III. THE PRINCIPLE AT STAKE
In the face of extraordinary pressure, Mr. Bustani has steadfastly refused to resign. His determination is to be admired and is worthy of support. At stake is the multilateral nature of the machinery used for monitoring compliance with the Convention. The multilateral element is essential in order to ensure that the verification rules and procedures are applied equally to all member States with no preferential treatment. The office of Director General represents the Convention’s multilateral community. The US does not.
An important feature of the multilateral machinery is the arrangement whereby the Director General is required to make decisions on potentially sensitive issues, and in so doing, to exercise his judgement in a quasi-judicial manner. In such cases, he is obviously required to act independently and free of any undue influence.
One of the complaints lodged by the US seems to challenge this principle. By taking exception to “punitively-targeted industry inspections in five State Parties”, the complaint implies that the US itself was one of the States Parties involved. Assuming this to be the case, it is apparent that the US is complaining about a decision as to the Director General’s choice of inspection targets within US territory.
In the face of extraordinary pressure, Mr. Bustani has steadfastly refused to resign. His determination is to be admired and is worthy of support. At stake is the multilateral nature of the machinery used for monitoring compliance with the Convention. The multilateral element is essential in order to ensure that the verification rules and procedures are applied equally to all member States with no preferential treatment. The office of Director General represents the Convention’s multilateral community. The US does not.
An important feature of the multilateral machinery is the arrangement whereby the Director General is required to make decisions on potentially sensitive issues, and in so doing, to exercise his judgement in a quasi-judicial manner. In such cases, he is obviously required to act independently and free of any undue influence.
One of the complaints lodged by the US seems to challenge this principle. By taking exception to “punitively-targeted industry inspections in five State Parties”, the complaint implies that the US itself was one of the States Parties involved. Assuming this to be the case, it is apparent that the US is complaining about a decision as to the Director General’s choice of inspection targets within US territory.