The Protocol on Inspection (the Protocol) consists of a Preamble and 13 sections.

Pursuant to Article XIV of the Treaty, the Protocol provides detailed procedures to implement the Treaty's on-site inspection regime. These extensive and intrusive on-site inspection procedures will work in conjunction with national technical means of verification, employed in accordance with Article XV, and with the information exchanges required by Article XIII to help provide effective verification of compliance with the provisions of the Treaty.

The Protocol provides for four basic types of on-site inspection that may be conducted within the area of application: (1) declared site inspections; (2) challenge inspections; (3) certification inspections; and (4) reduction inspections.

The Preamble provides that the States Parties have agreed upon procedures and other provisions governing the inspections provided for in Article XIV of the Treaty.

Section I sets forth definitions for 27 terms that are used primarily in the Protocol. Since the Protocol is an integral part of the Treaty, the definitions set forth in Section I apply to the entire Treaty. Similarly, the 25 definitions set forth in paragraph 1 of Article II of the Treaty also apply to the Protocol.

The following terms are defined in Section I of the Protocol: (A) inspected State Party; (B) stationing State Party; (C) host State Party; (D) inspecting State Party; (E) inspector; (F) transport crew member; (G) inspection team; (H) escort team; (I) inspection site; (J) object of verification; (K) military airfield; (L) military training establishment; (M) military storage site; (N) declared site; (0) specified area; (P) sensitive point; (Q) point of entry/exit; (R) in-country period; (S) baseline validation period; (T) reduction period; (U) residual level validation period; (V) residual period; (W) passive declared site inspection quota; (X) passive challenge inspection quota; (Y) active inspection quota; (Z) certification site; and (AA) calendar reporting period.

Subparagraph (A) of Section I defines the term "inspected State Party" as a State Party on whose territory an inspection is conducted. Since inspections may be conducted only within the area of application, and the United States has no territory within the area of application, the United States is never an inspected State Party; rather, it is a stationing State Party. The same situation pertains to Canada. When other States Parties have conventional armaments and equipment stationed within the area of application outside of their national territory, they also are considered to be stationing States Parties. However, during inspections, the United States has the other stationing States Parties exercise the rights and obligations of an inspected State Party under certain circumstances in accordance with sub-subparagraphs (1) and (2) of subparagraph (A), as well as paragraphs 3 and 4 of Section II and paragraph 7 of Section VIII of the Protocol.

Sub-subparagraph (1) of subparagraph (A) addresses the case of inspection sites at which the only conventional armaments and equipment limited by the Treaty that are present are those belonging to a stationing State Party. In such cases, the stationing State Party exercises the rights and obligations of the inspected State Party for the duration of the inspection within that inspection site.

Sub-subparagraph (1) permits the United States, as a stationing State Party, to exercise the rights and obligations of the inspected State Party at those inspection sites where its conventional armaments and equipment limited by the Treaty are located. Thus, it does not grant the United States any rights with respect to inspection sites at which the only conventional armaments and equipment are, for example, U.S. armored personnel carrier look-alikes (which are subject to but not numerically limited by the Treaty). However, the rights of the United States in these other cases are addressed in paragraph 4 of Section II of the Protocol.

Sub-subparagraph (2) of subparagraph (A) addresses the case of inspection sites at which there are conventional armaments and equipment limited by the Treaty belonging to more than one State Party. In such cases, the stationing State Party exercises the rights and obligations of the inspected State Party only with respect to its own conventional armaments and equipment limited by the Treaty.

In this context, a declared site with conventional armaments and equipment limited by the Treaty belonging to more than one State Party will often contain more than one object of verification. This is because units, formations or sites belonging to different States Parties are separate objects of verification. Since each object of verification may be part of a separate inspection, such "Mixed" sites may actually consist of separate inspection sites, each of which contains conventional armaments and equipment of only one State Party. In such cases, sub-subparagraph (2) would not apply. However, such "mixed" sites may very well have common areas (i.e., areas that do not belong exclusively to any object of verification but which are still part of the inspection site), in which case sub-subparagraph (2) may apply. Sub-subparagraph (2) would also apply if conventional armaments and equipment limited by the Treaty belonging to a stationing State Party were temporarily present at another State Party's object of verification (e.g., for training purposes at another State Party's military training establishment). Finally, while at present units and formations are strictly national entities, military training establishments, military airfields, storage sites, and reduction sites, for example, could be multilateral, and multinational units or formations may eventually be formed by some of the States Parties.

