1. See only Allot, P., Eunomia. New Order for a New World (1990).Google Scholar

2. But see Kennedy, D.W., ‘A New World Order: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow’, 4 Transnational Law and Contemporary Problems (1994) pp. 329–375Google Scholar, and Slaughter, A.-M., ‘The Liberal Agenda for Peace: International Relations Theory and the Future of the United Nations’, 4 Transnational Law and Contemporary Problems (1994) pp. 377–418.Google Scholar

3. For the imminent reasons behind that rejection of any concept of ‘universal statehood’ see Koskenniemi, M., ‘The Police in the Temple. Order, Justice and the UN: A Dialectical View’, 6 EJIL (1995) pp. 325–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4. See the still interesting essay by Groom, A.J.R., ‘International Organization in a World Society’, in: Taylorand, P. and Groom, A.J.R., eds., International Organization. A Conceptual Approach (1978) pp. 430–451Google Scholar, but also the more recent essays of Kratochwil, F. and Ruggie, J.G., ‘International Organization: The State of the Art on an Art of the State’, 40 International Organization (1986), pp. 753–775CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Keohane, R., ‘International Institutions: Two Approaches’, in Derian, J. Der, ed., International Theory. Critical Investigations (1995) pp. 279–306.Google Scholar

5. See only Groom, A.J.R., ‘The Advent of International Institutions’Google Scholar, in Taylor and Groom, op. cit. n. 3, pp. 11–27.

6. See Schwartz, B. and Leven, E., ‘International Organizations: What Makes Them Work?’, Can. YIL (1992) pp. 165 et seq.Google Scholar

7. See only Schermers, H. G. and Blokker, N. M., International Institutional Law, 3rd edn. (1995) paras. 434–464 (pp. 300–317).Google Scholar

8. On the concept of ‘international regime’ see only Krasner, S.D., ed., International Regimes (1983)Google Scholar; Keohane, R.O., After Hegemony (1984)Google Scholar; Kohler-Koch, B., ed., Regime in den internationalen Beziehungen (1989)Google Scholar; Young, O.R., International Cooperation, Building Regimes for Natural Ressources and the Environment (1989)Google Scholar; Rittberger, V., ed., Regime Theory and International Relations (1993)Google Scholar; Müller, H., Die Chance der Kooperation. Regime in den internationalen Beziehungen (1993).Google Scholar

9. Krasner, S.D., ‘Structural Causes and Regime Consequences: Regimes as Intervening Variables’, in Krasner, S.D., ed., International Regimes (1983) p. 2.Google Scholar

10. See only Chayes, A. and Chayes, A. Handler, The New Sovereignty: Compliance with International Regulatory Agreements (1995) pp. 4 et seq.Google Scholar

11. See Chayes and Handler Chayes, op. cit. n. 10, pp. 17–22.

12. As for the intricacies of the management of compliance see op. cit. n. 10.

13. Chayes and Handler Chayes, op. cit. n. 10, p. 1. On the arguments for such conclusion see also in detail ibid., pp. 29–108.

14. See Chayes and Handler Chayes, op. cit. n. 10, pp. 3 and 22–28.

15. On the role of transparency in managing compliance see Ostrom, E., Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action (1990) pp. 96–97, 193–199Google Scholar; Keohane, R.O., ‘The Demand for International Regimes’, in Krasner, S.D., ed., International Regimes (1983) pp. 161–167Google Scholar; Chayes and Handler Chayes, op. cit. n. 10, pp. 135–153.

16. Among more recent writings on the topic see in particular Bilder, R., Managing the Risks ofInternational Agreement (1981)Google Scholar; Butler, W., ed., Control over Compliance with International Law (1991)Google Scholar; Dupuy, P.-M., ‘International Control and State Responsibility’, in Festschrift für Karl Zemanek (1994) pp. 307–318Google Scholar; Chayes and Handler Chayes, op. cit. n. 10, pp. 135–196.

17. See Schermers and Blokker, op. cit. n. 7, pp. 306–309, and also the overview concerning control-procedures in various international organizations given by Valticos, N., ‘Controle’, in Dupuy, R.-J., ed., A Handbook on International Organizations (1988) pp. 332–353.Google Scholar

18. See Lang, W., ‘Compliance with Disarmament Obligations’, 55 ZaöRV (1995) p. 69 at pp. 72–81.Google Scholar

19. See Chayes and Handler Chayes, op. cit. n. 10, pp. 144–151.

20. On this function see Chayes and Handler Chayes, op. cit. n. 10, pp. 151–153.

21. Young, O.R., ‘The Effectiveness of International Institutions: Hard Cases and Critical Variables’, in Rosenau, J.R. and Czempiel, E.-O., eds., Governance without Government: Order and Change in World Politics (1992) pp. 176–177.Google Scholar

22. For that conclusion see also Fischer, G. and Vignes, D., ‘Existe-t-il une fonction d'inspection dans la société internationale?’, in Fischer, G. and Vignes, D., eds., L'inspection internationale (1976) p. 7.Google Scholar

23. See Schreuer, C., ‘The Waning of the Sovereign State: Towards a New Paradigm for International Law?’, 4 EJIL (1993) pp. 447–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

24. The term is used by Chayes and Handler Chayes, op. cit. n. 10 – see in particular pp. 26–28.

25. Fischer, G. and Vignes, D., eds., L'inspection internationale (1976).Google Scholar

26. For the history and typology of arms control see the masterly work of Croft, S., Strategies of Arms Control (1996)Google Scholar; in addition, see Goldblat, J., Arms Control. A Guide to Negotiations and Agreements (1994).Google Scholar

27. Cf., Croft, op. cit. n. 26, pp. 25 et seq.

28. The treaty is reproduced in Dupuy, T. and Hammerman, G., A Documentary History of Arms Control and Disarmament (1973) pp. 36–37.Google Scholar

29. On the disarmament provisions of the post-World War I peace treaties see Croft, op. cit. n. 26, p. 27; Goldblat, op. cit. n. 26, pp. 11–12; van der Graaf, H.J., ‘Past Experiences with Verification’, in Grin, J. and van der Graaf, H.J., eds., Unconventional Approaches to Conventional Arms Control Verification (1990) pp. 18–19.Google Scholar

30. The supervision of the treaties entrusted to the Inter-Allied Commissions of Control, however, was never fully effective and gradually ceased to be exercised – see Goldblat, op. cit. n. 26, p. 12 and Graybeal, S.N. and Krepon, M., ‘On-Site Inspections’, in Krepon, M. and Umberger, M., eds., Verification and Compliance (1988) p. 92 at p. 95.Google Scholar

31. See Goldblat, op. cit. n. 26, pp. 20–21.

32. See Jacob, K., ‘The Western European Union’, in Kokoski, R. and Koulik, S., eds., Verification of Conventional Arms Control in Europe (1990) pp. 229–238Google Scholar; Van der Graaf, loc. cit. n. 29, p. 20; Goldblat, op. cit. n. 26, pp. 21–22; Marauhn, T., Der deutsche Chemiewaffen-Verzicht. Rechtsentwicklungen seit 1945 (1994) pp. 181–190.Google Scholar

33. Cf., Goldblat, op. cit. n. 26, p. 22; Van der Graaf, loc. cit. n. 29, p. 20.

34. See Goldblat, op. cit. n. 26, p. 18.

35. As an attempt to draw general lessons for disarmament treaties from the experiences with the IAEA safeguards see Keeley, J.F., International Atomic Energy Agency Safeguards (1988) (Arms Control Verification Occasional Papers No. 1 / Arms Control and Disarmament Division, Department of External Affairs, Ottawa)Google Scholar

36. Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America of 14 February 1967, 634 UNTS 281.

37. Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons of 1 July 1968, 729 UNTS 161.

38. See e.g., Goldblat, op. cit. n. 26, p. 77, and Müller, H. et al. , Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Global Order (1994) pp. 5–8.Google Scholar

39. See Fischer, W. et al. , ‘Neuere Entwicklungen und Perspektiven des Safeguardsystems’, in H. Blix et al., Probleme der nuklearen Nichtverbreitungspolitik (1994) (Arbeitspapiere zur Internationalen Politik No. 83 / Forschungsinstitut der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Auswärtige Politik e.V.) pp. 41 et seq.Google Scholar

40. Thus the dual objective of IAEA safeguards, according to the official view – see von Baeckmann, A., ‘The Chemical Weapons Convention and Some IAEA Experience’, in Schiefer, H.B. and Keeley, J.F., eds., International Atomic Energy Agency Safeguards as a Model for Verification of a Chemical Weapons Convention (1989) p. 37 at p. 39.Google Scholar

41. On the IAEA see Seyersted, F., Die Internationale Atomenergie-Organisation – ihre rechtlichen Aufgaben und Funktionen (1966)Google Scholar; Szasz, P.C., The Law and Practices of the International Atomic Energy Agency (1970)Google Scholar; Szasz, P.C., ‘International Atomic Energy Agency’, in Bernhardt, R., ed., Encyclopedia of Public International Law, Inst. 5 (1983) pp. 52–58Google Scholar; Scheinman, L., The International Atomic Agency and World Nuclear Order (1987) pp. 49 et seq.Google Scholar; Pelzer, N., ‘IAEA – International Atomic Energy Agency’, in Wolfrum, R., ed., United Nations: Law, Policies and Practice, Vol.1 (1995) pp. 646–655.Google Scholar

42. Statute of the IAEA of 29 July 1957, 276 UNTS 3, amended 4 October 1961, 471 UNTS 334.

43. On the two different regimes of IAEA safeguards see Szasz, op. cit. n. 41, in particular pp. 550–553; Fischer, D., ‘International Safeguards’, in D. Fischer and P.C. Szasz, Safeguarding the Atom: A Critical Appraisal (1985) p. 3 at pp. 23–32Google Scholar; D. Fischer, ‘The IAEA Safeguards Model’, in Schiefer and Keeley, eds., op. cit. n. 40, pp. 28–36, as well as Von Baeckmann, loc. cit. n. 40, p. 41; see also in detail Lohmann, T., Die rechtliche Struktur der Sicherheitsmaßnahmen der Internationalen Atomenergie-Organisation (1993)Google Scholar. For the two different systems of guidelines for the negotiation of safeguards agreements (INFCIRC/66/Rev.2and INFCIRC/153) see ElBaradei, M.M. et al. , eds., The International Law of Nuclear Energy: Basic Documents (1993) part II, pp. 1678 et seq., 1695 et seq.Google Scholar

44. As of the end of 1992 there were 188 agreements with 110 States in force – see Pelzer, op. cit. n. 41, p. 653. Examples of such bilateral safeguard agreements between the IAEA and its member States as well as non-member States are reprinted in ElBaradei, op. cit. n. 43, pp. 1735 et seq., 1741 et seq., 1749 et seq., 1786 et seq., 1887 et seq., 1921 et seq.

45. See Keeley, op. cit. n. 35, p. 21; Monahan, B., ‘Giving the Non-Proliferation Treaty Teeth: Strenthening the Special Inspection Procedures of the International Atomic Energy Agency’, 33 Virginia JIL (1992) p. 161 at pp. 169–171‥Google Scholar

46. See Keeley, op. cit. n. 35, pp. 22–23.

47. The agreement with Argentina and Brazil, signed on 18 July 1991, is reprinted in Howlett, D. and Simpson, J., eds., Nuclear Non-Proliferation: A Reference Handbook (1992) pp. 265–270.Google Scholar

48. See Goldblat, op. cit. n. 26, pp. 79–80.

49. Cf., Goldblat, op. cit. n. 26, p. 80; for examples of such agreements see ElBaradei, op. cit. n. 43, pp. 1921 et seq., 1954 et seq.

50. On the general system of inspection by IAEA inspectors see Keeley, op. cit. n. 35, pp. 44–47; Von Baeckmann, loc. cit. n. 40, pp. 37 et seq.; Fischer, D., ‘The International Atomic Agency and Nuclear Safeguards’Google Scholar, in Howlett and Simpson, op. cit. n. 47, p. 37 at pp. 43–44. On the staffing policies concerning inspectors see Keeley, op. cit. n. 35, pp. 38–39; von Baeckmann, loc. cit. n. 40, pp. 42–43.

51. Concerning the practice of routine inspections, see Keeley, op. cit. n. 35, pp. 4–9, 42–47.

52. On the information policy of the IAEA see Keeley, op. cit. n. 35, pp. 31–32.

53. On the problems and loopholes of such a scheme of routine inspections see Blix, H., ‘Prospects of Multilateralism in the Non-Proliferation Regime’Google Scholar, in Blix et al., op. cit. n. 39, p. 1 at pp. 3 et seq.; Fischer et al., loc. cit. n. 39, pp. 43–47; Keeley, op. cit. n. 35, pp. 12 et seq., 32–33; Scheinman, op. cit. n. 41, pp. 166 et seq.; Fischer, International Safeguards, loc. cit. n. 43. pp. 41–43, 47–56, 61–66; Hasselmann, C.G., ‘Do We Need New IAEA Safeguards?’, 27 GYIL (1984) pp. 259 et seq.Google Scholar; Grumm, H., ‘IAEA Safeguards: Status and Prospects’, in IAEA, Nuclear Safeguards Technology, Vol. I (1983) pp. 9 et seq.Google Scholar

54. Reprinted in: ElBaradei, op. cit. n. 43, pp. 1695–1723.

55. See Goldblat, op. cit. n. 26, p. 220; Fischer, loc. cit. n. 50, p. 41; Fischer et al., loc. cit. n. 39, pp. 48–55; Monahan, loc. cit. n. 45, pp. 173–78.

