natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
CCEA states in its document that Costa Rica has been “severely criticized in a UN arena for difficulties and weak legislation in terms of sexual exploitation”.
CCEA states in its document that Costa Rica has been “severely criticized in a UN arena for difficulties and weak legislation in terms of sexual exploitation”.
Here, the reference is to the website of the World Tourism Organisation, where it is not possible to find this reference to the UN criticism of Costa Rica.
Here, the reference is to the website of the World Tourism Organisation, where it is not possible to find this reference to the UN criticism of Costa Rica.
10It appears that CCEA’s understanding is that the World Tourism Organisation is an UN organization, which is incorrect The Advisory Commission points out that if Costa Rica had been criticized by the UN, the sources would, for example, be UN documents about Costa Rica under the treaty-based state reporting system, UN documents under the individual complaint system, resolutions or reports from the UN’s Human Rights Commission, or in the form of a review from one or several of the Special Rapporteurs.
10It appears that CCEA’s understanding is that the World Tourism Organisation is an UN organization, which is incorrect The Advisory Commission points out that if Costa Rica had been criticized by the UN, the sources would, for example, be UN documents about Costa Rica under the treaty-based state reporting system, UN documents under the individual complaint system, resolutions or reports from the UN’s Human Rights Commission, or in the form of a review from one or several of the Special Rapporteurs.
Such documents would be accessible in various parts of the database of the UN’s High Commissioner for Human Rights.
Such documents would be accessible in various parts of the database of the UN’s High Commissioner for Human Rights.
CCEA claims that the main source in this instance is a Supreme Court judgement from Costa Rica where a man has been convicted for gross promotion of prostitution and sexual exploitation of minors.
CCEA claims that the main source in this instance is a Supreme Court judgement from Costa Rica where a man has been convicted for gross promotion of prostitution and sexual exploitation of minors.
It appeared, according to CCEA, that the man had committed several of the crimes at the Marriott Hotel in Costa Rica.
It appeared, according to CCEA, that the man had committed several of the crimes at the Marriott Hotel in Costa Rica.
The Supreme Court judgement is not enclosed or cited, nor is it referred to with, for example, date and case number.
The Supreme Court judgement is not enclosed or cited, nor is it referred to with, for example, date and case number.
It appears, however, from the available documentation that the hotel or the Marriott hotel chain is neither convicted nor charged in the case.
It appears, however, from the available documentation that the hotel or the Marriott hotel chain is neither convicted nor charged in the case.
It is claimed in the document from CCEA that “The hotel Marriott in this case can be held responsible due to the fact that the Supreme Court’s verdict is based on testimony involving illegal activities taking place at the hotel’s premises.”
It is claimed in the document from CCEA that “The hotel Marriott in this case can be held responsible due to the fact that the Supreme Court’s verdict is based on testimony involving illegal activities taking place at the hotel’s premises.”
CCEA does not, however, make any attempt to evaluate the verdict and the remaining information in such a way that they, through an analysis of the available information, make it probable that the hotel chain should be considered as jointly responsible for the crimes that have been committed.
CCEA does not, however, make any attempt to evaluate the verdict and the remaining information in such a way that they, through an analysis of the available information, make it probable that the hotel chain should be considered as jointly responsible for the crimes that have been committed.
Normally, there has to be a certain degree of subjective guilt to convict somebody for an act or omission.
Normally, there has to be a certain degree of subjective guilt to convict somebody for an act or omission.
There is no argumentation in the CCEA report that the hotel was involved or that they even knew what happened.
There is no argumentation in the CCEA report that the hotel was involved or that they even knew what happened.
The allegation that the hotel was an accessory is neither documented nor made to seem probable.
The allegation that the hotel was an accessory is neither documented nor made to seem probable.
The Advisory Commission emphasizes that it cannot be ruled out that such subjective guilt for the hotel exists, but from the particulars and evaluations provided for in the CCEA report, one cannot draw such a conclusion.
