, which were an underutilized tool.

The Special Rapporteur heard many narratives about people greeting each other on their respective religious holidays, sometimes even celebrating together or attending funerals jointly regardless of the denomination of the deceased. (...) Requests and practical proposals on this issue had reportedly been presented to the respective governmental institutions for approval, but to date had been unsuccessful. (...) They need to be defended, cherished and further developed on the basis of respect for everyone’s freedom of religion or belief.

This public-private model of collaboration creates deeper impact, as both partners provide their respective expertise to maximize impact. III. (...) The panel featured 7 religious leaders from the Holy Land, representing three major monotheistic faiths – Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, as well as the senior leadership of the United Nations. Within their respective mandates, religious leaders agreed on strengthening cross-regional support for the Alicante process. (...) Over 1,300 applications from 130 countries were received, representing a 36% and 7% respective increase compared to the call launched in 2015.

&Ll 1.6 (viii) To promote amicable settlement of disputes before attempting litigation; (ix) To respect the status and institutions of other levels of government. (...) The Bill shall become law if the National Legislature again passes the bill by a two-thirds (*/$ majority of all the members of the respective house or houses and the assent of the President shall not be required. 2.2.9. (...) *d. 2.2.12 Both chambers of the National Legislature shall elect their respective Speakers, Deputy Speakers and other officers at their first sitting.

Take a more active role in the United Nations treaty body reporting process and request the respective treaty bodies to take into account issues relating to migrants in considering States parties’ reports and to engage directly with national institutions on this subject; 7. (...) Provide training to the administrative, judicial, immigration and security sectors to ensure respect for all the human rights of migrants; 19. Provide support, including legal aid, to migrants, who often have difficulty accessing systems of justice; 20. Ensure that States respect their international human rights obligations, particularly in regard to the non-derogable rights of all migrants; 21.

The secretariat will send to these Annex I Parties [drafts of] [the results of the initial assessment [and provisional main findings] check consistency with para. 86 ] [their status report, initial assessment report and a preliminary analysis ] of the respective Party’s inventory, and their individual inventory review report.

The Special Rapporteur thanks the respective Governments for their hospitality and collaboration in facilitating meetings with officials from various branches of Government as well as visits to State facilities, including deportation centres and labour camps. (...) She is confident that this visit is but a positive prologue to a constructive dialogue with the respective Governments on ways to address gaps and to reinforce the already existing, but not sufficient, measures. (...) Despite these and similar provisions providing for a legal framework to ensure that recruitment is carried out fairly and in full respect of the rights of foreign migrant workers, the Special Rapporteur was nevertheless informed that in several cases, the process of recruitment is what initiates the whole cycle of abuse and vulnerability of workers.