1. The concept ‘human dimension of the CSCE’ was introduced in Vienna and, according to the Chapter on the ‘Human Dimension of the CSCE’ in the Concluding Document of Vienna, includes ‘the undertakings entered into in the Final Act and in other CSCE documents concerning respect for all human rights and fundamental freedoms, human contacts and other issues of a related humanitarian character’.

2. Mutual and Balanced Force Reductions, officially termed the Mutual Reduction of Forces and Armaments and Associated Measures in Central Europe (MURFAAMCE) as a result of the Eastern European dislike of the concept ‘balanced’. In practice MBFR has become the most common reference.

3. There exists extensive literature on the origins of the Helsinki process and the creation of the Final Act of Helsinki. Reference may be made to, inter alia, Aćimović, L.;, Problems of Security and Cooperation in Europe (1981) pp. 3–138Google Scholar.

4. See, inter alia, Sizoo, J. and Jurrjens, R.Th., CSCE Decision-Making: The Madrid Experience (1984) p. 51Google Scholar.

5. This would appear, however, to be somewhat contrary to the ‘Final Recommendations of the Helsinki Consultations’ of 8 June 1973, in which the organizational modalities for the CSCE were laid down. According to para. 65 there of all 35 States shall participaie-in the Conference ‘as sovereign and independent States and in conditions of complete equality. The Conference shall take place outside the framework of military alliances’

6. See, e.g., Neuhold, H., ed., CSCE: N+N Perspectives (1987)Google Scholar.

7. Principle IX of the Decalogue of Principles of the first basket of the Final Act of Helsinki.

8. Provision 26 of the first basket of the Concluding Document of Vienna reads as follows: ‘They [The participating States] confirm that governments, institutions, organizations and persons have a relevant and positive role to play in contributing to the achievement of the aims of their cooperation and to the full realization of the Final Act. To that end they will respect the right of persons to observe and promote the implementation of CSCE provisions and to associate with others for that purpose. They will facilitate direct contacts and communication among these persons, organizations and institutions within and between participating States and remove, where they exist, legal and administrative impediments inconsistent with the CSCE provisions. They will also take effective measures to facilitate access to information on the implementation of CSCE provisions and the free expression of views on these matters’.

9. The text of all official CSCE documents will be published in 1990 in: A. Bloed, ed., From Helsinki to Vienna: Basic Documents of the Helsinki Process (to be published by Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Dordrecht).

10. There exists an extensive literature on the difficult question of the legal nature of the Helsinki Accords. Reference may be made to, inter alia, van Dijk, P., ‘The Final Act of Helsinki – Basis for a Pan-European system?’, 11 NYIL (1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Klafkowski, A., ‘CSCE Final Act – the Bases for Legal Interpretation’, Studies on International Relations, No. 8 (1977) pp. 76–84Google Scholar; Schweisfurth, Th., ‘Zur Frage der Rechtsnatur, Verbindlichkeit und völkerrechtlichen Relevanz der KSZE-Schlussakte’, Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht (1976) pp. 681–725Google Scholar.

11. Aćimović, op. cit. n. 3, p. 275.

12. See Ghebali, V.-Y., ‘L'Acte final de la Conférence sur la Sécurité et la Coopération en Europe et les Nations Unies’, AFDI (1975) pp. 76–77Google Scholar.

13. See the Chapter on the follow-up to the Conference at the end of the Final Act of Helsinki.

14. The Concluding Document of Vienna provides for the following meetings: 1. Information Forum in London (18 April to 12 May 1989), which ended without a concluding document; 2. Three meetings of the Conference on the Human Dimension of the CSCE in Paris (30 May to 23 June 1989, which ended without a concluding document), in Copenhagen (5 to 29 June 1990) and Moscow (10 September to 4 October 1991); 3. Negotiations on Confidence- and Security- Building Measures in Vienna (from 9 March 1989); 4. Negotiations on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (abbreviation: CFE) in Vienna (from 9 March 1989); 5. Meeting on the Protection of the Environment in Sofia (16 October to 3 November 1989, which ended without a concluding document due to a Romanian veto); 6. Conference on Economic Co-operation in Europe in Bonn (19 March to 11 April 1990); 7. Meeting on the Mediterranean in Palma de Mallorca (24 September to 19 October 1990); 8. Meeting of Experts on Peaceful Settlement of Disputes in Valletta (15 January to 8 February 1991); 9. Symposium on the Cultural Heritage in Cracow (28 May to 7 June 1991).