The Advisory Commission emphasizes that it cannot be ruled out that such subjective guilt for the hotel exists, but from the particulars and evaluations provided for in the CCEA report, one cannot draw such a conclusion.
Neither UN sources nor UN-related sources have been used in this case.
Neither UN sources nor UN-related sources have been used in this case.
11Inasmuch as the two mentioned NGOs do not have UN consultative status, they can notwithstanding hardly be called “UN-related” Instances of sexual exploitation of minors have led to a conviction in a national court, but the Marriott Hotel in San Jose or the Marriott chain have not been convicted, or charged.
11Inasmuch as the two mentioned NGOs do not have UN consultative status, they can notwithstanding hardly be called “UN-related” Instances of sexual exploitation of minors have led to a conviction in a national court, but the Marriott Hotel in San Jose or the Marriott chain have not been convicted, or charged.
In the GES method’s “Reporting Source Criteria” it appears that unless UN sources have been used or the company has accepted responsibility, the concerned company must be sanctioned in a national or regional court.
In the GES method’s “Reporting Source Criteria” it appears that unless UN sources have been used or the company has accepted responsibility, the concerned company must be sanctioned in a national or regional court.
12”the company has been sanctioned by a regional/national court of law..”
12”the company has been sanctioned by a regional/national court of law..”
(our emphasis) One can therefore not see that the GES method’s “Reporting Source Criteria” is used on this occasion.
(our emphasis) One can therefore not see that the GES method’s “Reporting Source Criteria” is used on this occasion.
The Advisory Commission emphasizes that much of CCEA’s information is not confirmable from the references they use in their document.
The Advisory Commission emphasizes that much of CCEA’s information is not confirmable from the references they use in their document.
The Advisory Commission on International Law’s evaluation
The Advisory Commission on International Law’s evaluation
The Advisory Commission on International Law considers CCEA’s recommendation that the Marriott chain be extracted from the investment universe as ill founded.
The Advisory Commission on International Law considers CCEA’s recommendation that the Marriott chain be extracted from the investment universe as ill founded.
Singapore Technologies CCEA recommends withdrawal and exclusion of two companies for reason of being accessory to the production of anti-personnel mines, namely “CHARTERED SEMI CON” and “SINGAPORE TECH ENG” (Chartered Semiconductors Manufacturing Ltd. and Singapore Technologies Engineering Ltd.).
Singapore Technologies CCEA recommends withdrawal and exclusion of two companies for reason of being accessory to the production of anti-personnel mines, namely “CHARTERED SEMI CON” and “SINGAPORE TECH ENG” (Chartered Semiconductors Manufacturing Ltd. and Singapore Technologies Engineering Ltd.).
CCEA does not refer to the previous process in the Ministry of Finance regarding these two companies.
CCEA does not refer to the previous process in the Ministry of Finance regarding these two companies.
As is known, the Ministry of Finance withdrew Singapore Technologies Engineering from the investment universe in 2001 after recommendation from the Advisory Commission on International Law.
As is known, the Ministry of Finance withdrew Singapore Technologies Engineering from the investment universe in 2001 after recommendation from the Advisory Commission on International Law.
One year later, the company Chartered Semiconductors Manufacturing Ltd, was considered by the Advisory Commission on International Law.
One year later, the company Chartered Semiconductors Manufacturing Ltd, was considered by the Advisory Commission on International Law.
It was not recommended to withdraw this company because the connection to the mine-producing company was determined to be too indirect to invoke the prohibition against being accessory in the mine convention.
It was not recommended to withdraw this company because the connection to the mine-producing company was determined to be too indirect to invoke the prohibition against being accessory in the mine convention.
The Advisory Commission on International Law realises that CCEA could have reached another conclusion regarding the company’s degree of being accessory, but this has not been argued in their report.
The Advisory Commission on International Law realises that CCEA could have reached another conclusion regarding the company’s degree of being accessory, but this has not been argued in their report.
