1. Washington, 4 Apr. 1949, 34 U.N.T.S. 243 (hereafter referred to as the Washington Treaty).Google Scholar

2. The NATO–Russia Founding Act signed on 27 May 1997 is the subject of a separate article in this issue of the Quarterly and is not dealt with in the present article.

3. Text in documentation supplement to 45 NATO Review, No.4,1997; also available through the NATO web-site at: http://www.nato.int//. The NATO web-site is extensive and holds the text of the 1995 published edition of the NATO Handbook with updates along with the texts of all the communiqués cited in this article.

4. London Declaration on a Transformed North Atlantic Alliance, 5/6 07 1990Google Scholar: text in 38 NATO Review, No.4, 1990, p.32, esp. paras.1–7.Google Scholar

5. Preamble to the North Atlantic Treaty.

6. Art.2 states: “The Parties will contribute toward the further development of peaceful friendly international relations by strengthening their free institutions, by bringing about a better understanding of the principles upon which these institutions are founded, and by promoting conditions of stability and well being. They will seek to eliminate conflict in their international economic policies and will encourage economic collaboration between any or all of them.”

7. Rome Declaration on Peace and Co-operation issued by the Heads of State and Government participating in the meeting of the NAC, 7–8 Nov. 1991: 39 NATO Review, No.6. 1991, p.19.Google Scholar The Alliance's New Strategic Concept appears idem, p.28.

8. Dissolution of the Soviet Union took place on 21 Dec 1991.

9. In addition, Austria, Finland, Sweden and Switzerland attended meetings of the NACC as observers.

10. Text in 40 NATO Review, No.2, 1992, p.34.Google Scholar

11. Text in 41 NATO Review, No.6, 1993, p.30. An annex to the work plan contains a list of specific items subsumed under the general topics referred to in the text above, of particular interest to one or several partners of allies; e.g. within the general heading of political and security related matters are listed “issues arising from minorities and ethnic problems affecting regional security”.Google Scholar

12. Weaver, “NACC's Five Years of Strengthening Co-operation”, 45 NATO Review, No 3, 1997, p.24 at p.25.Google Scholar

13. See Woodliffe, , “The Stationing of Foreign Armed Forces Abroad in Peacetime” (1994) 43 I.C.L.Q. 443–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

14. Text in 41 NATO Review, No.6, 1993. p.27Google Scholar; further areas of study by the ad hoc group on peacekeeping were set out in Annex II to the 1996/97 work plan issued on 5 Dec. 1995:44 NATO Review, No.1, 1996, 28 at p.30.Google Scholar

15. Until Dec. 1994 known as the Conference for Security and Co-operation in Europe (CSCE).

16. Tenth Report of the Select Committee on Defence: The Future of NATO–The 1994 Summit and its Consequences, Session (1994–1995) 19 July 1995, HCP 747, para.23.Google Scholar

17. Text in 42 NATO Review, No.1. 1994, p.28.Google Scholar

18. Idem, p.29.

19. The statement of principles is essentially an updated version of those found in the UN General Assembly Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the UN Charter Res.2625(XXV), 24 Oct 1970.

20. Supra n.17, at p.29.Google Scholar

21. See Von Moltke, , “Building a Partnership for Peace”, 42 NATO Review, No.3, 1994, P.3.Google Scholar

22. Supra n.12, at p.26.Google Scholar

23. Framework document, supra n.17, at para.8.

24. Albania, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, Georgia, Hungary, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden, Turkmenistan, Ukraine.

25. The later signatories are Armenia, Austria, Belarus, Malta, Russia, Switzerland, Uzbekistan.

26. Russia's IPP was signed on 31 May 1995; for an outline of its provisions, see Tenth Report, supra n.16, at para.28.

27. The work of the PCC requires the release of information of PFP partners, previously given a NATO security classification: see Lange, “The PCC—A New Player in the Development of Relations between NATO and Partner Nations”, 43 NATO Review, No.3, 1995, p.30.Google Scholar

28. Tenth Report, supra n.16, at para.26.

29. Ibid.

30. Op. cit. supra n.3, at para.10.

31. Final communiqué para.2 Text in Documentation Supplement to 45 NATO Review, No.4, 1997, p.12.Google Scholar

32. Misc. No.2, 1996, Cm 3137. The Agreement entered into force on 28 Mar. 1997.

33. Defined in Art.1 as a State that (a) is not a party to the 1949 Washington Treaty (b) has subscribed to the PFP Framework Document and (c) is a member State of the NACC or is any other State invited by the NAC to establish a mission to the organisation.