Subparagraph (E) of Section I defines the term "inspector" as an individual designated by a State Party to carry out an inspection. To be eligible for carrying out an inspection, an inspector must be included on a State party's accepted list of inspectors in accordance with Section III of the Protocol. As long as an inspector is on such a list, he or she is eligible to participate on any State Party's inspection team, not just a team headed by the State Party that included that inspector on its list.

Subparagraph (F) of Section I defines the term "transport crew member" as an individual who performs duties related to the operation of a transportation means (e.g., aircraft or ground vehicle). To be eligible for inclusion in a transport crew, an individual must be included on a State Party's accepted list of transport crew members in accordance with Section III of the Protocol.

Subparagraph (G) of Section I defines the term "inspection team" as a group of inspectors designated by the inspecting State Party to conduct a particular inspection. Transport crew members are not part of the inspection team.

Subparagraph (H) of Section I defines the term "escort team" as a group of individuals assigned by an inspected State Party (i.e., the State Party on whose territory an inspection takes place) to accompany and assist inspectors. Subparagraph (H) further provides that in the case of inspection of a stationing State Party's conventional armaments and equipment limited by the Treaty, the escort team must include individuals assigned by both the host and stationing States Parties, unless otherwise agreed between them.

Thus, during inspection of an inspection site at which the United States, as a stationing State Party, has conventional armaments and equipment limited by the Treaty, the United States has the right to assign its own representatives to the escort team. Note that this right is not granted by subparagraph (H) in cases in which the U.S. equipment being inspected is not limited by the Treaty. In such cases, the U.S. is provided the right to have individuals on the escort team by paragraph 5 of Section II. The Protocol does not specify a limit on the number of individuals that may constitute an escort team. The phrase "unless otherwise agreed between them" avoids an obligation on the part of the host State Party always to accompany stationing State Party escorts during inspection of a stationing State Party's forces.

Subparagraph (I) of Section I defines the term "inspection site" as an area, location or facility where an inspection is carried out. Note that an inspection site is where one inspection is carried out. Therefore, a declared site with more than one object of verification could have more than one inspection site. Moreover, an inspection site could include territory on more than one declared site.

Subparagraph (J) of Section I defines the term "object of verification." This term is crucial for determining what is a declared site, and for calculating inspection quotas. To qualify as an object of verification, a formation, unit or site must satisfy the criteria in sub-subparagraph (1), (2), (3), or (4) below.

Sub-subparagraph (1) of subparagraph (J) provides that a formation or unit at the level of brigade/regiment, wing/air regiment or equivalent, or any independent or separately located battalion/ squadron or equivalent, constitutes an object of verification if it satisfies two criteria:

Second, the criteria also exclude formations/units that are not part of a State Party's land, air, or air defense aviation forces and that are notified pursuant to paragraph 2 of Section III of the Protocol on Information Exchange. In practice, this means that while Treaty-limited armaments and equipment held, for example, in naval infantry forces are counted against the Treaty's numerical limitations pursuant to the main counting rule in Article III of the Treaty, such forces 'would not be objects of verification and thus would not be subject to declared site inspections. Of course, such forces will still be subject to challenge inspections in accordance with Section VIII of the Protocol.

Third, formations/units above the brigade/regiment/wing level, or below the battalion/squadron level, are also excluded by the two criteria set forth in sub-subparagraph (1) of subparagraph (J). However, such formations/units could be captured in certain circumstances specified in sub-subparagraphs (3) or (4) of subparagraph (J). Also, other provisions in the Treaty do provide accountability for such formations/units and their equipment (e.g., Sections I and III of the Protocol on Information Exchange and paragraph 16 of Section VII of the Protocol).

A separately located battalion/squadron or equivalent level unit also constitutes a separate object of verification if it satisfies the two criteria set forth in sub-subparagraph (1) of subparagraph (J). However, in accordance with subparagraph 1(B) of Section V of the Protocol on Information Exchange, battalions subordinate to a brigade/regiment that are within 15 kilometers of each other or their brigade/regiment headquarters may, at the discretion of the State Party to which that battalion belongs, be deemed to be not separately located from their brigade/regiment.

Sub-subparagraph (2) of subparagraph (J) of Section I provides that five other categories of facilities are objects of verification:

Sub-subparagraph (3) of Subparagraph (J) provides that reduction sites are objects of verification. Such sites are notified pursuant to subparagraph (C) of paragraph 3 of Section III of the Protocol on Information Exchange. The term "reduction site" is defined in subparagraph l(T) of Article II of the Treaty. That term includes conversion sites, but excludes certification sites (for further details see, e.g., discussion of paragraph 6 of Section IV in Article-by-Article Analysis of the Protocol on Aircraft Reclassification).