15. For a review of the involvement of existing international organizations in the CSCE process, see van Dijk, P., ‘The Implementation of the Final Act of Helsinki: The Creation of New Structures or the Involvement of Existing Ones?’, 10 Michigan JIL, No. 1 (1989) pp. 117–123Google Scholar.

16. Idem.

17. Para. 69 of the Final Recommendations of Helsinki.

18. See para. 79 of the Final Recommendations of Helsinki.

19. Sizoo, and Jurrjens, , op. cit. n. 4, pp. 60–63 and 73–75Google Scholar.

20. ‘Déclaration de la Republique Socialiste de Roumanie au sujet du Document de Clôture de la Réunion CSCE de Vienne’ of IS January 1989 (not published). See also the speech of the Romanian ambassador of 14 January 1989 at the Follow-up Meeting of Vienna and the speech of the Romanian Ambassador at the meeting of the Conference on the Human Dimension of the CSCE in Paris on 31 May 1989.

21. Compare the reasoning of Sir Hersch Lauterpacht in his separate opinion to the judgment in the Case of Certain Norwegian Loans, that ‘an undertaking in which the applicant party reserves for itself the exclusive right to determine the extent or the very existence of its obligation is not a legal undertaking’; ICJ Rep. (1957) p. 49.

22. See Schweisfurth, , loc. cit. n. 10, p. 710Google Scholar. See also Dijk, Van, loc cit. n. 10, p. 110Google Scholar.

23. Compare Arts. 19–21 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.

24. Art. 19, sub c of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.

25. On this the following was stated in the official Romanian statement (see supra n. 20): ‘En mime temps, nous constatons que – sous le prétexte des préoccupations pour les droits de l'homme et les libertés réligieuses-dans le Dôcument de clôture ont été introduites et maintenues des dispositions qui ne sont pas en conformité avec les principes et l'esprit de l'Acte final de Helsinki, avec les réalités des temps que nous vivons et qui ne sont pas en concordance avec les normes et réglementations intemationales auxquelles les états ont adhéré. De telles dispositions peuvent ouvrir la voie à L'ingérence dans les affaires intérieures d'autres états, à la violation de l'indèpendance et de la souveraineté nationales, peuvent stimuler et encourager des activités d'obscurantisme, rétrogrades. A même, onya maintenu des dispositions qui, en fait, sont á même de stimuler I'émigration et d'encourager la fuite des cerveaux, portant atteinte aux intérêts du développement économique et social des peuples, et en premier lieu de ceux qui sont moins développés’.

26. Information provided in discussions with members of the delegation of the Netherlands.

27. Compare on the problem of the legal consequences of ‘impermissible’ reservations: Bowett, D.W., ‘Reservations to Non-Restricted Multilateral Treaties’, 48 BYIL (1976–1977) pp. 75–80Google Scholar.

28. If this second possibility were to apply that would also raise the question whether the Concluding Document of Vienna was actually lawfully adopted. Indeed, the necessary consensus for adoption would then be absent.

29. The Romanian Ambassador, Constantin Ene, stated in his opening speech to the meeting of the Conference on the Human Dimension of the CSCE in Paris on 31 May 1989 that the reservation entered by bis country was ‘completely in agreement with the rules of procedure whereby no-one has the right to question that’ (not published).

30. Officially the EDC Ib, which indicates that the negotiations in Vienna are a continuation of the Conference of Stockholm.

31. As the full abbreviation CAFE could give a somewhat frivolous impression, CFE was chosen.

32. See the mandate for the CFE negotiations appended to the Concluding Document of Vienna as Annex III in the form of a ‘chairman's statement’. Organizational questions relating to the information meetings with the NNA States are laid down in Annex 2 of the CFE mandate.