According to information given by CCEA itself, it is the company Singapore Kinetics which is responsible for production of anti-personnel mines.
According to information given by CCEA itself, it is the company Singapore Kinetics which is responsible for production of anti-personnel mines.
CCEA does not explain why they apparently identify Chartered Semiconductors Manufacturing Ltd with Singapore Kinetics.
CCEA does not explain why they apparently identify Chartered Semiconductors Manufacturing Ltd with Singapore Kinetics.
The source that CCEA uses in this instance is Land Mine Monitor which is published by Human Rights Watch and ICBL (International Campaign to Ban Landmines).
The source that CCEA uses in this instance is Land Mine Monitor which is published by Human Rights Watch and ICBL (International Campaign to Ban Landmines).
This is an annual report on all states’ relation to and possible compliance with the Mine Ban Convention.
This is an annual report on all states’ relation to and possible compliance with the Mine Ban Convention.
13Landmine Monitor Report, International Campaign to Ban Landmines, 2002 The report has high credibility and is used by both states and NGOs.
13Landmine Monitor Report, International Campaign to Ban Landmines, 2002 The report has high credibility and is used by both states and NGOs.
It is important to emphasize that Land Mine Monitor is not a UN source, but that it has its credibility because it is a pure NGO project.
It is important to emphasize that Land Mine Monitor is not a UN source, but that it has its credibility because it is a pure NGO project.
It is therefore inappropriate to call it an “UN-related source”, even though the two above-mentioned NGOs have consultative status in the UN.
It is therefore inappropriate to call it an “UN-related source”, even though the two above-mentioned NGOs have consultative status in the UN.
CCEA has not found the reference to Chartered Semiconductors Manufacturing in Land Mine Monitor.
CCEA has not found the reference to Chartered Semiconductors Manufacturing in Land Mine Monitor.
14Land Mine Monitor, 2002, pages 742-743 It is not evident on which source the recommendation for exclusion of this company is based.
14Land Mine Monitor, 2002, pages 742-743 It is not evident on which source the recommendation for exclusion of this company is based.
As concerns the so-called “Reporting Source Criteria”, none of these were fulfilled in this instance.
As concerns the so-called “Reporting Source Criteria”, none of these were fulfilled in this instance.
The instance has not been examined by an official source (UN body).
The instance has not been examined by an official source (UN body).
It would in fact not be anything to examine since Singapore is not a state party to the Mine Ban Convention.
It would in fact not be anything to examine since Singapore is not a state party to the Mine Ban Convention.
The prohibition against production etc. of anti-personnel mines applies only for the states which have ratified the convention.
The prohibition against production etc. of anti-personnel mines applies only for the states which have ratified the convention.
Neither Singapore nor the actual companies thus do anything illegal in this regard.
Neither Singapore nor the actual companies thus do anything illegal in this regard.
It would therefore not be a basis for any form of judgement or acknowledgement of responsibility.
It would therefore not be a basis for any form of judgement or acknowledgement of responsibility.
The so-called “Incident Criteria” are by the same reasoning not fulfilled.
The so-called “Incident Criteria” are by the same reasoning not fulfilled.
An “infringement of an international norm” has not occurred, as the GES method presupposes.
An “infringement of an international norm” has not occurred, as the GES method presupposes.
It can thus be ascertained that the GES method has not actually been used in this instance either, and in addition that the method could not be used in this case.
It can thus be ascertained that the GES method has not actually been used in this instance either, and in addition that the method could not be used in this case.
The Advisory Commission on International Law considers against this background that the above-mentioned recommendation by the CCEA that Chartered Semiconductors Manufacturing Ltd be withdrawn from the investment universe is without basis.
The Advisory Commission on International Law considers against this background that the above-mentioned recommendation by the CCEA that Chartered Semiconductors Manufacturing Ltd be withdrawn from the investment universe is without basis.