Sub-subparagraph (4) of subparagraph (J) of Section I provides that a formation or unit above the brigade/regiment level (e.g., a division) is an object of verification if:

Sub-subparagraph (5) of subparagraph (J) of Section I provides that formations or units holding conventional armaments and equipment subject to the Treaty, but not in service with the conventional armed forces of a State Party, will not be considered objects of verification. The definition of "in service," set forth in subparagraph l(R) of Article II of the Treaty, makes clear that armaments and equipment are considered to be in service with the conventional armed forces, unless they belong to internal security organizations or meet any of the exceptions set forth in the main counting rule in Article III (e.g., the "transit" or "decommissioning" exceptions). Sub-subparagraph (5) does not exclude from the object of verification definition any of the formations, units or sites captured under sub-subparagraphs (1) through (4) above.

Subparagraph (K) of Section I defines the term "military airfield" as a permanent military complex, not otherwise containing an object of verification, at which the frequent operation of at least six combat aircraft or combat helicopters limited by the Treaty or subject to internal inspection is routinely performed. This definition is specifically designed to capture airfields that are distinctly related to combat aircraft or combat helicopters and to exclude civilian airfields that are only occasionally used by the military or other military airfields that are not routinely used by at least six combat aircraft or combat helicopters as described above. It also is intended to be used when providing notifications on military airfields in accordance with paragraph 3 of Section II of the Protocol on Information Exchange.

To avoid double-counting objects of verification, the phrase "not otherwise containing an object of verification" in subparagraph (K) excludes facilities containing those formations and units already covered under the object of verification definition in subparagraph (J). The phrase "launch and recovery" clarifies what is meant by the term "operation." The phrase "limited by the Treaty or subject to internal inspection" modifies both combat aircraft and combat helicopters. The phrase "subject to internal inspection" refers to reclassified combat-capable trainer aircraft (i.e., unarmed trainer aircraft) and recategorized multipurpose attack helicopters (i.e., combat support helicopters), the interiors of which may be inspected in accordance with the provisions of paragraphs 30 and 31 of Section II of the Protocol. The phrases "frequent operation" and "routinely performed" are not further defined.

Subparagraph (L) of Section I defines the term "military training establishment" as a facility, not otherwise containing an object of verification, at which a military unit or submit using at least 30 conventional armaments and equipment limited by the Treaty, or more than 12 of any single category of conventional armaments and equipment limited by the Treaty, is organized to train military personnel. As in the case of the definition of the term "military airfield," the definition of military training establishment is specifically designed to exclude schools at which only a few Treaty-limited armaments and equipment are present for instructional purposes.

The phrase "not otherwise containing an object of verification" in subparagraph (L) excludes facilities containing those formations and units already covered under the object of verification definition in subparagraph (J). The construction "a facility . . . at which a military unit . . . is organized to train" is intended to cover facilities, other than local training areas or local firing ranges, at which military units with conventional armaments and equipment limited by the Treaty routinely conduct training, even if those units are based elsewhere. Note that the definition of the term "military training establishment," unlike the definition of the term "military airfield," does not specify that the facility in question must be permanent.

Subparagraph (M) of Section I defines the term "military storage site not organic to formations and units identified as objects of verification" as any storage site, other than a designated permanent storage site or a site subordinate to organizations designed and structured for internal security purposes, that holds conventional armaments and equipment limited by the Treaty, regardless of its organizational or operational status. In this context, the term "military storage site" is understood to include any storage site holding conventional armaments and equipment limited by the Treaty, with the following three exceptions:

Subparagraph (M) of Section I also provides that Treaty-limited armaments and equipment contained in such military storage sites must be counted as being in active units for purposes of the numerical limitations set forth in Articles IV and V of the Treaty. This position is consistent with the counting rule on Treaty-limited armaments and equipment located in designated permanent storage sites set forth in paragraph 4 of Article X of the Treaty.

