(3) 但是，委员会认为，反对的定义不一定需要包括所有上列要素，其中有些要素是保留所特有的，就反对的定义来说，另一些要素需要进一步说明。
(3) However, the Commission considered that the definition of objections should not necessarily include all these elements, some of which are specific to reservations and some of which deserve to be further clarified for the purposes of the definition of objections.
(4) 他尤其认为，最好不提可以提出反对的时刻：《维也纳公约》不曾明确解决这个问题，应该单独予以研讨，并且试图用一个明确的准则草案提出解决办法。
(4) It appeared, in particular, that it would be better not to mention the moment when an objection can be formulated; the matter is not clearly resolved in the Vienna Conventions, and it would be preferable to examine it separately and seek to respond to it in a separate draft guideline.
(5) 反之，保留的定义有两个要素的确必须纳入反对的定义之中，因为反对与保留一样，也是单方面声明，只要根据其目的可以称之为反对，其措辞或名称并不重要。
(6) With regard to the first element, the provisions of the Vienna Conventions leave not the slightest doubt: an objection emanates from a State or an international organization and can be withdrawn at any time.
However, this does not resolve the very sensitive question of which categories of States or international organizations can formulate an objection.
(6) 关于第一个要素，《维也纳公约》的规定并未留下丝毫的疑问：反对是由一个国家或一个国际组织提出，可以随时撤回。
(7) At this stage, the Commission does not consider it necessary to include in the definition the detail found in article 20, paragraph 4 (b), of the Vienna Convention of 1986, which refers to a “contracting State” and a “contracting international organization”.
There are two reasons for this:
但这并不表示，象保留一样，一项反对不能由几个国家或国际组织共同提出。
(7) At this stage, the Commission does not consider it necessary to include in the definition the detail found in article 20, paragraph 4 (b), of the Vienna Convention of 1986, which refers to a “contracting State” and a “contracting international organization”.
There are two reasons for this:
一方面，第20条第3款(b)项解决关于一项反对会不会影响条约在提出保留一方与提出反对一方之间生效的问题；但是，它没有解决关于非该《公约》所说的缔约一方的国家或国际组织有无可能提出反对的问题；这样一个国家或国际组织不是在《公约》第二条(f)款含义范围内提出反对的缔约方；这样的国家或组织提出反对的可能性是不能否定的，但要了解，在这个国家或国际组织成为“缔约一方”之前，这项反对将不产生第20条第4款(b)项中所产生的效果。
On the one hand, article 20, paragraph 4 (b), settles the question of whether an objection has effects on the entry into force of the treaty between the author of the reservation and the author of the objection; however, it leaves open the question of whether it is possible for a State or an international organization that is not a contracting party in the meaning of article 2 (f) of the Convention to make an objection; the possibility that such a State or organization might formulate an objection cannot be ruled out, it being understood that the objection would not produce the effect provided for in article 20, paragraph 4 (b), until the State or organization has become a “contracting party”.
此外，第21条第3款并未重复这个细节，只提到“反对保留之国家[无修饰语]或国际组织[无修饰语]”；这个情况将在下文更仔细研究。
Moreover, article 21, paragraph 3, does not reproduce this detail and refers only to “a State or an international organization objecting to a reservation”, without further elaboration; this aspect deserves to be studied separately; On the other hand, the definition of reservations itself gives no information about the status of a State or an international organization that is empowered to formulate a reservation; it would not seem helpful to make the definition of objections more cumbersome by proceeding differently.
另一方面，保留的定义本身没有只字片语说明有权提出保留的国家或国际组织的地位；以不同的方式使反对的定义更加烦琐，看来没有什么好处。
Moreover, article 21, paragraph 3, does not reproduce this detail and refers only to “a State or an international organization objecting to a reservation”, without further elaboration; this aspect deserves to be studied separately; On the other hand, the definition of reservations itself gives no information about the status of a State or an international organization that is empowered to formulate a reservation; it would not seem helpful to make the definition of objections more cumbersome by proceeding differently.
(8) 关于第二个要素，只要回顾一下1969年《维也纳公约》所揭示的条约法从头到尾都体现一个观念：国家的意图凌驾于国家用来表示意图的措辞之上。
(8) With regard to the second element, it is sufficient to recall that the law of treaties, as enshrined in the 1969 Vienna Convention, is wholly permeated by the notion that the intentions of States take precedence over the terminology which they use to express them.