34. Art.2(a).

35. Art.2(b).

36. See 43 NATO Review, No.4, 1995, pp.8, 13.Google Scholar

37. Agreement among the States Partners to the North Atlantic Treaty and the other States Participating in the Partnership for Peace regarding the Status of their Forces, Cm 3237, Misc No.112 (1996). The text of the Additional Protocol to the Agreement signed on 19 June 1995, has not been published in the UK. The Protocol entered into force on 1 June 1996: see (1996) 35 I.L.M. 1045.Google Scholar

38. Agreement between the Parties to the North Atlantic Treaty regarding the Status of their Forces 12 June 1951, TS. No.3 (1996) Cmd 9363, Art.I.Google Scholar

39. Art.II.

40. Preamble, para.4.

41. The US concluded agreements with Estonia and Lithuania in July 1995, that treated the 1993 SOFA as binding and as temporarily in force: (1996) 35 I.L.M. 262.Google Scholar

42. See Basic Document of the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council issued at Sintra, Portugal, 30 May 1997; text in Documentation Supplement to 45 NATO Review, No.4, 1997, p.11.Google Scholar

43. Membership of the EAPC is open to all OSCE States able and willing to accept the principles of the EAPC.

44. Supra nn.10 and 14.

45. Madrid Declaration, supra n.3, at para.9; Basic Document, supra n.32, at paras. 4, 5.

46. Bask Document, Idem, para.11.

47. Idem, para.7.

48. Note the reaffirmation of the right of each and every State to be free to choose or change its security arrangements in para.7 of the Lisbon Declaration on a Common and Comprehensive Security Model for Europe for the Twenty-First Century (1997) 36 I.L.M. 486.Google Scholar

49. Para. 12. Text in 42 NATO Review, No.1, 1994, p.30.Google Scholar

50. The Study can be found on the NATO web-site at http://www.nato.int/docu/basictxt/enl–9501.htm.

51. Idem, paras.5.43, 5.45.Contra. Tenth Report, supra n.16, at para.60. The report suggests that in the light of French and Spanish non-participation in IMS, Parliament might not favour accession of new members on terms that excluded participation in the IMS, ibid.

52. Study, idem, paras.55, 56. Cf. Tenth Report, idem, para.61, which considers that a new member State should not exclude in principle the peacetime stationing of other NATO States' forces on its territory.

53. See Protocol to the North Atlantic Treaty on the Accession of Greece and Turkey, London, 22 Oct. 1951. This added “the territory of Turkey” to the areas in Art.6 of the Washington Treaty that are covered by the collective defence undertaking in Art.5.

54. Protocol to the North Atlantic Treaty on the Accession of the Federal Republic of Germany, Paris, 23 10. 1954, Cmnd 658.Google Scholar

55. T.S. No.39 (1955) Cmd 9498.

56. Protocol to the North Atlantic Treaty on the Accession of Spain, Brussels, 10 Dec 1981. Spain remained outside the IMS; however, at the Madrid summit Spain announced its readiness to participate fully in the Alliance's new command structure, once it is agreed: 45 NATO Review, No.4, 1997, p.35.Google Scholar

57. Supra n.50, at para.79.

58. Supra no.16, at para.55.

59. Supra n.3, at para.5.

60. Pursuant to Art.10 of the Washington Treaty: “The Parties may by unanimous agreement, invite any other European State in a position to further the principles of this Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area to accede to this Treaty.”

61. Madrid Declaration, supra n.3. at para.6.

62. Study, supra n.50, at paras.70, 81; the acquis includes all summit declarations and NAC ministerial decisions as well as the NATO-SOFA Agreement 1951 and the Agreement on the Status of NATO, National Representatives and International Staff 1951.

63. Para.7.

64. “Bigger NATO to Be limited by Budgets”, Financial Times, 15 Oct. 1997.Google Scholar

65. “Senate Fires Salvo at NATO Agreement”, Financial Times, 10 July 1997. The House of Commons Defence Committee observed: “would Western public opinion be prepared to see its soldiers die for Vilnius or Krakow as it was for Berlin?” Tenth Report, supra n.16, at para.44.

66. “NATO's Chosen Recruits Prove Unfit for Service”, Guardian, 7 July 1997.

67. Tenth Report, supra n.16, at para.55.

68. Para.8. The Declaration singles out Romania and Slovenia as aspiring members that have demonstrated “positive developments towards democracy and the rule of law”.

69. Boutros-Ghali, Boutros, An Agenda for Peace, (1995), p.8.Google Scholar

70. See Freedman, “Bosnia: Does Peace Support Make any Sense?” 43 NATO Review, No.6, 1995, p.19.Google Scholar

71. See communiqué issued by ministerial meeting of the NAC, 17 12. 1992, para.4:40 NATO Review, No.6, 1992, p.28.Google Scholar

72. Freedman, , op. cit. supra n.70, at p.21.Google Scholar

73. Adopted on 21 Feb. 1992: text in (1992) 31 I.L.M. 1447.Google Scholar

74. See Resolutions 749, 752, 758, 761, 764, 769, 776, 779, 786: text in (1992) 31 I.L.M. 1449; 819Google Scholar: text in (1993) 32 I.L.M. 931.Google Scholar

75. 4 June 1993.

76. (1996) 35 I.L.M. 75; the initialling of the agreement took place on 21 Nov. 1995 at the Wright-Patterson airforce base near Dayton, Ohio.Google Scholar

77. (1996) 35 I.L.M. 92.Google Scholar

78. Namely, the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Republika Srpska.

79. Art.2.

80. Art.1. Art.VI sets out the force's rules of engagement in considerable detail.

81. Art.1.1(a).

82. Art.1.1(b).

83. Ibid.

84. See Ssasz, , Introductory note (1996), 35 I.L.M. 75, 78Google Scholar; Report of the Secretary General on the transition from UNPROFOR to IFOR pursuant to Security Council Resolution 1026 (1995) (1996), 35 I.L.M. 235.Google Scholar The requisite authorisations were granted by Res.1031 of the UN Security Council adopted on 15 Dec 1995: idem, p.251; and by the NAC see statement on Bosnia-Herzegovina issued by Joint Meeting of Allied Foreign and Defence Ministers on 5 12 1995: 44 NATO Review, No.1, 1996, p.9.Google Scholar

85. Res.1031, idem, para.24. The status of forces agreements are set out in App.B to Annex 1–A of the Peace Agreement. They are discussed briefly in the text infra.

86. Idem, para.19.

87. Report of the Secretary General, supra n.84, at p.239.Google Scholar

88. Res.1031, para.25.

89. Idem, para.33.

90. Eighteen non-NATO Slates contributed to IFOR, 14 of which are partners in the PFP; the other States are Egypt, Jordan, Malaysia and Morocco.

91. Joulwan, , “SHAPE and IFOR: Adapting NATO to the Needs of Tomorrow”, 44 NATO Review, No.2, 1996, p.6 at p.8.Google Scholar

92. GFA, Art.VI.

93. Idem, Art.VI.9(a).

94. (1996) 35 I.L.M. 102, 104.Google Scholar

95. 1 U.N.T.S. 15.

96. Supra n.94, at para.2.

97. 199 U.N.T.S. 67.

98. Supra n.94, at para.7.

99. Idem, para.21.

100. Schulte, “Bringing Peace to Bosnia and Change to the Alliance”, 45 NATO Review No.2, 1997, p.22 at p.23. Responsibilities for the civil implementation of the GFA were spread among the OSCE and several UN bodies, such as the UN Police Task Force, which remains under UN control.Google Scholar

101. Held in London on 4 and 5 Dec 1996.

102. Meeting of 10 Dec 1996, 45 NATO Review, No.1, 1997, p.35.Google Scholar

103. Ibid.

104. 12 Dec. 1996.

105. See GFA Art.IX; AMAPS, Art.X.

106. Para.7. This did not appear in the corresponding para.5 of SC Res. 1031 establishing IFOR.

107. Supra n.102.

108. NAC Ministerial Council statement, 14 02. 1996: 44 NATO Review, No.2, 1996, p.9.Google Scholar

109. SFOR Press Information Centre release. On the same day, another indicted war criminal, Drljaca, was killed after an exchange of fire with SFOR soldiers.

110. Namely OSCE, EU, WEU, PFP, NACC, Council of Europe, UN; Fourth Report of the Defence Committee on the Western European Union (Session 1995–1996) HCP 105, para.2.Google Scholar

111. Madrid Declaration, Supra n.3, at para.1.

112. Fourth Report, supra n.110, at para.12.

113. The Maastricht Treaty on European Union 1991 provides for the definition and implementation of the Union's common foreign and security policy (CFSP) to embrace “all questions related to the security of the Union, including the eventual framing of a common defence policy, which might in time lead to a common defence”: Art.J.4.1. The absence of any definitive timetable for implementation points up the contingent nature of Art.J.4.1. The Treaty of Amsterdam 1997 has not brought the goal any nearer, retaining the substance of the language in the Maastricht Treaty. Art.J.7.1.

114. See the Declaration on the role of WEU and its relations with the EU and the Atlantic Alliance adopted by WEU member States at the Maastricht Summit, 9/10 Dec 1991.

115. T.S. No.1 (1949) Cmd 7599. The full title was the Treaty of Economic Social and Cultural Collaboration and Collective Self-Defence.

116. Belgium, France, Luxembourg, Netherlands, UK.

117. Art.V.

118. Para.16, Memorandum on the Western European Union submitted by the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, 10 Oct 1995, to the Defence Committee: Fourth Report, supra n.110.

119. See Western European Union History, Structure, Prospects (WEU Press and Information Service, Brussels, 1993). The view in the text has been omitted from the most recent WEU official handbook: WEU Today (WEU Secretariat-General, 1997).

120. Fourth Report, supra n.110, at para. 10. This situation will remain so long as NATO membership continues to be a prerequisite of WEU membership: para.11.

121. By the Paris Agreement, 23 Oct. 1954, Cmnd. 9304.

122. See the Rome Declaration, 26–27 10 1984: the Hague Platform. 27 10 1987Google Scholar: WEU Today, supra n. 119, at pp.45et seq.Google Scholar

123. Idem, Annex 1.

124. Operation Sharp Guard in the Adriatic, pursuant to UN SC Res.820, maintaining the embargo against the former Yugoslavia in the Adriatic: the second operation involved police and customs enforcement of UN sanctions on the Danube; the final operation was the contribution of a WEU police contingent to the EU Administration of Mostar in Bosnia-Herzegovina: see WEU Today, supra n.110, at Part II.

125. Issued by the WEU Council of Ministers, Bonn, 19 June 1992.

126. The second WEU Declaration at Maastricht on 10 Dec 1991 invited EU States to accede to the WEU on conditions to be agreed or to become observers; similarly, non-members of the EU that are European member States of NATO were invited to become associate members of the WEU.

127. The status of associate partner was created at the meeting of the WEU Council of Ministers in Kirchberg, 9 May 1994. States in this category are Bulgaria, Czech Republic Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania. Slovakia and Slovenia. Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic are now prospective members of NATO; see above.

128. Tenth Report, supra n.16, at para.11.

129. These forces are known collectively as Forces Answerable to WEU (FAWEU): WEU Today, supra n.119, at p.11.Google Scholar

130. Supra n.17, at para. 3.

131. Idem, para 4.

132. Idem, para.5.

133. Ibid.

134. Idem, para.6.

135. Ministerial meeting of the NAC, Berlin, 6 06 1996, 44 NATO Review, No.4, 1996 p.30.Google Scholar

136. See résumé in idem, p.10. The agreement has not been published.

137. See WEU Today, supra n. 119, at pp.15–17Google Scholar; WEU Council of Ministers; Paris Declaration, 13 05 1997, p.4; Madrid Declaration, 8 July 1997, para.18.Google Scholar

138. Barroso, “The Transatlantic Partnership in the New European Security Context”, 43 NATO Review, No.5, 1995, p.3 at p.5.Google Scholar

139. America and Europe: The Future of NATO and the Transatlantic Relationship, Final Report of the North Atlantic Assembly Presidential Task Force, Brussels, 1993, p.32.Google Scholar

140. See Vito, De, An Introduction to the OSCE, Berne. 05 1996.This document can be accessed at http://www.osce–vae.htm.Google Scholar

141. Madrid Declaration, Supra n.3, at para.21.

142. Op. cit. supra n.139, at p.33.Google Scholar See, however, the “temporary and limited multinational force” in Albania set up and co-ordinated by the OSCE under the authority of the mandate created by SC Res.1101 (1997) adopted on 28 Mar. 1997. The tasks of the force are to facilitate the safe and prompt delivery of humanitarian assistance and to help create a secure environment for missions of international organisations in Albania.

143. See, however, the Treaty on Open Skies, 24 Mar. 1992: the Convention on Conciliation and Arbitration Procedures, Oct. 1992.

144. See the Treaty of Amsterdam, 2 Oct. 1997; Memorandum on the UK government's approach to the treatment of European defence issues at the 1996 Inter-Governmental Conference: FCO Information Department and Security Policy Department, Oct 1995.

145. Letter, “Building a New NATO for a New Europe”. 45 NATO Review, No.4, 1997, p.8.Google Scholar

146. Højberg, “The European Security Structure: A Plethora of Organisations?” 43 NATO Review, No.6, 1995, p.30 at p.35.Google Scholar

147. Ibid.