From: perlman@qso.Colorado.EDU (Eric S. Perlman)
Subject: Re: territories vs the territories
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 19:30:37 GMT

In article <37402@imag.imag.fr> oueichek@ngulu (Ibaa Oueichek) writes:
>perlman@qso.Colorado.EDU (Eric S. Perlman) writes:
>: In article <11102@crackers.clearpoint.com> martillo@stars.clearpoint.com (Joachim Martillo) writes:
>: >
>: >Anyway, I am not a native French speaker but I know enough grammar
>: >to be unhappy with the use of my comment to support an invalid
>: >interpretation.
>: >
>: >se retirer du monde == to retire from, withdraw from the world.
>: >
>: >retrait du monde == retirement, withdrawal from the world.
>: >
>: >Hence
>: >
>: >se retirer des territoires == to withdraw from *the* territories
>: >(non-partitive).
>: >
>: >retrait des territoires == withdrawal from *the* territories
>: >(non-partitive).
>: >
>: >Ibaa Oueichek is correct that this is a different *des*.
>: 
>:In any case the question of wording in French is rather
>: pointless, since the resolution was debated and drafted in English,
>: therefore the English text is the official wording by the UN's own
>: rules.  End of story.
>
>  Very good, someone asks for the French version, when i post it and explain
>its meaning and how it speaks for THE territories, Mr Perlman comes and says
>"pointless". If i remember well (and i'll verify this one) there is nothing as
>"drafted in English", the French draft is an *original* one drafted 
>SIMULTANEOUSLY with the English one, it has the SAME value, La France adopts 
>an official position based on the French draft, and not on the English one.
>  It's obvious that the US has chosen carefully to put enough ambiguity in the
>English draft to play with the interpretation later. Your position reflects
>some disrespect to the France and to the international institutions in general, 
>because it means that there are "superior" nations that impose their will on
>others even if those other nations are civilized and welthy. No wonder why the
>France has left the NATO and why Europeans are doing their best to kick Yankees
>out of Europe.

Nonsense.  Absolute nonsense.

First of all, Mr. Oueicheck, if you're going to quote me, please quote
my entire paragraph, s'il vous plait.  There was, if you'll go back and
check it, a sentence - a rather important one - which was left out of
your version.

Second of all, you're just plain wrong on the legality.  France has
whatever position Mitterand (and transitively the voters who elected him
and his coalition members to power) wants them to have.  But there is a
clear section on such legislative intent in the UN charter, which I
suggest Mr. Oueicheck read.  It states, very clearly and unambiguously
that the language that a resolution is debated in in the Security
Council is the official language in which the intent applies.  That's
English in this case.  In other cases, it has been other languages.  Now
UN documents, it's true, are stored in standard forms, and since the two
main offices are in NYC and Geneva, the standard documents are stored
and archived in both the original English and original French versions
(note - SWZ has 4 official languages, but French is the dominant
language in Geneva).  That does *not* negate the fact, reflected *in the
UN charter*, that legislative intent is expressed in the original
language of debate and proposition only. 


-- 
"How sad to see/A model of decorum and tranquillity/become like any other sport
A battleground for rival ideologies to slug it out with glee." -Tim Rice,"Chess"
     Eric S. Perlman  <perlman@qso.colorado.edu> or <eric@lyra.Colorado.EDU> 
  Center for Astrophysics and Space Astronomy, University of Colorado, Boulder
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast