各位大大~~急到爆~麻煩英文超強人士幫我我翻譯(不要翻譯軟體

Having reviewed the arguments of the Parties, the Court first noted that it was not in the interest of the good administration of justice for it to limit itself at the present juncture to stating merely that there was a disagreement between the Parties as to whether the 1928 Treaty and 1930 Protocol settled the... show more Having reviewed the arguments of the Parties, the Court first noted that it was not in the interest of the good administration of justice for it to limit itself at the present juncture to stating merely that there was a disagreement between the Parties as to whether the 1928 Treaty and 1930 Protocol settled the matters which are the subject of the controversy, leaving every aspect thereof to be resolved on the merits. In considering whether the 1928 Treaty was in force between the Parties when the Pact of Bogotá was concluded in 1948 the ICJ noted that, for more than 50 years, Nicaragua had treated the 1928 Treaty as valid and never contended that it was not bound by the Treaty, even after the withdrawal of the last United States troops at the beginning of 1933. At no time in those 50 years did Nicaragua contend that the Treaty was invalid for whatever reason, including that it had been concluded in violation of its Constitution or under foreign coercion. On the contrary, Nicaragua has, in significant ways, acted as if the 1928 Treaty was valid. The Court thus concluded that the 1928 Treaty was valid and in force on the date of the conclusion of the Pact of Bogotá.
2 answers 2