This collection of essays focuses primarily on the function and complexity of the NNNs set up by a number of MEAS, but it also examines broader theoretical issues of compliance, such as the issue of sanctions, the link to dispute settlement, and the role of NGOs. This compendium discusses how to improve the compliance record of several MEAs without compromising the fragile political consensus that is emerging on environmental issues. Several case studies are being examined in depth. In this book, the author presents a comprehensive analysis of conformity theories. It begins with the philosophical bases of conformity, moves on to a typology of the different theories and ends this analysis with a study and a critical overview of the most remarkable theories of these theories. Compliance mechanisms are found in treaties that address issues as diverse as human rights, disarmament law and environmental law. This article focuses on the compliance mechanisms of multilateral environmental agreements (MEAS). Compliance with the norms of international environmental law, in particular those contained in THE MEAs, has been of interest from both a theoretical and practical point of view for many years. Compliance with MEEs is very different from compliance with national environmental legislation. With regard to compliance with the standards of environmental agreements, this article focuses on sovereign countries.
There are a number of theories that attempt to address the complex issues of the legal basis for compliance as well as the best methods to ensure them, from supporting techniques to mandatory techniques. Respect theory includes the debate on the functioning of the bodies created by THE MEAs (e.g. B Compliance Committees Conference of the Parties [COPs], Assembly of Parties [MOPS] or both). There are already a large number of compliance procedures related to different MEAs, such as. B in the 1987 Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer (see United Nations Environment Programme 2000, cited under the Montreal Protocol) and in the 1997 Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (see the United Nations in 1998, cited under the Kyoto Protocol). It should be taken into account that MEAs and non-compliance procedures do not exist in a normative vacuum. Conformity theories are related to general international law; as regards, for example, the issue of the use of counter-measures in the control of conformity and significant breaches of contract. Even non-binding standards can play a role in promoting compliance with MEA obligations. . .
.
