Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Journals
  3. American Journal of International Law
  4. Volume 94 Issue 4
Journal Home
Refine listing

Refine listing

Access:
Publication date:

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×
< Back to all issues

Volume 94 - Issue 4 - October 2000

Contents

Page 1 of 3

Research Article

  • Autonomous Institutional Arrangements in Multilateral Environmental Agreements: A Little-Noticed Phenomenon in International Law

  • Robin R. Churchill, Geir Ulfstein
  • Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    27 February 2017, pp. 623-659

  • Since the early 1970s a considerable number of multilateral agreements have been concluded in the environmental field that establish a common pattern of institutional arrangements. The purpose of these arrangements is to develop the normative content of the regulatory regime established by each agreement1 and to supervise the states parties’ implementation of and compliance with that regime. These institutional arrangements usually comprise a conference or meeting of the parties (COP, MOP) with decision-making powers, a secretariat, and one or more specialist subsidiary bodies. Such arrangements, because of their ad hoc nature, are not intergovernmental organizations (IGOs) in the traditional sense. On the other hand, as the creatures of treaties, such conferences and meetings of the parties, with their secretariats and subsidiary bodies, add up to more than just diplomatic conferences. Because such arrangements do not constitute traditional IGOs and yet are freestanding and distinct both from the states parties to a particular agreement and from existing IGOs, we have chosen to describe them as “autonomous.” They are also autonomous in the sense that they have their own lawmaking powers and compliance mechanisms.

Notes and Comments

State Representation

Contemporary Practice of the United States Relating to International Law

Law of the Sea and International Waterways

Contemporary Practice of the United States Relating to International Law

State Responsibility for Injury to Aliens

Contemporary Practice of the United States Relating to International Law

Human Rights

Contemporary Practice of the United States Relating to International Law

International Criminal Law

Contemporary Practice of the United States Relating to International Law

International Economic Law

Contemporary Practice of the United States Relating to International Law

Environmental, Science, and Health Affairs

Contemporary Practice of the United States Relating to International Law

Peaceful Settlement of Disputes

Contemporary Practice of the United States Relating to International Law

Page 1 of 3