Mkataba kati ya DP world na TPA hauna tatizo lolote ila kuna baadhi ya ibara zinatakiwa zifanyiwe mareboresho mfano ibara ya 23

Mkataba kati ya DP world na TPA hauna tatizo lolote ila kuna baadhi ya ibara zinatakiwa zifanyiwe mareboresho mfano ibara ya 23

Mzee Mwanakijiji said:
Huo mkataba si ushaingiwa au?
Click to expand...
IGA ndio imeisha sainiwa na kuridhiwa na Bunge, mkataba ni HGA ambao bado, na hauridhiwi na Bunge, ila wabunge wakiuhitaji wanaweza kuomba!.

Lazima tuboreshe sheria zetu, Bunge letu lisifanywe ni rubber stamp ya nyavu za kokoro, kupitisha kila kitu!.

Mikataba iletwe Bungeni kuidhinishwa na sio kuridhiwa!.
P
 
The Boss said:
Mkataba upo sawa tatizo ni English naona.
Mkataba uko very clear kuwa IGA itakufa pale HGA itakufa....
IGA itabaki only kama HGA itakufa kinyume na makubaliano....
Mind you hiyo HGA hatujasaini bado ni miaka mingapi
Click to expand...
Mkuu The Boss , tatizo sio lugha tuu!, Watanzania tunahitaji elimu ya uelewa wa mikataba ya kitaifa na kimataifa, International treaties, bilateral agreements na multilateral treaties, na the role ya Bunge letu kuridhia kwa rubber stamp badala ya kuidhinisha!.

Tunahitaji Bunge letu liidhinishe na sio hii ya rubber stamp!.
P
 
Pascal Mayalla said:
IGA ndio imeisha sainiwa na kuridhiwa na Bunge, mkataba ni HGA ambao bado, na hauridhiwi na Bunge, ila wabunge wakiuhitaji wanaweza kuomba!.

Lazima tuboreshe sheria zetu, Bunge letu lisifanywe ni rubber stamp ya nyavu za kokoro, kupitisha kila kitu!.

Mikataba iletwe Bungeni kuidhinishwa na sio kuridhiwa!.
P
Click to expand...
Kama wameweza kulidhia hats kuidhinisha hawashindwi.
 
Bams said:
Kuwa positive haimanishi kutokuwa na upeo wa kuona mambo yanayoweza kutokea.
Click to expand...
Nakubaliana na wewe
Bams said:
Ni sawa na mtu anachukua ardhi, anaanza kulima kwa kutegemea mvua, amefanya projections za mapato, unamwuliza, itakuwaje kukiwa na ukame? Halafu akujibu kuwa uwe positive. Yaani usifikirie kabisa kunaweza kuwa na ukame. Huko itakuwa ni kujitia upofu.
Click to expand...
Nakubaliana na wewe
Bams said:
DP wana kesi ngapi zinazohusiana na uwekezaji wao nchi mbalimbali? Ujue kunapokuwa na kesi maana yake kuna mgogoro ulioshindwa kutatuliwa kwa njia ya maelewano.

Djibout tu hapo kwa Waafrika wenzetu, nchi inatakiwa kuwalipa DP dola milioni 700 kama fidia wakati uwekezaji wa DP haukufikia hata dola milioni 300.

Hizi kesi kati ya DP na mataifa mengine, ni wakeup call kwetu. Sisi tusijione ni wazuri sana kwa DP. DP inatafuta faida kubwa kupitia uwekezaji na kupitia migogoro.

Mtu mwerevu hujifunza kutokana na makosa ya wenzake. Djibouti walikuwa na mkataba kama huu wa kwetu, wameuvunja, wameishia kutakiwa kuwalipa DP dola milioni 700. Hiyo ni hukumu iliyotolewa na mahakama ya Uingereza.
Click to expand...
Nakubaliana na kesi, issues ya Djibouti, ni issues ya kitu kinachoitwa a legitimate expectations baada ya kusainiana mkataba wenye monetary value. Ile IGA haina monetary value hivyo tukiivunja hakuna kushitakiana!. HGA itakuwa na monetary value na huu sasa ndio mkataba.