Concerning CCEA’s recommendation to exclude Singapore Technologies Engineering, this company was withdrawn from the investment universe in 2001.
Concerning CCEA’s recommendation to exclude Singapore Technologies Engineering, this company was withdrawn from the investment universe in 2001.
Companies under observation CCEA recommends that four companies be subject to observation.
Companies under observation CCEA recommends that four companies be subject to observation.
The observation is a recommended result of the GES method, inter alia, in incidents where violations of international norms cannot connect both “Reporting Source Criteria” and Incident Criteria” simultaneously.
The observation is a recommended result of the GES method, inter alia, in incidents where violations of international norms cannot connect both “Reporting Source Criteria” and Incident Criteria” simultaneously.
15Simultaneously it is stated that a company can be the object of observation when the company ”has been associated with reported incident/s which does not meet Reporting Source Criteria or Incident Criteria, but relates to an international norm”.
15Simultaneously it is stated that a company can be the object of observation when the company ”has been associated with reported incident/s which does not meet Reporting Source Criteria or Incident Criteria, but relates to an international norm”.
It is from the mentioned context, difficult to understand what this means.
It is from the mentioned context, difficult to understand what this means.
The four companies which are recommended for observation are “CHEMRING GROUP; DAIMLERCHRYSLER, RHEINMETALL AG, THALES/THOMSON MULTIMEDIA”.
The four companies which are recommended for observation are “CHEMRING GROUP; DAIMLERCHRYSLER, RHEINMETALL AG, THALES/THOMSON MULTIMEDIA”.
16CCEA doc.
16CCEA doc.
Page 6 The background for the recommendation on observation is the allegation concerning assisting in the production of anti-personnel mines.
Page 6 The background for the recommendation on observation is the allegation concerning assisting in the production of anti-personnel mines.
Furthermore, six additional companies are recommended for “Observation Class 2”.
Furthermore, six additional companies are recommended for “Observation Class 2”.
Here, no description is given of any alleged violations and their connection to the concerned companies.
Here, no description is given of any alleged violations and their connection to the concerned companies.
It will of course always be important to monitor whether companies in the investment universe assist in the production of weapons which can lead to violations of Norway’s international law obligations.
It will of course always be important to monitor whether companies in the investment universe assist in the production of weapons which can lead to violations of Norway’s international law obligations.
The problem in relation to the four companies that are named in connection with anti-personnel mine production is the uncertainty surrounding what is encompassed by the definition of an anti-personnel mine.
The problem in relation to the four companies that are named in connection with anti-personnel mine production is the uncertainty surrounding what is encompassed by the definition of an anti-personnel mine.
CCEA has not provided any arguments for why the mines that are mentioned should be included in the prohibition.
CCEA has not provided any arguments for why the mines that are mentioned should be included in the prohibition.
The Advisory Commission on International Law does not rule out that there can be reasons for regarding these weapons as anti-personnel mines, but in the document we have received for consideration, no such basis is given.
The Advisory Commission on International Law does not rule out that there can be reasons for regarding these weapons as anti-personnel mines, but in the document we have received for consideration, no such basis is given.
The Advisory Commission on International Law does not find that the CCEA document gives basis to conduct separate observations of the four companies that are mentioned.
The Advisory Commission on International Law does not find that the CCEA document gives basis to conduct separate observations of the four companies that are mentioned.
The same applies to the companies that are listed as “Observation Class 2”.
The same applies to the companies that are listed as “Observation Class 2”.
The Petroleum Fund Advisory Commission on International Law cannot, on the basis of the afore-mentioned, see that CCEA has documented that the mentioned companies have conducted activity in violation of the international prohibitions against anti-personnel mines, chemical and biological weapons, sexual exploitation of children or the worst forms of child labour.
The Petroleum Fund Advisory Commission on International Law cannot, on the basis of the afore-mentioned, see that CCEA has documented that the mentioned companies have conducted activity in violation of the international prohibitions against anti-personnel mines, chemical and biological weapons, sexual exploitation of children or the worst forms of child labour.