56. See Fischer, loc. cit. n. 50, p. 41.

57. See Goldblat, op. cit. n. 26, p. 220; Fischer et al., loc. cit. n. 39, p. 48.

58. See only Scheinman, L., ‘Lessons From Post-War Iraq for the International Full-Scope Safeguards Regime’, Arms Control Today (April 1993) p. 3 at p. 4Google Scholar; Zifferero, M., ‘The IAEA: Neutralizing Iraq's Nuclear Weapons Potential’, Arms Control Today (April 1993) pp. 7–10Google Scholar; Goldblat, op. cit. n. 26, p. 220.

59. See Fischer et al., loc. cit. n. 39, pp. 49–52.

60. See Bracken, P., ‘Nuclear Weapons and State Survival in North Korea’, 35 Survivol (1993) pp. 137 et seq.CrossRefGoogle Scholar: Nam, M.-K., ‘The North Korean Nuclear Issue and Requisite Verification Mechanisms’, in Mataija, S., ed., Non-Proliferation and Multilateral Verification: The Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). Symposium Proceedings (1994) pp. 205 et seq.Google Scholar; Carmody, S., ‘Balancing Collective Security and National Sovereignty: Does the United Nations Have the Right to Inspect North Korea's Nuclear Facilities?’, 18 Fordham ILJ (1994) pp. 229–284Google Scholar; Sigal, L.V., ‘The North Korean Nuclear Crisis: Understanding the Failure of the ‘Crime-and-Punishment’ Strategy’, Arms Control Today (May 1997) pp. 3–13.Google Scholar

61. On the inspection regime of the Treaty of Tlatelolco see Goldblat, op. cit. n. 26, p. 220; Keeley, op. cit. n. 35, p. 23; Gmelch, H., Verifikation von multi- und internationalen Rüstungskontrollabkommen (1993) pp. 168–173.Google Scholar

62. See Gmelch, op. cit. n. 61, pp. 173–179, and Goldblat, op. cit. n. 26, pp. 220–221.

63. Chayes and Handler Chayes, op. cit. n. 10, at pp. 177–178.

64. See Schrag, P.C., Listening for the Bomb. A Study in Nuclear Arms Control Verification Policy (1989) pp. 7 et seq.Google Scholar, as well as Goldblat, op. cit. n. 26, pp. 215–216.

65. On the scheme of inspections admitted by the INF Treaty see Kokoski, R. and Koulik, S., ‘The INF Treaty’, in Kokoski, R. and Koulik, S., eds., Verification of Conventional Arms Control in Europe (1990) p. 203 at pp. 205–206, 209–212Google Scholar, and Summers, R. A., ‘Experience with INF Treaty Verification and Prospects for Effective Verification of Strategic Arms Reductions’Google Scholar, in Altmann, J. and Rotblat, J., Verification of Arms Reductions: Nuclear, Conventional and Chemical (1989) pp. 16–26Google Scholar; on the national management of these on-site inspections see Rueckert, G.L., ‘Managing On-Site Inspections: Initial Experience and Future Challenges’, in Tower, J.G. et al. , eds., Verification: The Key to Arms Control in the 1990's (1992) pp. 154–172.Google Scholar

66. For a comprehensive list of all the types of inspections agreed upon in the START I Treaty see Goldblat, op. cit. n. 26, p. 216; see also J.R. Harvey, ‘SLCM Limits and Verification: Problems and prospects’, in Tower, et al., op. cit. n. 65, p. 112 at pp. 122–29, as well as Fetter, S. and Rodionov, S.N., ‘Verifying Start’, in F. Calogero et al., Verification: Monitoring Disarmament (1991) pp. 95–121.Google Scholar

67. See Goldblat, op. cit. n. 26, p. 221.

68. On the verification provisions of the Stockholm CSCE Document see Stovall, D.O., ‘The Stockholm Accord: On-Site Inspections in Eastern and Western Europe’, in Dunn, L.A. and Gordon, A.E., eds., Arms Control Verification and the New Rule of On-Site Inspection (1990) pp. 15–28Google Scholar; see also Goetze, B.A., ‘Verification of Confidence and Security Building Measures: Evolution and Future Prospects’Google Scholar, in Altmann and Rotblat, op. cit. n. 65, pp. 140–150.

69. On these documents see Goldblat, op. cit. n. 26, pp. 162–166; Akcapar, B., The International Law of Conventional Arms Control in Europe (1996) pp. 183–196.Google Scholar

70. See Gmelch, op. cit. n. 61, pp. 179–192.

71. Goldblat, op. cit. n. 26, p. 221.

72. On the verification regime of the CFE Treaty, and in particular the inspection scheme, see Akcapar, op. cit. n. 69, pp. 164–183; Lewis, P., ‘Verifying the CFE Agreement’, in Croft, S., ed., The Conventional Armed Forces in Europe Treaty (1994) p. 178 at pp. 189–198Google Scholar; Gmelch, op. cit. n. 61, pp. 192–212; Dunay, P., Verifying Conventional Arms Limitations. The Case of the November 19, 1990 Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europa (1991) pp. 82 et seq.Google Scholar, in particular at pp. 103–106; Koulik, S. and Kokoski, R., Verification of the CFE Treaty. A SIPRI Research Report (1991) pp. 54–61Google Scholar; see also van der Graaf, H., ‘Verification: Cornerstone for European Security’Google Scholar, in Tower et al., op. cit. n. 65, p. 94 at pp. 100–01 and Zellner, W., Die Verhandlungen über Konventionelle Streitkrüfte in Europa (1994) pp. 198–206Google Scholar, as well as Lachowski, Z., ‘Conventional Arms Control and Security Co-Operation in Europe’, SIPRI Yearbook (1994) p. 565 at pp. 566-68.Google Scholar

73. See Sur, S., ‘La résolution 687 (3 avril 1991) du Conseil de Sécurité dans l'affaire du Golfe: problèmes de rétablissement et de garantie de la paix’, 37 AFDI (1991) pp. 25–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Martin, M.E., ‘The Changing Role of the United Nations: Halting Nuclear Proliferation in Iraq’, 10 Dickinson JIL (1992) pp. 485–513.Google Scholar

74. See Chauvistré, E., The Implications of lAEA Inspections under Security Council Resolution 687 (1992) (UNIDIR Research Paper No. 11)Google Scholar; Boustany, K., ‘L'investigation dans le programme nucléiaire irakien’, Can.YIL (1992) p. 137 at pp. 144–160Google Scholar; Ekeus, R., ‘The United Nations Special Commission on Iraq: Activities in 1992’, SIPRI Yearbook (1993) pp. 691–703.Google Scholar

75. See Zifferero, loc. cit. n. 58, p. 7, and Trevan, T., ‘UNSCOM: Activities in 1993’, SIPRI Yearbook (1994) pp. 739–758Google Scholar; on the problems of such inspections see also Trevan, T., ‘UNSCOM Faces Entirely New Verification Challenges in Iraq’, Arms Control Today (April 1993) pp. 11–15.Google Scholar

76. See Zifferero, loc. cit. n. 58, p. 9.

77. See Trevan, T., ‘Ongoing Monitoring and Verification in Iraq’, Arms Control Today (May 1994) p. 11 at pp. 14–15Google Scholar, as well as von Butler, P. and Frick, H., ‘Langzeitverifikation im Irak: Entstehung und Entwicklung des Konzepts, Instrumente und Probleme der Implementation’Google Scholar, in Blix et al., op. cit. n. 39, p. 72 at pp. 75–95.