Japo Mkurugenzi Mkuu wa Bandari anadai wamewafanyia DPW a tharaly due diligence, I doubt kwasababu kama hii due diligence ilifanyika, haya madudu yasingetokea kwenye hii IGA Japo Bunge Limeridhia, DPW Kuendesha Bandari Zetu, ni Makubaliano Tu, Tukithibisha Kuna Matatizo, Tunarekebisha Mkataba wa HGA, Kazi Nzuri Iendelee!
P
 
BEFORE said:
Kama wameweza kulidhia hats kuidhinisha hawashindwi.
Click to expand...
Tofauti ya kuridhia na kuidhinisha, kwenye kuridhia the role of Bunge ni Rubber stamp!, bunge letu linaletewa mkataba ulio sainiwa ili kuu domesticate na hakuna marekebisho yoyote!. Lakini kwenye kuidhinisha Bunge letu linakuwa na mamlaka ya kurekebisha kasoro na kutoa go ahead.
P
 
Bams said:
Kuwa positive haimanishi kutokuwa na upeo wa kuona mambo yanayoweza kutokea.

Ni sawa na mtu anachukua ardhi, anaanza kulima kwa kutegemea mvua, amefanya projections za mapato, unamwuliza, itakuwaje kukiwa na ukame? Halafu akujibu kuwa uwe positive. Yaani usifikirie kabisa kunaweza kuwa na ukame. Huko itakuwa ni kujitia upofu.

DP wana kesi ngapi zinazohusiana na uwekezaji wao nchi mbalimbali? Ujue kunapokuwa na kesi maana yake kuna mgogoro ulioshindwa kutatuliwa kwa njia ya maelewano.

Djibout tu hapo kwa Waafrika wenzetu, nchi inatakiwa kuwalipa DP dola milioni 700 kama fidia wakati uwekezaji wa DP haukufikia hata dola milioni 300.

Hizi kesi kati ya DP na mataifa mengine, ni wakeup call kwetu. Sisi tusijione ni wazuri sana kwa DP. DP inatafuta faida kubwa kupitia uwekezaji na kupitia migogoro.

Mtu mwerevu hujifunza kutokana na makosa ya wenzake. Djibouti walikuwa na mkataba kama huu wa kwetu, wameuvunja, wameishia kutakiwa kuwalipa DP dola milioni 700. Hiyo ni hukumu iliyotolewa na mahakama ya Uingereza.
Click to expand...
Wewe shida yako DP au uwekezaji? kwa jinsi unavyoandika shida yako yako ni DP na hoja yako wanachangamoto na nchi zingine mbona hujaongelea na mazuri yao umejikita na issue ya Djibout tu? sasa lini umesikia port ya Djibout imesimama sababu wana issue na DP? kama swali lako moja umeuliza. Hii ni business mwekezaji pia mkataba unamlinda hata hao kina Google, Siemens makumpuni makubwa duniani lakini wamewahi kuingia kwenye matatizo na baadhi ya nchi lakini haiondoi sifa ya hizi kampuni. Nadhani ungeweka wazi shida yako yako DP au uwekezaji. kuna uwekezaji mkubwa wa LNG kuwahi kutokea nchi hii hakuna mtu anajadili PSA watu wako busy bandarini sehemu tunajuwa wazi tunashida kubwa ya uendeshaji sio leo tu toka tupate uhuru. Ni wazi kuna watu wana agenda zao binafsi tu lakini uwekezaji ndio key wa maendeleo awe DP awe sijui DX sio muhimu.
 
Pascal Mayalla said:
Huu ndio uzalendo, ubarikiwe sana
P
Click to expand...
Hoja kuu zinazohitaji majibu ni hizi hapa

1.) Tofauti ya ‘Makubaliano’ na ‘Mkataba’ ni ipi hasa kiasi mseme ule sio mkataba, kwamba ni makubaliano tu ya awali, na je Mkataba huo (makubaliano hayo) ni wa miaka mingapi? (UKOMO)

2.) Ni kwa faida ya nani kwamba DPW anapewa haki ya bandari zote za Tanganyika, kwamba hakuna mwekezaji mwingine yeyote anaweza kuja kufanya uwekezaji kwenye bandari za Tanganyika bila udalali wa DPW, je, ukiritimba huu ni kwa faida ya nani?

3.) Ni kwa faida ya nani, DPW apewe haki ya kudai kipande chochote cha ardhi yenye ukubwa wowote anaoutaka yeye ndani ya ‘Territory’ ya Tanganyika na sisi tumpe ardhi hiyo kwa kuondoa watu na miradi yote ndani ya eneo alilolitaka, na tumpatie bire kabisa kwa gharama zetu sisi, hata fidia tulipe sisi ili kuondoa watu kumpisha, huu uwendawazimu ni kwa faida ya nani?