Subparagraph (N) of Section I defines the term "declared site" as a facility or precisely delineated geographic location that contains one or more objects of verification. The phrase "one or more objects of verification" makes clear that a portion of an object of verification located separately from the rest of that object of verification (e.g., a separately located company subordinate to a brigade) is not by itself a declared site. However, in accordance with Section VII of the Protocol, such separately located subordinate elements are considered part of the same declared site as the object of verification to which they belong. Note that subparagraph l(A) of Article IX of the Treaty sets forth an exception to the definition of declared site. It provides that decommissioning sites are to be notified as declared sites even though such sites are not included in the definition of the term "object of verification" in subparagraph (J) of Section I of the Protocol.

Subparagraph (N) further provides that the territory of a declared site consists of two elements:

The phrase "within its . . . outer boundary" means that if a facility has several interior fences and a single outer boundary, it is the outer boundary that determines the boundaries of the declared site.

The phrase "associated territory" means territory associated with one or more of the objects of verification or other formations/ units that are located at that declared site. In this regard, subparagraph (N) provides that a declared site includes all territory at which battle tanks, armored combat vehicles, artillery, combat helicopters, combat aircraft, reclassified combat-capable trainer aircraft, armored personnel carrier look-alikes, armored infantry fighting vehicle look-alikes or armored vehicle launched bridges that belong to an object of verification or other formation/unit at that site are permanently or routinely present. Such associated territory may well be outside of the outer boundary of the declared site and comprises:

The purpose of subparagraph (N) of Section I is, in conjunction with paragraph 13 of Section VII of the Protocol and subject to the access rules set forth in Section VI, to permit inspection of an entire facility (except for those areas belonging exclusively to an object of verification not being inspected), and not just the area occupied by the object of verification being inspected or where its equipment happens to be at the time of the inspection.

Subparagraph (O) of Section I defines the term "specified area" as an area within which a challenge inspection is conducted pursuant to Section VIII of the Protocol. Subparagraph (0) also provides that a specified area shall not exceed 65 square kilometers in area, and that no straight line drawn between any two points in that area shall exceed 16 kilometers in length.

Subparagraph (O) further provides that a specified area may be located anywhere within the area of application, except at a site that may be inspected pursuant to Section VII, IX, or IC of the Protocol (i.e., at a declared site, reduction site, or certification site, respectively). Thus, all areas outside of declared sites, reduction sites and certification sites may be subject to challenge inspections. A specified area could in theory be shaped like a "doughnut" in which the hole in the middle of the specified area is, for example, a declared site. That declared site would be excluded from inspection under a challenge inspection even though it was located within the outer boundary of the specified area.

Subparagraph (P) of Section I defines the term "sensitive point" as any equipment, structure or location that has been designated to be sensitive by the inspected State Party through the escort team. Subparagraph (P) makes clear that a State Party exercising the rights and obligations of the inspected State party, in accordance with subparagraph l(A) of Section I, paragraphs 3 and 4 of Section II and paragraph 7 of Section VIII of the Protocol, also has the right to designate sensitive points. Subparagraph (P) also provides that once a particular piece of equipment, structure or location has been designated as a sensitive point, access or overflight may be delayed, limited or refused in accordance with the procedures set forth in Section VI of the Protocol.

Subparagraph (Q) of Section I defines the term "point of entry/ exit" as a point designated by a State Party on whose territory an inspection is to be carried out through which inspection teams and transport crews arrive on the territory of that State Party and through which they depart from the territory of that State Party. Substantive provisions relating to the designation of points of entry/exit are set forth in Sections III, IV, and VII of the Protocol.

Subparagraph (R) of Section I defines the term "in-country period" as the time spent by an inspection team continuously on the territory of the State Party where an inspection is carried out from arrival at the point of entry/exit until the return of the inspection team to a point of entry/exit after completion of its last inspection. Subparagraph (R) makes clear that the term "in-couns" applicable only to inspections carried out pursuant to Section VII (i.e., declared site inspections) or Section VIII (i.e., challenge inspections). An inspection team's in-country period is limited in accordance with paragraph 17 of Section 11 of the Protocol.

Exceptions to this limitation are set forth in paragraph 19 of Section II, paragraph 8 of Section VII, and subparagraph 6(B) of Section VIII of the Protocol.

Subparagraph (S) of Section I defines the term "baseline validation period" as the time period consisting of the 120 days following entry into force of the Treaty. Subparagraph (S) specifies that the term is defined for the purpose of calculating inspection quotas.