78. Zifferero, loc. cit. n. 58, p. 10.

79. On the rationale for States to negotiate on a Chemical Weapons Convention see Bernauer, T., The Chemistry of Regime Formation: Explaining International Cooperation for a Comprehensive Ban on Chemical Weapons (1993).Google Scholar

80. Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction of 13 January 1993, UN Doc. CD/1194 of 5 April 1993; on the Convention see Morel, B. and Olson, K., eds., Shadows and Substance: The Chemical Weapons Convention (1993)Google Scholar; Krutzsch, W. and Trapp, R., A Commentary on the Chemical Weapons Convention (1994)Google Scholar; Bardonnet, D., ed., La Convention sur l'interdiction et l'ilimination des armes chimiques: une percée dans l'entreprise multilatérale du désarmement (1995).Google Scholar

81. On the routine inspections in chemical industry see Trapp, R., Verification under the Chemical Weapons Convention: On-Site Inspection in Chemical Industry Facilities (1993) pp. 7–14, 18–52Google Scholar, see also Black, S., ‘Illuminating the Shadows: On-Site Inspections and the Chemical Weapons Convention’, in Morel and OlsonGoogle Scholar, op. cit. n. 80, p. 193 at pp. 199–204, as well as Trapp, R., ‘Verification under the Chemical Weapons Convention: Some Remarks on the Work in die Preparatory Commission’, in Altmann, J. et al. , eds., Verification after the Cold War: Broadening the Process (1994) p. 116 at p. 118.Google Scholar

82. See Trapp, On-Site Inspection, op. cit. n. 81, pp. 53–78; Goldblat, op. cit. n. 26, pp. 221–222; Black, loc. cit. n. 81, pp. 205–209.

83. See Trapp, On-Site Inspection, op. cit. n. 81, pp. 62–65; Goldblat, op. cit. n. 26, p. 222; Black, loc. cit. n. 81, pp. 208–209.

84. See Trapp, On-Site Inspection, op. cit. n. 81, pp. 67–70.

85. See Goldblat, op. cit. n. 26, p. 222.

86. See Goldblat, op. cit. n. 26, pp. 222–223.

87. See only Bedjaoui, M., ‘L'inspection international dans le cadre des opérations des Nations Unies pour le maintien de la paix’Google Scholar, in Fischer and Vignes, op. cit. n. 25, pp. 25–57, as well as Jurado, S.R. and Diehl, P.F., ‘UN Peacekeeping and Arms Control Verification’, 15 Contemporary Security Policy (1994) p. 38 at pp. 46–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar; see also the contributions by van der Graaf, H.J., Blais, G., Dom, A.W., Cima, A., Crouinaux, J.C., Cammaert, P.C. and Remacle, E., in Altmann, J. et al. , eds., Verification after the Cold War: Broadening the Process (1994) pp. 297 et seq.Google Scholar, 302 et seq., 308 et seq., 318 et seq., 325 et seq., 330 et seq., 335 et seq.

88. If one does not count the Antarctic Treaty as an arms control agreement – but see Müller, H., ‘The Evolution of Verification: Lessons from the Past for the Present’, 14 Arms Control (1993) p. 333 at p. 335CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and van der Graaf, H.J., ‘Verification – Past, Present and Future. Broadening the Process’Google Scholar, in Altmann et al., op. cit. n. 88, p. 3 at p. 4.

89. See e.g., Blix, loc. cit. n. 53, pp. 6–10

90. See Chauvistré, E., ‘The Future of Nuclear Inspections’, 14 Arms Control (1993) p. 23 at p. 27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

91. Fischer, loc. cit. n. 43, p. 29.

92. See also Abbot, K.W., ‘“Trust But Verify”: The Production of Information in Arms Control Treaties and Other International Agreements’, 26 Cornell ILJ (1993) pp. 1–58Google Scholar, in particular pp. 53–58.

93. Concerning the International Labour Organization and its activities see Landy, V.E.A., The Effectiveness of International Supervision. Thirty Years of ILO Experience (1966)Google Scholar; Valticos, N., Droit international du travail, 2nd edn. (1983)Google Scholar; Ghébali, V.Y., The International Labour Organization: A Case Study on the Evolution of UN Specialized Agencies (1989)Google Scholar; Köhler, P.A., ‘ILO – International Labour Organization’, in Wolfram, R., ed., United Nations: Law, Policies and Practice, Vol.1 (1995) pp. 714–723.Google Scholar

94. On these discussions see Valticos, N., ‘L'inspection Internationale dans le droit international du travail’, in Fischer and VignesGoogle Scholar, op. cit. n. 25, p. 379 at pp. 380–384.

95. See Valticos, loc. cit. n. 94, p. 383.

96. See Köhler, loc. cit. n. 93, p. 720, and – much more in detail – von Potobsky, G., ‘Visits on the Spot – The Experience of the ILO’, in Ramcharan, B.G., ed., International Law and Fact-Finding in the Field of Human Rights (1982) pp. 160–175Google Scholar; see also Wolf, F., ‘Human Rights and the International Labour Organization’, in Meron, T., ed., Human Rights in International Law – Legal and Policy Issues (1984) p. 273 at pp. 285-86.Google Scholar

97. On the control committees and its procedures see only Opsahl, T., ‘The Human Rights Committee’, in Alston, P., ed., The United Nations and Human Rights – A Critical Appraisal (1992) pp. 369–443Google Scholar; Alston, P., ‘The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights’Google Scholar, ibid., pp. 473–508; Partsch, K.J., ‘The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination’Google Scholar, ibid., pp. 339–368; see also Tardu, M.E., ‘Implementation of Human Rights through United Nations Complaint Procedures’, 3 International Geneva Yearbook (1989) pp. 37–55.Google Scholar

98. See only Dimitrijevic, V., ‘The Monitoring of Human Rights and the Prevention of Human Rights Violations Through Reporting Procedures’, in Bloed, A. et al. , eds., Monitoring Human Rights in Europe. Comparing International Procedures and Mechanisms (1993) pp. 1–24Google Scholar, and Müllerson, R., ‘The Efficiency of Individual Complaint Procedures: The Experience of CCPR, CERD, CAT and ECHR’Google Scholar, ibid., pp. 25–43.