4.) Ni kwa faida ya nani, kwamba sisi tuliowekeza matrillion ya mikopo kuendeleza bandari na tukiwa kama wamiliki wa rasimali ya bandari, tupate 0% ya faida itakayotokana na uendeshaji wa huduma za kibandari, yaani ni kana kwamba yeye kawekeza 100% na hivyo achukue 100%? Uwendawazimu huu ni kwa faida ya nani?

5.) Ni kwa faida ya nani, kwamba mkataba unahusisha bandari za Tanganyika tu na sio za Zanzibar, ilihali bandari ni suala la Muungano? Je, Zanzibar haitaki kunufaika au yenyewe haitaki matunda ya mkataba huu? Ukizingatia walioongia huu mkataba wote ni waZanzibari, kuanzia Samiah Suluhu Hassan, Makame Mbarawah, Hamza Johari na wenzao, kwamba hawataki Zanzibar yao ipate matunda mazuri ya mkataba huu?!

6.) Ni kwa faida ya nani kusema kwamba, hata DPW akavunja mkataba na kukiuka kanuni na taratibu zote zinazotambulika kimataifa, bado hatutaweza kuvunja , kuusema vibaya au kujitoa kwenye mkataba, milele! Uwendawazimu huu ni kwa faida ya nani?
 
Meneja Wa Makampuni said:
Nimeusoma mkataba wa bandari kuna mapungufu machache tu yanayoweza kurekebishika. Watanzania tuondoe wasiwasi tushauri kwa lugha nzuri. Mfano kama ikiwezekana ibara ya 23 ingefanyiwa maboresho ili isituminye sana. Ibara inasema hivi:

ARTICLE 23
DURATION AND TERMINATION
1. Subject to paragraph 2 of this Article 23, this Agreement shall remain in force until occurrence of one of the following: (i) permanent cessation of all Project Activities; or (ii) the expiration of all of the HGAs and all of the Project Agreements (subject to any additions or extensions thereto) and the definite resolution of disputes, if any, thereunder.

2. In the event that a HGA is terminated prior to expiration of its term, this Agreement shall remain in force for the time, and to the extent, required by any State Party or by the Project Company to assert any rights arising from, protect any interests endangered by or bring any proceeding resulting from termination of the HGA. Termination or expiry of a HGA shall not affect any accrued rights, liabilities or remedies of any party under such HGA or the related Project Agreements or this Agreement.

3. The termination of this Agreement shall be subject to the prior consent of the State Parties, such consent is not to be unreasonably withheld.

4. The State Parties shall not be entitled to denounce, withdraw from, suspend or terminate this Agreement in any circumstances, including in the event of material breach, fundamental change of circumstances, severance of diplomatic or consular relations, or any other causes recognised under international law. Notwithstanding the foregoing, any dispute between State Parties in respect of such circumstances shall be dealt with in accordance with the requirements of Article 20 of this Agreement.

Nilichokielewa hapo ni hiki:

The Article 23 of the Agreement lies in the lack of clarity and potential limitations regarding the termination of the agreement.

1. Lack of defined termination criteria; The agreement states that it shall remain in force until the occurrence of specific events, such as the permanent cessation of all project activities or the expiration of all Host Government Agreements (HGAs) and Project Agreements. However, the agreement does not provide clear criteria or guidelines for determining when these events have taken place, which could lead to ambiguity and potential disputes.

2. Reliance on termination of HGAs; According to paragraph 2 of Article 23, if a HGA is terminated before its term expires, the agreement remains in force for a certain period to allow the assertion of rights, protection of interests, or the initiation of legal proceedings resulting from the termination. This provision creates dependency on the termination of HGAs and does not account for other circumstances that may warrant the termination of the agreement.

3. Limited termination consent; The agreement stipulates that the termination of the agreement requires the prior consent of the State Parties, which should not be unreasonably withheld. While this provision seems reasonable, the lack of clarity on what constitutes "unreasonable" withholding of consent could potentially lead to disagreements and delays in the termination process.

4. Restriction on termination rights; Article 23(4) explicitly states that the State Parties are not entitled to denounce, withdraw from, suspend, or terminate the agreement under any circumstances, including material breach, fundamental change of circumstances, or severance of diplomatic or consular relations. This provision severely limits the termination rights of the State Parties and may restrict their ability to address significant issues that arise during the course of the agreement.

