64
Evangelos Raftopoulos
Convening an open-ended meeting, with a specific mandate to discuss
only the new proposals, may substantially ease the management of this
difficult situation. Its outcome is a draft text that is inferior in force to
that produced by an Ad Hoc Meeting, thus requiring an adoption by a
subsequent Ad Hoc Meeting, but it nevertheless effectively contributes
to the understanding of the new proposals and to the determination of
whether they bear an “added value” importance.
REFERENCES
BROWN WEISS, E. (1995) “New Directions in International Environ-
mental Law”. United Nations Congress on Public International Law,
13-17 March, 1995. New York, New York, USA.
CHURCHILL, R. R. & UFSTEIN, G. (2000) “Autonomous Institutional Ar-
rangements in Multilateral Environmental Agreements : A Little-No-
ticed Phenomenon in International Law”.
AJIL
94:623-659.
FISHER, R., URY, W., & PATTON, B. (1991)
Getting to Yes: Negotiating
Agreement Without Giving In.
New York: Penguin Books.
GEHRING, T. (1990) “International Environmental Regimes: Dynamic
Sectoral Legal Systems”
YIEL
: 35, 50ff.
HOPMANN, P.T. (1996)
The Negotiation Process and the Resolution of Inter-
national Conflicts.
Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.
KUHN, T.S. (1977)
The Essential Tension - Selected Studies in Scientific Tra-
dition and Change.
The University of Chicago Press, Chicago and Lon-
don.
KUNDE, J. (1999) “Dealing with the Press”. In L. Susskind, S. McKear-
nan, and J. Thomas-Larmer, eds.
The Consensus Building Handbook: A
Comprehensive Guide to Reaching Agreement.
Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage
Publications.
MAP (2001) Report of the Working Group on National Reporting Obli-
gations within the Framework of the Legal Component of the Medi-
terranean Action Plan, UNEP(DEC)/MED WG. 179/4, 21 May 2001,
UNEP, Athens, Annex IV, sec. 19.