99. On the role of NGOs in human rights monitoring see Brett, R., ‘The Contribution of NGO's to the Monitoring and Protection of Human Rights in Europe: An Analysis of the Role and Access of NGO's to the Inter-Governmental Organizations’Google Scholar, in Bloed et al., op. cit. n. 98, pp. 121–144; Kooijmans, P.H., The Role of Non-Governmental Organizations in the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights (1990)Google Scholar; Rodley, N.S., ‘The Work of Non-Governmental Organizations in the World-Wide Promotion and Protection of Human Rights’, Bulletin of Human Rights (1990) pp. 84–97Google Scholar; Weissbrodt, D., ‘The Contribution of International Nongovernmental Organizations to the Protection of Human Rights’, in Meron, T., ed., Human Rights in International Law: Legal and Policy Issues (1984) p. 403 at pp. 415–420.Google Scholar

100. On the dominance of reporting in human rights monitoring see Dimitrijevic, loc. cit. n. 98, pp. 1 et seq. and Coliver, S., ‘International Reporting Procedures’, in Hannum, H., ed., Guide to International Human Rights Practice, 2nd edn. (1992) pp. 173–191Google Scholar; see also Sohn, L.B., ‘Human Rights: Their Implementation and Supervision by the United Nations’Google Scholar, in Meron, op. cit. n. 99, p. 369 at pp. 373–379, but also Dormenval, A., Procédures onusiennes de mise en oeuvre des droits de l'homme: limites ou défauts? (1991) pp. 13–33.Google Scholar

101. As to the various procedures of individual complaint see Lewis-Anthony, S., ‘Treaty-Based Procedures for Making Human Rights Complaints Within the UN System’Google Scholar, in Hannum, op. cit. n. 100, pp. 41–59; see also Dormenval, op. cit. n. 100, pp. 33–52 and Müllerson, loc. cit. n. 98, pp. 25–43.

102. This does not mean that reporting is a means of compliance-control without deficiencies. Reporting procedures have serious lacunae – see only Chayes and Handler Chayes, op. cit. n. 10, p. 161; Dormenval, op. cit. n. 100, pp. 136–158; Bayefsky, A.F., ‘Making the Human Rights Treaties Work’, in: Henkin, L. and Hargrove, J.L., eds., Human Rights: An Agenda for the Next Century (1994) p. 229, at pp. 232–249.Google Scholar

103. See Chayes and Handler Chayes, op. cit. n. 10, pp. 163–164, but also Kooijmans, op. cit. n. 99, pp. 16–17.

104. See only Dormenval, op. cit. n. 100, pp. 158–179.

105. On these monitoring mechanisms see Rodley, N.S., ‘United Nations Non-Treaty Procedures for Dealing with Human Rights Violations’Google Scholar, in Hannum, op. cit. n. 100, pp. 61–85; Robertson, A.H. and Merrills, J.G., Human Rights in the World. An Introduction to the Study of the International Protection of Human Rights, 3rd edn. (1992) pp. 74–89Google Scholar; Nowak, M., ‘Country-Oriented Human Rights Protection by the UN Commission on Human Rights and the Sub-Commission’, 22 NYTL (1991) pp. 39–90.Google Scholar

106. See Robertson and Merrills, op. cit. n. 105, p. 74.

107. On the tortuous development of these procedural mechanisms see Robertson and Merrills, op. cit. n. 105, pp. 74–75, and Rodley, loc. cit. n. 105, at pp. 64–65.

108. As to the ‘1503 procedure’ see Rodley, loc. cit. n. 105, pp. 64–70; Robertson and Merrills, op. cit. n. 105, pp. 74–78; Alston, P., ‘The Commission on Human Rights’, in Alston, P., ed., The United Nations and Human Rights. A Critical Appraisal (1992) p. 126 at pp. 146–151Google Scholar; Newman, F. and Weissbrodt, D., International Human Rights (1990) pp. 113–125.Google Scholar

109. See Alston, loc. cit. n. 108, p. 146; Rodley, loc. cit. n. 105, p. 66.

110. See Robertson and Merrills, op. cit. n. 105, p. 78.

111. Cf., Rodley, loc. cit. n. 105, p. 66; Alston, loc. cit. n. 108, p. 163.

112. See Robertson and Merrills, op. cit. n. 105, p. 77.

113. As to the different features (and functions) of special rapporteur investigations see Alston, loc. cit. n. 108, p. 165.

114. See in particular Robertson and Merrills, op. cit. n. 105, pp. 79–83.

115. Ibid., at p. 79.

116. Ibid., at p. 80.

117. Ibid., at p. 81.

118. Ibid., at pp. 81–82.

119. Ibid., at p. 82.

120. Robertson and Merrills, op. cit. n. 105, p. 82.

121. See Rodley, loc. cit. n. 105, p. 63.

122. Alston, loc. cit. n. 108, p. 67.

123. UN Doc. A/33/331 (1978), Annex VII – reprinted in: Steiner, H.J. and Alston, P., eds., International Human Rights in Context (1996) pp. 395-98.Google Scholar

124. See paras. 3–6 of the Memorandum of Understanding with the Government of Chile, reprinted at Steiner and Alston, op. cit. n. 123, pp. 395–96; see also Ramcharan, B.G., ‘The Experience of the United Nations’, in Ramcharan, B.G., ed., International Law and Fact-Finding in the Field of Human Rights (1982) pp. 176–179.Google Scholar

125. On the thematic mechanisms of the UN Human Rights Commission see e.g., Robertson and Merrills, op. cit. n. 105, pp. 84–89; Rodley, loc. cit. n. 105, pp. 70–73.