33. Idem.

34. For the text of this proposal, see SIM Newsletter, No. 18 (June 1987) pp. 61–62.

35. For the text of this proposal, see SIM Newsletter, No. 18 (June 1987) pp. 62–63.

36. The non-voluntary character of the mechanism is clearly revealed by the terminology used in the Concluding Document of Vienna: ‘The participating States (…) have (…) decided’ (emphasis added) (see the chapter on the Human Dimension of the CSCE). In keeping with the legally non-binding character of the Helsinki Accords, the obligations under the mechanism for the Human Dimension are political obligations.

37. Chapter on the Human Dimension of the CSCE in the Concluding Document of Vienna.

38. Compare with this the public international law rule that a State may first exercise diplomatic protection for one of its own nationals who has allegedly been a victim of an unlawful act in another State when that own national has first exhausted all the legal means of redress in that other State.

39. See on this issue also Bloed, A. and van Dijk, P., ‘Non-interventie en mensenrechten: in het spanningsveld tussen afleidingsmanoeuvre en collectief toezicht’, in van Goudoever, A.P. and Aalbers, J., eds., Interventies in de internationale betrekkingen (to be published in 1989)Google Scholar.

40. On this point the text of the Concluding Document of Vienna is very unclear. See further on this my comments concerning the third phase of the mechanism (infra 3.2.2.3).

41. An example of this is provision 35 of the Chapter on ‘Co-operation in the field of economics, of science and technology and of the environment’ of the Concluding Document of Vienna in which the participating States permit ‘persons and organizations dedicated to the protection of the environment to express their concerns’;. Other examples of humanitarian provisions of the second basket concern tourism and aspects of the issue of foreign workers.

42. See the Chapter on the Human Dimension of the CSCE in the Concluding Document of Vienna.

43. This problem manifested itself in State practice in the Spring of 1989 with, inter alia, the proposal of Turkey to Bulgaria to hold bilateral discussions on the question of lurks in Bulgaria. Bulgaria was prepared to agree to that but announced that it would make use of the opportunity to confront Turkey with a large number of complaints relating to Turkish human rights situations.

44. Emphasis supplied.

45. As a result of, inter alia, the opposition of Romania and some other Eastern European countries it was not possible to adopt a concluding document with a substantive content.

46. See the Chapter on the ‘Human Dimension of the CSCE’ as well as Annex X of the Concluding Document of Vienna.

47. see supra para. 2.

48. It is important to note that on 11 July 1989 the twelve EC States within the framework of the European Political Co-operation reaffirmed the importance of substantial and balanced progress in all areas of the CSCE process; see Agence Europe (12 07 1989) No. 5055, p. 3Google Scholar.

49. For a useful review of the discussions on the proposals for a more far-reaching institutionalization of the CSCE process, see primarily: Ropers, N. and Schlotter, P., Die Institutionalisierungsdebatte im KSZE-Prozesx: Geschichte, Modelle, Evaluation (1986)Google Scholar. See also by the same authors: ‘Die Institutionalisierung des KSZE-Prozess; Perspektiven und ihre Bewertung’, Aus Politik und Zeitgeschkhte (Beilage zur Wochenzeitung Das Parlament) (1987) No. 1/2, pp. 16–28Google Scholar.

50. An example of this is the composition of the national delegations to the Information Forum, which was held from 18 April to 12 May 1989 in London. Many representatives of the media, who in a number of cases were not under instruction by their governments, were included in those delegations.

51. An important achievement on this point is the ‘Chairman's Statement’ concerning the ‘openness and access to the CSCE Follow-up Meetings mentioned in the Vienna Concluding Document’, included as Annex XI to the Concluding Document of Vienna. It is there argued for a further development in the future of the practices applied in Vienna. Those practices ‘relate, inter alia, to access to the host State, to the venue and to open sessions of CSCE meetings for representatives of the media, representatives of non-governmental organizations or religious groups, and private individuals, both nationals and foreigners; unimpeded contacts between delegates or visitors and citizens of the host State; respect for CSCE-related activities, including the holding of peaceful gatherings, and for the freedom of journalists to report without hindrance as well as to pursue their professional activity in conformity with CSCE commitments.’ This Chairman's statement is primarily of importance in the light of the meeting to be held in Moscow in 1991 of the Conference on the Human Dimension of the CSCE. The United Kingdom and the US have meanwhile attached conditions to the actual holding of that meeting relating to, inter alia, access to the meeting.