If possible, Article 23 should be revised and improved because it may potentially lead to disputes and challenges in the event of termination or expiration of the agreement.
Click to expand...
Mimi nadhani Article 23 (3) inajitosheleza, mengine yote yamemezwa na neno "reasonably". Kama kuna kipindupindu, it is reasonable. Kama kuna vita, it is reaonable. Kama hajalipa kodi, it us unreasonable. Kama kaja Rais mpya Mbowe kwa mabavu tu anataka mkataba ufe, it is unreasonable. Etc etc.
 
Heijah said:
Wewe shida yako DP au uwekezaji? kwa jinsi unavyoandika shida yako yako ni DP na hoja yako wanachangamoto na nchi zingine mbona hujaongelea na mazuri yao umejikita na issue ya Djibout tu? sasa lini umesikia port ya Djibout imesimama sababu wana issue na DP? kama swali lako moja umeuliza. Hii ni business mwekezaji pia mkataba unamlinda hata hao kina Google, Siemens makumpuni makubwa duniani lakini wamewahi kuingia kwenye matatizo na baadhi ya nchi lakini haiondoi sifa ya hizi kampuni. Nadhani ungeweka wazi shida yako yako DP au uwekezaji. kuna uwekezaji mkubwa wa LNG kuwahi kutokea nchi hii hakuna mtu anajadili PSA watu wako busy bandarini sehemu tunajuwa wazi tunashida kubwa ya uendeshaji sio leo tu toka tupate uhuru. Ni wazi kuna watu wana agenda zao binafsi tu lakini uwekezaji ndio key wa maendeleo awe DP awe sijui DX sio muhimu.
Click to expand...
Hapa swala nikukaa chini na hao DP World tuandike vizuri vifungu vyenye shida. Tusitukanane tutaonekana hatuna hekima.
 
Meneja Wa Makampuni said:
Nimeusoma mkataba wa bandari kuna mapungufu machache tu yanayoweza kurekebishika. Watanzania tuondoe wasiwasi tushauri kwa lugha nzuri. Mfano kama ikiwezekana ibara ya 23 ingefanyiwa maboresho ili isituminye sana. Ibara inasema hivi:

ARTICLE 23
DURATION AND TERMINATION
1. Subject to paragraph 2 of this Article 23, this Agreement shall remain in force until occurrence of one of the following: (i) permanent cessation of all Project Activities; or (ii) the expiration of all of the HGAs and all of the Project Agreements (subject to any additions or extensions thereto) and the definite resolution of disputes, if any, thereunder.

2. In the event that a HGA is terminated prior to expiration of its term, this Agreement shall remain in force for the time, and to the extent, required by any State Party or by the Project Company to assert any rights arising from, protect any interests endangered by or bring any proceeding resulting from termination of the HGA. Termination or expiry of a HGA shall not affect any accrued rights, liabilities or remedies of any party under such HGA or the related Project Agreements or this Agreement.

3. The termination of this Agreement shall be subject to the prior consent of the State Parties, such consent is not to be unreasonably withheld.

4. The State Parties shall not be entitled to denounce, withdraw from, suspend or terminate this Agreement in any circumstances, including in the event of material breach, fundamental change of circumstances, severance of diplomatic or consular relations, or any other causes recognised under international law. Notwithstanding the foregoing, any dispute between State Parties in respect of such circumstances shall be dealt with in accordance with the requirements of Article 20 of this Agreement.

Nilichokielewa hapo ni hiki:

The Article 23 of the Agreement lies in the lack of clarity and potential limitations regarding the termination of the agreement.

1. Lack of defined termination criteria; The agreement states that it shall remain in force until the occurrence of specific events, such as the permanent cessation of all project activities or the expiration of all Host Government Agreements (HGAs) and Project Agreements. However, the agreement does not provide clear criteria or guidelines for determining when these events have taken place, which could lead to ambiguity and potential disputes.

2. Reliance on termination of HGAs; According to paragraph 2 of Article 23, if a HGA is terminated before its term expires, the agreement remains in force for a certain period to allow the assertion of rights, protection of interests, or the initiation of legal proceedings resulting from the termination. This provision creates dependency on the termination of HGAs and does not account for other circumstances that may warrant the termination of the agreement.

3. Limited termination consent; The agreement stipulates that the termination of the agreement requires the prior consent of the State Parties, which should not be unreasonably withheld. While this provision seems reasonable, the lack of clarity on what constitutes "unreasonable" withholding of consent could potentially lead to disagreements and delays in the termination process.