126. See Rodley, loc. cit. n. 105, pp. 73–74.

127. See Rodley, loc. cit. n. 105, pp. 82–83, see also van Boven, T., ‘The Role of the United Nations Secretariat in the Area of Human Rights’, 24 NY Univ. J Int.L and Pol. (1991) pp. 69–107.Google Scholar

128. On the High Commissioner see only Clapham, A., ‘Creating the High Commissioner for Human Rights: The Outside Story’, 5 EJIL (1994) pp. 558–568CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Much, C., ‘Derbegrenzte Hand-lungsspielraum des UN-Hochkommissars für Menschenrechte’, 49 Europa-Archiv (1994) pp. 560–566.Google Scholar

129. See Alston, loc. cit. n. 108, p. 165.

130. On the potential of the reformed ‘special rapporteur’ instrument see the recent article of Kenny, K.E., ‘Formal and Informal Innovations in the United Nations Protection of Human Rights: The Special Rapporteur on the Former Yugoslavia’, 48 Austrian JPIL (1995) pp. 19–77.Google Scholar

131. See Brody, R., ‘Improving UN Human Rights Structures’, in Henkin, L. and Hargrove, J.L., eds., Human Rights: An Agenda for the Next Century (1994) p. 297 at pp. 305–307.Google Scholar

132. See Brody, loc. cit. n. 131, p. 303.

133. But compare also the Inter-American system – see Carreno, E. Vargas, ‘Visits on the Spot – The Experience of the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights, in Ramcharan, B.G., ed., International Law and Fact-Finding in the Field of Human Rights (1982) pp. 137–150Google Scholar; Norris, R.E., ‘Observations in Loco – Practice and Procedure of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights’, 15 Texas ILJ (1980) pp. 45–95.Google Scholar

134. See Bloed, A., ‘Moscow Meeting ofthe Conference on the Human Dimension of the CSCE: A Critical Analysis’, 1 Helsinki Monitor (1992) pp. 4–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

135. See Bloed, A., ‘Monitoring the CSCE Human Dimension: In Search of its Effectiveness’, in Bloed, A. et al. , eds., Monitoring Human Rights in Europe. Comparing International Procedures and Mechanisms (1993) p. 45 at pp. 62–64.Google Scholar

136. Ibid., at p. 62–63.

137. On the High Commissioner on National Minorities see van der Stoel, M., ‘The Role of the C.S.C.E. High Commissioner on National Minorities in C.S.C.E. Conflict Prevention’, 47 Studia Diplomatica (1994) pp. 59–70Google Scholar; see also Klein, E., ed., The Institution of a Commissioner for Human Rights and Minorities and the Prevention of Human Rights Violations (1995).Google Scholar

138. See Rogge, K., ‘Fact-Finding’, in Macdonald, R.St.J. et al. , eds., The European System for the Protection of Human Rights (1993) pp. 677–701.Google Scholar

139. See Rogge, loc. cit. n. 138, p. 696.

140. See Krüger, H.C., ‘Visits on the Spot – The Experience of the European Commission of Human Rights’Google Scholar, in Ramcharan, op. cit. n. 133, pp. 151–159; van Dijk, P. and van Hoof, G.J.H., Theory and Practice of the European Convention on Human Rights (1984) pp. 109–112Google Scholar; Rogge, loc. cit. n. 138, pp. 696–698.

141. See Krüger, loc. cit. n. 140, pp. 156–157.

142. See Rogge, loc. cit. n. 138, pp. 697–698.

143. On the fact-finding activities of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights see Vargas Carreno, op. cit. n. 133, pp. 137–150; Buergenthal, T., ‘The Inter-American System for the Protection of Human Rights’, in Meron, T., ed., Human Rights in International Law: Legal and Policy Issues (1984) p. 439 at pp. 479–484Google Scholar; see also Grossman, C., ‘Proposals to Strengthen the Inter-American System of Protection of Human Rights’, 32 GYIL (1989) pp. 264–279Google Scholar; and Padilla, D.J., ‘The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights of the Organization of American States: A Case Study’, 9 Am. Univ. J Int.L and Pol. (1993) pp. 95–115.Google Scholar

144. See Buergenthal, loc. cit. n. 143, p. 480, but see also Vargas Carreno, loc. cit. n. 133, p. 137.

145. See Vargas Carreno, loc. cit. n. 133, p. 138.

146. On the usual practice of conducting such visits see Vargas Carreno, loc. cit. n. 133, pp. 139–145.

147. See Buergenthal, loc. cit. n. 143, p. 482.

148. As to the control system of the European Convention against Torture see Nowak, M. and Suntinger, W., ‘International Mechanisms for the Prevention of Torture’Google Scholar, in Bloed et al., op. cit. n. 135, p. 145 at pp. 152–153.

149. For the text see Council of Europe Doc. H (87) 4; concerning the background and content of the Convention see Cassese, A., ‘A New Approach to Human Rights: The European Convention for the Prevention of Torture’, 83 AJIL (1989) pp. 151 et seq.CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ginther, K., ‘The European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment’, 2 EJIL (1991) pp. 123 et seq.CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Nowak, M., ‘Die Europäische Konvention zur Verhütung von Folter’, Europäische Grundrechte-Zeitschrift (1988) pp. 537 et seq.Google Scholar; see also Murdoch, J., ‘The Work of the Council of Europe's Torture Commission’, 5 EJIL (1994) pp. 220–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

150. See Nowak and Suntinger, loc. cit. n. 148, pp. 149–150, 152–153.

151. See Nowak and Suntinger, loc. cit. n. 148, p. 151.

152. See Tanca, A., ‘The Public Statement on Turkey by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture’, 4 EJIL (1993) pp. 115–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Cohen-Jonathan, G., ‘Le Comité européen pour la prévention de la torture et la déclaration publique relative à la Turquie’, 97 RGDIP (1993) pp. 419–428.Google Scholar

153. See O'Brien, J.C., ‘The International Tribunal for Violations of International Humanitarian Law in the Former Yugoslavia’, 87 AJIL (1993) p. 639 at pp. 640–642CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Akhavan, P., ‘Punishing War Crimes in the Former Yugoslavia: A Critical Juncture for the New World Order?’, 15 HRQ (1993) p. 262 at pp. 268–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

154. See the ‘Interim Report of the Commission of Experts Established Pursuant to Security Council Resolution 780 (1992)’ of 26 January 1993, UN Doc. S/25274 Annex I, paras. 32–35 and 61–68.

155. See Wieruszewski, R., ‘Case Study on the Former Yugoslavia: The International Mechanisms, their Efficiency and Failures’Google Scholar, in Bloed et al., op. cit. n. 135, p. 285 at pp. 312–313.