Furthermore, we cannot see that the GES method is conducive for the disclosing of violations of such prohibitions, and neither does it appear that the GES method, as it is described in CCEA’s report, has actually been used by CCEA in its consideration of the above questions.
Furthermore, we cannot see that the GES method is conducive for the disclosing of violations of such prohibitions, and neither does it appear that the GES method, as it is described in CCEA’s report, has actually been used by CCEA in its consideration of the above questions.
The Asset Management Department E-mail: postmottak@fin.dep.no Phone: +47 22 24 41 63 Address: Postboks 8008 Dep, 0030 Oslo
Avdeling for formuesforvaltning (AFF) E-post: postmottak@fin.dep.no Telefon: 22 24 41 63 Adresse: Postboks 8008 Dep, 0030 Oslo
Advisory Commission
Advisory Commission
Your Excellencies,
Your Excellencies,
I have been looking forward to today's meeting with all of you.
I have been looking forward to today's meeting with all of you.
This meeting is an excellent opportunity for the kind of direct and open contact I wish to continue with your countries.
This meeting is an excellent opportunity for the kind of direct and open contact I wish to continue with your countries.
I am very grateful to Helen for inviting us here.
I am very grateful to Helen for inviting us here.
And I am sure you will have discovered by now, when we Northerners from Finnmark talk of frank and open dialogue, we really mean it!
And I am sure you will have discovered by now, when we Northerners from Finnmark talk of frank and open dialogue, we really mean it!
In my introduction, I wish to present my government's main priorities for our co-operation with the European Union for this exciting year, 2017.
In my introduction, I wish to present my government's main priorities for our co-operation with the European Union for this exciting year, 2017.
I will also give you a few pointers to our current chairmanship of the Nordic Council of Ministers.
I will also give you a few pointers to our current chairmanship of the Nordic Council of Ministers.
Finally, I want to give you some information on the EEA Financing Mechanisms and the ways we contribute to Europe.
Finally, I want to give you some information on the EEA Financing Mechanisms and the ways we contribute to Europe.
After my intervention, I will be very happy to take your questions and comments.
After my intervention, I will be very happy to take your questions and comments.
We are certainly living in interesting times!
We are certainly living in interesting times!
Crucial elections have been held last year, and more crucial elections will be held this year.
Crucial elections have been held last year, and more crucial elections will be held this year.
First and foremost, of course, I have the elections to the Storting in September in mind - - -.
First and foremost, of course, I have the elections to the Storting in September in mind - - -.
Joke aside, these elections are of course very important for my country and the government, and with a grateful audience like yourselves, I can possibly manage to mobilize a certain interest.
Joke aside, these elections are of course very important for my country and the government, and with a grateful audience like yourselves, I can possibly manage to mobilize a certain interest.
But in all fairness, truly there are elections in Europe this year where much more is at stake for the future of the EU.
But in all fairness, truly there are elections in Europe this year where much more is at stake for the future of the EU.
I feel that we are very much in the same boat here: in several member states, the core ideas underpinning European co-operation are being questioned.
I feel that we are very much in the same boat here: in several member states, the core ideas underpinning European co-operation are being questioned.
Should we seek common solutions to wider challenges even where it comes at some cost to each country?
Should we seek common solutions to wider challenges even where it comes at some cost to each country?
Or should we be guided exclusively by economic self-interest at the expense of everybody else?
Or should we be guided exclusively by economic self-interest at the expense of everybody else?
Is it legitimate and necessary to let other needs and aspirations guide our policies for the sake of stability and greater prosperity for all?
Is it legitimate and necessary to let other needs and aspirations guide our policies for the sake of stability and greater prosperity for all?
I am hopeful that in this room we can agree on the answers to these questions.
I am hopeful that in this room we can agree on the answers to these questions.
And this is why I believe we are in the same boat.
And this is why I believe we are in the same boat.