4. Restriction on termination rights; Article 23(4) explicitly states that the State Parties are not entitled to denounce, withdraw from, suspend, or terminate the agreement under any circumstances, including material breach, fundamental change of circumstances, or severance of diplomatic or consular relations. This provision severely limits the termination rights of the State Parties and may restrict their ability to address significant issues that arise during the course of the agreement.

If possible, Article 23 should be revised and improved because it may potentially lead to disputes and challenges in the event of termination or expiration of the agreement.
Click to expand...
Ndugu yangu urudi darasani ujifunze Kiswahili. Unasema mkataba HAUNA TATIZO LOLOTE halafu unarudi tena kukosoa ibara ya 23, ndio nini sasa? Unajua maana na matumizi ya neno LOLOTE?
 
Mu7 said:
Ndugu yangu urudi darasani ujifunze Kiswahili. Unasema mkataba HAUNA TATIZO LOLOTE halafu unarudi tena kukosoa ibara ya 23, ndio nini sasa? Unajua maana na matumizi ya neno LOLOTE?
Click to expand...
Haha boss hutoweza kunielewa hata siku moja. Kikubwa ujumbe wangu umefika kwamba ibara hiyo ina shida. Hivyo ndivyo narushaga mawe. Huwa sirushi jiwe likupige likuumize hapana. Nakuvuta nakuonyesha tatizo.
 
Meneja Wa Makampuni said:
Nimeusoma mkataba wa bandari kuna mapungufu machache tu yanayoweza kurekebishika. Watanzania tuondoe wasiwasi tushauri kwa lugha nzuri. Mfano kama ikiwezekana ibara ya 23 ingefanyiwa maboresho ili isituminye sana. Ibara inasema hivi:

ARTICLE 23
DURATION AND TERMINATION
1. Subject to paragraph 2 of this Article 23, this Agreement shall remain in force until occurrence of one of the following: (i) permanent cessation of all Project Activities; or (ii) the expiration of all of the HGAs and all of the Project Agreements (subject to any additions or extensions thereto) and the definite resolution of disputes, if any, thereunder.

2. In the event that a HGA is terminated prior to expiration of its term, this Agreement shall remain in force for the time, and to the extent, required by any State Party or by the Project Company to assert any rights arising from, protect any interests endangered by or bring any proceeding resulting from termination of the HGA. Termination or expiry of a HGA shall not affect any accrued rights, liabilities or remedies of any party under such HGA or the related Project Agreements or this Agreement.

3. The termination of this Agreement shall be subject to the prior consent of the State Parties, such consent is not to be unreasonably withheld.

4. The State Parties shall not be entitled to denounce, withdraw from, suspend or terminate this Agreement in any circumstances, including in the event of material breach, fundamental change of circumstances, severance of diplomatic or consular relations, or any other causes recognised under international law. Notwithstanding the foregoing, any dispute between State Parties in respect of such circumstances shall be dealt with in accordance with the requirements of Article 20 of this Agreement.

Nilichokielewa hapo ni hiki:

The Article 23 of the Agreement lies in the lack of clarity and potential limitations regarding the termination of the agreement.

1. Lack of defined termination criteria; The agreement states that it shall remain in force until the occurrence of specific events, such as the permanent cessation of all project activities or the expiration of all Host Government Agreements (HGAs) and Project Agreements. However, the agreement does not provide clear criteria or guidelines for determining when these events have taken place, which could lead to ambiguity and potential disputes.

2. Reliance on termination of HGAs; According to paragraph 2 of Article 23, if a HGA is terminated before its term expires, the agreement remains in force for a certain period to allow the assertion of rights, protection of interests, or the initiation of legal proceedings resulting from the termination. This provision creates dependency on the termination of HGAs and does not account for other circumstances that may warrant the termination of the agreement.

3. Limited termination consent; The agreement stipulates that the termination of the agreement requires the prior consent of the State Parties, which should not be unreasonably withheld. While this provision seems reasonable, the lack of clarity on what constitutes "unreasonable" withholding of consent could potentially lead to disagreements and delays in the termination process.

4. Restriction on termination rights; Article 23(4) explicitly states that the State Parties are not entitled to denounce, withdraw from, suspend, or terminate the agreement under any circumstances, including material breach, fundamental change of circumstances, or severance of diplomatic or consular relations. This provision severely limits the termination rights of the State Parties and may restrict their ability to address significant issues that arise during the course of the agreement.

If possible, Article 23 should be revised and improved because it may potentially lead to disputes and challenges in the event of termination or expiration of the agreement.
Click to expand...
Sijauona mkataba baina ya DP World na TPA, kama unao uweke hapa tuuone. Niliouona ni ule wa makubaliano ya maendeleo baina ya Dubai na Tanzania "IGA". Bofya chini hapo uuone:

DP WORLD: Mkataba wa Bandari kwa Kiswahili (tafsiri isiyo rasmi)

MAKUBALIANO YA KISERIKALI KATI YA: ΤHΕ UNITED REPUBLIC 0F TANZANIA AND THE EMIRATE 0F DUBAI https://www.jamiiforums.com/attachments/dar_port_contract_mkataba-pdf.2682567/ UTANGULIZI JAMHURI YA MUUNGANO WA TANZANIA, iliyowakilishwa ipasavyo na Waziri wa Ujenzi na Uchukuzi (“Tanzania”) na...
www.jamiiforums.com www.jamiiforums.com
 
Meneja Wa Makampuni said:
Nimeusoma mkataba wa bandari kuna mapungufu machache tu yanayoweza kurekebishika. Watanzania tuondoe wasiwasi tushauri kwa lugha nzuri. Mfano kama ikiwezekana ibara ya 23 ingefanyiwa maboresho ili isituminye sana. Ibara inasema hivi:

ARTICLE 23
DURATION AND TERMINATION
1. Subject to paragraph 2 of this Article 23, this Agreement shall remain in force until occurrence of one of the following: (i) permanent cessation of all Project Activities; or (ii) the expiration of all of the HGAs and all of the Project Agreements (subject to any additions or extensions thereto) and the definite resolution of disputes, if any, thereunder.

2. In the event that a HGA is terminated prior to expiration of its term, this Agreement shall remain in force for the time, and to the extent, required by any State Party or by the Project Company to assert any rights arising from, protect any interests endangered by or bring any proceeding resulting from termination of the HGA. Termination or expiry of a HGA shall not affect any accrued rights, liabilities or remedies of any party under such HGA or the related Project Agreements or this Agreement.

3. The termination of this Agreement shall be subject to the prior consent of the State Parties, such consent is not to be unreasonably withheld.

4. The State Parties shall not be entitled to denounce, withdraw from, suspend or terminate this Agreement in any circumstances, including in the event of material breach, fundamental change of circumstances, severance of diplomatic or consular relations, or any other causes recognised under international law. Notwithstanding the foregoing, any dispute between State Parties in respect of such circumstances shall be dealt with in accordance with the requirements of Article 20 of this Agreement.

Nilichokielewa hapo ni hiki:

The Article 23 of the Agreement lies in the lack of clarity and potential limitations regarding the termination of the agreement.

1. Lack of defined termination criteria; The agreement states that it shall remain in force until the occurrence of specific events, such as the permanent cessation of all project activities or the expiration of all Host Government Agreements (HGAs) and Project Agreements. However, the agreement does not provide clear criteria or guidelines for determining when these events have taken place, which could lead to ambiguity and potential disputes.

2. Reliance on termination of HGAs; According to paragraph 2 of Article 23, if a HGA is terminated before its term expires, the agreement remains in force for a certain period to allow the assertion of rights, protection of interests, or the initiation of legal proceedings resulting from the termination. This provision creates dependency on the termination of HGAs and does not account for other circumstances that may warrant the termination of the agreement.

3. Limited termination consent; The agreement stipulates that the termination of the agreement requires the prior consent of the State Parties, which should not be unreasonably withheld. While this provision seems reasonable, the lack of clarity on what constitutes "unreasonable" withholding of consent could potentially lead to disagreements and delays in the termination process.

4. Restriction on termination rights; Article 23(4) explicitly states that the State Parties are not entitled to denounce, withdraw from, suspend, or terminate the agreement under any circumstances, including material breach, fundamental change of circumstances, or severance of diplomatic or consular relations. This provision severely limits the termination rights of the State Parties and may restrict their ability to address significant issues that arise during the course of the agreement.

If possible, Article 23 should be revised and improved because it may potentially lead to disputes and challenges in the event of termination or expiration of the agreement.
Click to expand...

Ha ha 😂😂🤣 wabongo bwana Kwa sifa za kijinga

Kama hujui Jambo si ukae kimya tu
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Our Community

Regional Communities

Back
Top Bottom
Menu
Forums
New posts
Log in
Register