这一要素显示于该《公约》给“条约”这个用语 所下的定义：“谓……国际书面协定，不论其……特定名称为何”。
This is apparent from the definition given in the Convention of the term “treaty”, which “means an international agreement whatever its particular designation”.
面声明,不论措辞或名称为何”，.而且委员会也采用同一用语来界定解释性声明。
Likewise, a reservation is defined therein as “a unilateral statement, however phrased or named”, and the Commission used the same term to define interpretative declarations.
这种做法应该适用于反对：在这方面，也是“意图最为重要”。
The same should apply to objections: here again, it is the intention which counts.
但是还有一个“意图是什么”的问题存在：这是准则草案2.6.1所提出的定义的核心问题。
The question remains, however, as to what this intention is: this problem is at the heart of definition proposed in draft guideline 2.6.1.
(9) “反对”一词毫无深奥之处。
(9) At first sight, the word “objection” has nothing mysterious about it.
按照普通的含义，它是指“不赞同一项声明而举出理由与之抗争”。
In its common meaning, it designates a “reason which one opposes to a statement in order to counter it”.
从法律的观点来看，根据《国际公法词典》，它的含义是“一个法律主体表示不赞同另一个法律主题的行为或主张，而欲阻止其生效或对前一主体适用”。
From a legal perspective, it means, according to the Dictionnaire de droit international public, the “opposition expressed by a subject of law to an act or a claim by another subject of law in order to prevent its entry into force or its opposability to the first subject”.
这部词典把“对保留的反对”界定如下：“一国表示拒绝另一国对一项条约提出的保留，因为该项保留的目的是要阻止所保留的一项或几项规定在该两国间适用，或者按照提出反对一方所声称的意图，要阻止条约在该两国间生效”。
The same work defines “objection to a reservation” as follows: “Expression of rejection by a State of a reservation to a treaty formulated by another State, where the aim of the reservation is to oppose the applicability between the two States of the provision or provisions covered by the reservation, or, if such is the intention stated by the author of the objection, to prevent the entry into force of the treaty as between those two States”.
(10) 后一项说明是以1969年和1986年《维也纳公约》第21条第3款为依据，其中除了对保留的反对的通常定义之外，增加一个补充条件(或机会)，因为这项规定请提出反对者表明是否反对条约在它与提出保留者之间生效。
(10) This latter clarification has its basis in article 21, paragraph 3, of the 1969 and 1986 Vienna Conventions, which adds a further possibility to the effects under ordinary law, of objections to reservations, since this provision invites the author of the objection to indicate whether it opposes the entry into force of the treaty between it and the author of the reservation.
这种可能性反映在准则草案2.6.1最后一句中，它表明：提出反对的国家意图“在其与保留国的关系中排除整体条约的适用”。
This possibility is reflected in the last phrase of the definition in draft guideline 2.6.1, according to which, in making an objection, the author may seek to “exclude the application of the treaty as a whole, in relations with the reserving State or organization”.
在这种情况下，为反对保留提出单方面声明的国家的意图是不容怀疑的。
In such a case, the intention of the author of the unilateral statement to object to the reservation is in no doubt.
(11) 对同一保留采取的各类反应可能不是真实的，可能表达了保留的意见，却不等于真正的反对。
(11) This might not be true of all categories of reactions to a reservation, which might show misgivings on the part of their authors without amounting to an objection as such.
(12) 负责解决法国和联合王国之间关于伊鲁瓦兹海大陆架划界问题的仲裁法院在其1977年6月30日的判决中说：
(12) As the court of arbitration which settled the dispute between France and the United Kingdom concerning the delimitation of the continental shelf in the Mer d'Iroise case stated in its decision of 30 June 1997:
“因此，任何这种反应究竟只是一种意见，只是保留立场，只是拒绝某项保留，还是全面拒绝在条约之下与保留国有任何相互关系，要看该国的意图而定”。
“Whether any such reaction amounts to a mere comment, a mere reserving of position, a rejection merely of the particular reservation or a wholesale rejection of any mutual relations with the reserving State under the treaty consequently depends on the intention of the State concerned.”
在这个案件中，法院没有明白断定联合王国的“反应”的性质，但是法院的做法“好像把它当做一项反对”， 也就是说，援引1969年《维也纳公约》第21条第3款，但是这项公约当时在该两国家之间并未生效。
In this case, the court did not expressly take a position on the nature of the United Kingdom's “reaction”, but it “acted as if it were an objection”, namely, by applying the rule laid down in article 21, paragraph 3, of the 1969 Vienna Convention, which, however, was not in force between the parties.