156. As to the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, see Shraga, D. and Zacklin, R., ‘The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia’, 5 EJIL (1994) pp. 360–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Pellet, A., ‘Le Tribunal criminel international pour l'ex-Yougoslavie: poudre aux yeux ou avancée décisive?’ 48 RGDIP (1994) pp. 7–60Google Scholar; Bergsmo, M., ‘International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. Recent Developments’, 15 HRLJ (1994) pp. 405–410Google Scholar; Joyner, C.C., ‘Enforcing Human Rights Standards in the Former Yugoslavia: The Case for an International War Crimes Tribunal’, 22 Denver JIL and Pol. (1994) p. 235 at pp. 255–273Google Scholar; Nagan, W.P., ‘International Criminal Law and the Ad Hoc Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia’, 6 Duke JCIL (1995) pp. 127–165Google Scholar; Schrag, M., ‘The Yugoslav War Crimes Tribunal: An Interim Assessment’, 7 Transnational Law & Contemporary Problems (1997) pp. 15–22.Google Scholar

157. See Valticos, N., ‘Foreword’, in Ramchann, B.G., ed., International Law and Fact-Finding in the Field of Human Rights (1982) at p. vii.Google Scholar

158. Cf., only Koskenniemi, M., ‘New Institutions and Procedures for Implementation Control and Reaction’, in: Werksman, J., ed., Greening International Institutions (1996) p. 236 at p. 241.Google Scholar

159. On the discussion concerning compliance control in international environmental law see Chayes, A. Handler et al. , ‘Active Compliance Management in Environmental Treaties’, in Lang, W., ed., Sustainable Development and International Law (1995) pp. 75–89Google Scholar; Szell, P., ‘The Development of Multilateral Mechanisms for Monitoring Compliance’Google Scholar, ibid., pp. 97–109; Sachariew, K., ‘Promoting Compliance with International Environmental Legal Standards: Reflections on Monitoring and Reporting Mechanisms’, YIEL (1991) pp. 31–52Google Scholar; see also recently Chayes and Handler Chayes, op. cit. n. 10; Cameron, J. et al. , eds., Improving Compliance with International Environmental Law (1996)Google Scholar; as well as Weiss, E. Brown and Jacobson, H.J., eds., Compliance with International Environmental Agreements (1996).Google Scholar

160. For a succinct survey of the various conventional regimes that have been concluded to improve international environmental standards, see Sand, P.H., Lessons Learned in Global Environmental Governance (1990) pp. 21–34Google Scholar; as an assessment of the traditional approaches to enforcement in international environmental agreements, see also Bothe, M., ‘The Evaluation of Enforcement Mechanisms in International Environmental Law – An Overview’, in: Wolfrum, R., ed., Enforcing Environmental Standards: Economic Mechanisms as Viable Means? (1996) p. 13 at pp. 26 et seq.Google Scholar

161. Protocol on the Reduction of Sulphur Emissions or their Transboundary Fluxes by at least 30 per cent, adopted in Helsinki, 8 July 1985, 27 ILM (1979) p. 707. On the negotiating history of the first Sulphur Emissions Protocol, see Gehring, T., Dynamic International Regimes. Institutions for International Environmental Governance (1994) pp. 153–156.Google Scholar

162. Adopted in Geneva, 13 November 1979, 18 ILM (1979) p. 1442. For the history and development of the Convention's regime see Gehring, op. cit. n. 161, at pp. 85–129, 131 et seq.

163. For this example, see Szell, loc. cit. n. 159, at pp. 97–98.

164. Adopted in Washington, 2 December 1946, 161 UNTS, p. 72. On the Convention see Lyster, S., International Wildlife Law (1985) pp. 17–38Google Scholar; Birnie, P., ‘International Legal Issues in the Management and Protection of the Whale: A Review of Four Decades of Experience’, 29 Natural Resources Journal (1989) pp. 903–934Google Scholar, and – as a comprehensive monographical study – Birnie, P., The International Regulation of Whaling (1985).Google Scholar

165. On the historical background see only S. Lyster, op. cit. n. 164, at pp. 17–18, and Rose, G. and Paleokrassis, G., ‘Compliance with International Environmental Obligations: A Case Study of the International Whaling Commission’, in Cameron, J. et al. , eds., Improving Compliance with International Environmental Law (1996) pp. 148–175 at pp. 149–150.Google Scholar

166. See Lyster, op. cit. n. 164, at p. 31; Rose and Paleokrassis, loc. cit. n. 165, at p. 164.

167. See only Rose and Paleokrassis, loc. cit. n. 165, at p. 164; Birme, P., 29 Natural Resources Journal (1989) at p. 928.Google Scholar

168. See only Rose and Paleokrassis, loc. cit. n. 165, at p. 164.

169. See Birnie, loc. cit. n. 167, at p. 927; Rose and Paleokrassis, loc. cit. n. 165, at pp. 164–165.

170. See Birnie, loc. cit. n. 167, at pp. 927–928; Rose and Paleokrassis, loc. cit. n. 165, at pp. 164–165.

171. Rose and Paleokrassis, loc. cit. n. 165, at p. 165.

172. The assessment of the successes and weaknesses of the ICRW's inspection scheme are rather diverging – see only Birnie, P., The International Regulation of Whaling (1985) pp. 703–704Google Scholar and Lyster, op. cit. n. 164, at p. 38, on the one hand, and Rose and Paleokrassis, loc. cit. n. 165, at p. 165, on the other hand.

173. See only Rose and Paleokrassis, loc. cit. n. 165, at p. 166.

174. For both examples, see Rose and Paleokrassis, idem.

175. See only Rose and Paleokrassis, loc.cit. n. 165, at pp. 167–168 (with further references).

176. Adopted in London, 12 May 1954, 327 UNTS 3.

177. For the system of the London Convention, see O'Connell, D.P., The International Law of the Sea, Vol. II (1984) pp. 1000–1003Google Scholar; Abecassis, D.W. and Jarashow, R.L., Oil Pollution from Ships, 2nd edn. (1985) pp. 22–59Google Scholar; M'Gonigle, R.M. and Zacher, M.W., Pollution, Politics and International Law (1979) pp. 85–106Google Scholar; Mitchell, R.B., From Paper to Practice: Improving Environ-mental Treaty Compliance (Ph.D. Thesis Harvard) (1992) pp. 132–146.Google Scholar

178. See only Birnie, P. and Boyle, A.E., International Law and the Environment (1992) at p. 266.Google Scholar

179. Adopted in London, 2 November 1973, 12 ILM (1973) p. 1319.

180. As to the regulatory approach of the MARPOL Convention, see O'Connell, op. cit. n. 177, at pp. 1003–1006; M'Gonigle and Zacher, op. cit. n. 177, at pp. 107–122; Mitchell, op. cit. n. 177, at pp. 146–162; Birnie and Boyle, op. cit. n. 178, at pp. 267–273.

181. For the inspection system under the MARPOL Convention, see Bimie and Boyle, op. cit. n. 178, at pp. 268–270; Churchill, R.R. and Lowe, A.V., The Law of the Sea (1983) at p. 224.Google Scholar

182. See Birnie and Boyle, op. cit. n. 178, at p. 269, but also the more sceptical assessment by Churchill and Lowe, op. cit. n. 181, at pp. 224–225.

