Many multilateral environmental treaties have established committees that monitor compliance and/or facilitate implementation. These committees can be triggered in a number of ways, e.g., when a State party seizes the committee concerning another State party’s compliance or implementation. This type of trigger resembles the most traditional judicial proceedings, as it opposes two States, and has the potential to lead to decisions of non-compliance. It is perceived to be more confrontational than facilitative. State-to-State triggers therefore sit in between judicial and non-judicial procedures, and between facilitation on the one hand and enforcement on the other. State-to-State triggers have only been used a handful of times. This chapter explores why such triggers have been sparsely used. It first explains how State-to-State triggers were established and describes the instacnes in which they have been used. It then identifies and discusses two main challenges faced by State-to-State triggers: challenges related to the perception and behaviour of States vis-à-vis such triggers, and challenges related to institutional design and procedural mechanisms of State-to-State procedures.

Chapter 9 focuses on parties’ attempts to set aside or vacate an award. Courts rarely overturn an arbitral award, which is considered to be final and binding. However, parties can challenge an award on jurisdictional grounds or other grounds such as arbitrator misconduct, bias or public policy. If the award was vacated because the court held that the arbitration agreement itself was invalid, the prevailing party may be able to initiate a court action on the same issue. The chapter concludes that the reason it is not easy to vacate an arbitral award is not only because the grounds for setting aside are very narrow, but also there is a judicial resistance to second-guessing an arbitral tribunal that has rendered a final and binding award. Without substantial evidence of some flaw in the arbitral process or in the conduct of the arbitrator, it would be wise for counsel not to waste clients’ resources on challenging the arbitral award.