Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T07:28:35.518Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A comparison of self-evaluating state reporting systems (II)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 November 2010

Elisabeth Kornblum
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Implementation of International Humanitarian Law
Information
International Review of the Red Cross (1961 - 1997) , Volume 35 , Issue 305 , April 1995 , pp. 137 - 161
Copyright
Copyright © International Committee of the Red Cross 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

34 U.N. Doc. UNIDIR/92/28, 1.

35 de Jonge Oudraat, C., “International Organizations and Verification”, in Verification of Disarmament or Limitations of Armaments: Instruments, Negotiations, Proposals, UNIDIR, 1992, 207–208 Google Scholar.

36 See note 35.

37 U.N. Doc. UNIDIR/92/28, 3.

38 See note 35.

39 Sipri Yearbook 1993, World Armaments and Disarmament, 606 ff.

40 See note 35.

41 Mautner-Markhof, F., in Kokoski, R. and Koulik, S. (eds.) Verification of Conventional Arms Control in Europe, Technological Constraints and Opportunities (1990), 251–261 Google Scholar.

42 T. Stock and J. Matousek, in R. Kokoski and S. Koulik (eds.) op. cit., 264 – 272.

43 Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal, adopted in Basel on 22 March 1989.

44 1980 Canberra Convention on Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR).

45 Article 218 of the Law of the Sea Convention.

46 See also: Kiss, A. and Shelton, D., International Environmental Law, 1991, 98–101 Google Scholar.

47 Article 13.

48 Gallagher, A., The “New” Montreal Protocol and the Future of International Law for Protection of the Global Environment, in Houston Journal of International Law, Volume 14, Winter 1992, No. 2, 337 Google Scholar.

49 Birnie, P.W., Boyle, A.E., International Law and the Environment, 1992, 166–167 Google Scholar.

50 This problem is partly overcome in the OECD system, where policy decisions are taken at ministerial level.

51 See note 48.

52 See note 48.

53 A/47/628, annex, para. 20, in E/CN.4/1994/101, pp. 2, 3.

54 This point is also put forward by F. Hampson, “Monitoring and Enforcement Mechanisms in the Human Rights Field”, in Expert Meeting on Certain Weapon Systems and on Implementation Mechanisms in International Law, Geneva 30 May -1 June 1994, ICRC Report, July 1994, p. 128. But she warns that certain States are believed to attempt to influence “their” independent experts or put only senior government officials forward as candidates.

55 States do not usually complain of the non-compliance of another State.

56 E/CN.4/1994/101, p. 2.

57 See note 56.

58 See note 56; the ILO system is computerized; revision is under consideration.

59 See note 54.