183. Adopted in Paris, 26 January 1982, 21 ILM (1982) p. 1.

184. See only Birnie and Boyle, op. cit. n. 178, at p. 270.

185. Adopted in Washington, 1 December, 1959, 402 UNTS p. 71. On the system of the Antarctic Treaty see only the Handbook on the Antarctic Treaty System, 5th edn. (1987) as well as Wolfram, R., ed., The Antarctic Challenge, Vol. I (1984Google Scholar); Watts, A.D., International Law and the Antarctic Treaty System (1992)Google Scholar; and Francioni, F. and Scovazzi, T., eds., International Law for Antarctica / Droit international de l'Antarctique (1987)Google Scholar; see also – as a succinct survey – Wolfram, R. and Klemm, U.-D., ‘Antarctica’, in Bernhardt, R., ed., Encyclopedia of Public International Law, Vol. I (1992) pp. 173–182.Google Scholar

186. On the State of environmental protection under the Antarctic Treaty system see Blay, S.K.N., ‘New Trends in the Protection of the Antarctic Environment. The 1991 Madrid Protocol’, 86 AJIL (1992) pp. 377 et seq.CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Stoller, P.L., ‘Protecting the White Continent: Is the Antarctic Protocol Mere Words or Real Action?’, 12 Arizona JICL (1995) pp. 335–366Google Scholar; as well as the detailed monographical studies by Kämmerer, J.A., Die Antarktis in derRaum- und Umweltschutzordnung des Völkerrechts (1994)Google Scholar; Elliott, L. M., International Environmental Politics. Proteaing the Antaraic (1994)Google Scholar; and Pannatier, S., L'Antaraique et la proteaion Internationale de l'environnement (1994).Google Scholar

187. On the inspection system under the Antarctic Treaty system see Vinogradov, S., ‘Verification Machinery in the Antarctic Treaty System’, in: Butler, W.E., ed., Control over Compliance with International Law (1991) pp. 97–105 at pp. 98–100Google Scholar, but also Kämmerer, op. cit. n. 186, at pp. 283–285.

188. As a critical voice in that sense see Elliott, op. cit. n. 186, at pp. 79–80.

189. Adopted in Madrid, 4 October 1991, 30 ILM (1991) p. 1455. On the history and the substantial rules of the Madrid Protocol see only Blay, loc. cit. n. 186, pp. 377 et seq., and Pannatier, op. cit. n. 186, at pp. 157–185.

190. Vinogradov, loc. cit. n. 187, at p. 100.

191. For instance, see Elliott, op. cit. n. 186, at pp. 79–80.

192. Adopted in Ramsar, Iran, 2 February 1971, 11 ILM (1972) p. 963. On the Convention see Lyster, op. cit. n. 164, at pp. 183–207, and Birnie and Boyle, op. cit. n. 178, at pp. 465–468.

193. See Birnie and Boyle, op. cit. n. 178, at p. 468.

194. See also Marauhn, T., ‘Towards a Procedural Law of Compliance Control in International Environmental Relations’, 56 ZaöRV (1996) p. 696 at pp. 711–712.Google Scholar

195. Adopted in Washington, 6 March 1973, 12 ILM (1973) p. 1085. On CITES see Lyster, op. cit. n. 164, at pp. 239–277 and Birnie and Boyle, op. cit. n. 178, at pp. 475–480.

196. See only Marauhn, loc. cit. n. 194, at p. 712.

197. For this general assessment, see Birnie and Boyle, op. cit. n. 178, at p. 480.

198. EC Regulation 3626/82, OJ L 384, p. 1, and EC Regulation 3418/83, OJ L 344, p. 1.

199. On the implementation of CITES by the EC see Bendomir-Kahlo, G., CITES – Das Washingtoner Artenschutzübereinkommen. Regelung und Durchführung auf internationaler Ebene und in der Europäischen Gemeinschaft (1989) pp. 173–206.Google Scholar

200. EC Regulation 3322/88, OJ L 297, p. 1; EC Regulation 594/91, OI L 67, p. 1; Council Decision 91/690, OJ L 377, p. 28. On the EC legislation concerning the protection of the ozone layer, see in detail Mumelter, S., Der Schutz der Ozonschicht in der Europäischen Gemeinschaft und in Österreich, einschlieβlich des Internationalen Regimes zum Schutz der Ozonschicht (1993) at pp. 100–106.Google Scholar

201. Adopted in Montreal, 16 September 1987, 26 ILM (1987) p. 1550. On the negotiating history of the Montreal Protocol, see Benedick, R.E., Ozone Diplomacy (1991)Google Scholar and Gehring, op. cit. n. 161, at pp. 221–260.

202. See only Lang, W., ‘Compliance Control in Respect of the Montreal Protocol,’ ASIL Proc. (1995) pp. 206–210.Google Scholar

203. On the institutional framework of the Montreal Protocol see Lang, W., ‘Compliance Control in International Environmental Law: Institutional Necessities’, 56 ZaöRV (1996) p. 684 at pp. 689–690Google Scholar, and Szell, loc. cit. n. 159, at pp. 99–103.

204. For further analysis of the Montreal Protocol's non-compliance regime, see Koskenniemi, M., ‘Breach of Treaty or Non-Compliance? Reflections on the Enforcement of the Montreal Protocol’, 3 YIEL (1992) pp. 123, 162Google Scholar; Trask, J., ‘Montreal Protocol Non-Compliance Procedure: the Best Approach to Resolving International Environmental Disputes?’, 80 Georgetown LJ (1992) pp. 1973 et seq.Google Scholar

205. See supra n. 162.

206. Adopted in Geneva, 18 November 1991, 31 ILM (1992) p. 568. For the negotiating history, see Gehring, op. cit. n. 161, at pp. 173–181.

207. See Szell, loc. cit. n. 159, at pp. 103–104.

208. The Protocol was adopted in Oslo, 13 June 1994, Doc. EB./AIR/R. 84, but is not yet in force (at least as of 31 Dec. 1996). On the negotiating history and normative structure of the second Sulphur Emissions Protocol seeT. Gehring, op. cit. n. 161, at pp. 185–193, and Szell, loc. cit. n. 159, at pp. 104–106.

209. See Marauhn, loc. cit. n. 194, p. 711, as well as Chayes and Handler Chayes, op. cit. n. 10, p. 184, and also de Chazournes, L. Boisson, ‘La mise en oeuvre du droit international dans le domaine de la protection de l'environnement: enjeux et défis’, RGDIP (1995) p. 37 at p. 56 et seq‥Google Scholar

210. See only Szell, loc. cit. n. 159, at p. 107.

211. Cf., in that regard Beyerlin, U., ‘State Community Interests and Institution-Building in International Environmental Law’, 56 ZaöRV (1996) pp. 602–627.Google Scholar

212. See Chayes and Handler Chayes, op. cit. n. 10, p. 184.

213. Ibid., p. 188.

214. Ibid., p. 27.

215. Ibid.

216. van der Graaf, H.J., in Altmann, J. et al. , eds., Verification after the Cold War. Broadening the Process (1994) p. 3 at pp. 6–7.Google Scholar

217. See only Chayes and Handler Chayes, op. cit. n. 10, pp. 271–285.

218. For further elaboration on that point, see Chayes and Handler Chayes, op. cit. n. 10, pp. 191–192.