Subparagraph (T) of Section I defines the term "reduction period" as the time period consisting of the three years following the baseline validation period. Subparagraph (T) specifies that the term is defined for the purpose of calculating inspection quotas. While this caveat applies to all four definitions set forth in subparagraphs (S), (T), (U) and (V) of Section 1, it is particularly important with respect to the definition of the term "reduction period." The caveat makes clear that this definition of "reduction period" does not apply to the use of the term "reduction phase" in Article VIII of the Treaty, to the use of the phrase "40-month reduction period" in Section VII of the Protocol on Information Exchange, or to similar phrases elsewhere in the Treaty. The definition set forth in subparagraph (T) applies only for the purpose of calculating inspection quotas. This point is important in order to make clear that States Parties have 40 months, not merely 3 years (i.e., 36 months), in which to accomplish required reductions.

Subparagraph (U) of Section I defines the term "residual level validation period" as the time period consisting of the 120 days following the three-year reduction period.

Subparagraph (V) of Section I defines the term "residual period" as the time period following the residual level validation period for the duration of the Treaty.

Subparagraph (W) of Section I defines the term "passive declared site inspection quota" as, the total number of inspections that each State Party is obligated to receive pursuant to Section VII of the Protocol within a specified time period. The phrase "specified time period" refers to one of the four inspection phases described in subparagraphs (S) through (V) of Section I. States Parties receive inspections pursuant to Section VII at declared sites where their objects of verification are located. Since the passive challenge inspection quota is a subset of the passive declared site inspection quota (see paragraph 16 of Section II of the Protocol), the passive declared site quota is actually the total number of inspections that a State Party is obligated to receive pursuant to both Section VII and Section VIII of the Protocol. Substantive provisions related to calculation and expenditure of the passive declared site inspection quotas are set forth in Section II of the Protocol.

Subparagraph (X) of Section I defines the term "passive challenge inspection quota" as the maximum number of challenge inspections that each State Party with territory in the area of application is obligated to receive within a specified time period. The phrase "specified time period" refers to one of the four inspection phases described in subparagraphs (S) through (V) of Section I. While the text uses the term "obliged," it must be noted that requests to conduct challenge inspections are subject to a right of refusal by the inspected State Party in accordance with paragraph 4 of Section VIII of the Protocol. Requests that are refused do not count against the challenge inspection quota.

Only States Parties with territory in the area of application (i.e., not the United States or Canada) have a passive challenge inspection quota. This is because challenge inspections are directed against a specified area and not against a particular object of verification that has been declared by a State Party pursuant to the Protocol on Information Exchange. Substantive provisions pertaining to calculation and expenditure of the passive challenge inspection quotas are set forth in Section II of the Protocol.

Subparagraph (Y) of Section I defines the term "active inspection quota" as the total number of inspections that each State Party is entitled to conduct within a specified time period pursuant to Sections VII and VIII of the Protocol. The phrase "specified time period" refers to one of the four inspection phases described in subparagraphs (S) through (V) of Section 1. While a passive quota places a limit on the number of inspections a State Party is obligated to receive, an active quota places a limit on the number of inspections a State Party is entitled to conduct. As in the case of the passive declared site and challenge inspection quotas, this quota applies only to inspections conducted pursuant to Sections VII and VIII, and not to reduction or certification inspections. Substantive provisions pertaining to active inspection quotas are set forth principally in paragraph 24 of Section II of the Protocol.

Subparagraph (Z) of Section I defines the term "certification site" as a site where the certification of recategorized multipurpose attack helicopters or reclassified combat-capable trainer aircraft takes place. Helicopter recategorization is carried out in accordance with the Protocol on Helicopter Recategorization. Aircraft reclassification is carried out in accordance with the Protocol on Aircraft Reclassification. Inspection of certification is carried out in accordance with Section IX of the Protocol. While certification is a form of reduction, it must be emphasized that certification sites need not be located at, or be declared as, reduction sites (for further details see, e.g., discussion of paragraph 6 of Section IV in Article-by-Article Analysis of the Protocol on Aircraft Reclassification).

Subparagraph (AA) of Section I defines the term "calendar reporting period" as a period of days during which a planned number of items of conventional armaments and equipment limited by the Treaty are to be reduced (e.g., the time in which a "batch" of battle tanks is to be destroyed). Substantive provisions related to calendar reporting periods are set forth in Section X of the Protocol.

Section II of the Protocol sets forth the general obligations of States Parties with respect to conducting on-site inspections. While Section VI of the Protocol (General Rules for Conducting Inspections) contains provisions pertaining to the conduct of particular inspections, Section II establishes the general framework within which these inspections are to be conducted. Most of the provisions in Section II concern either the respective rights and obligations of host and stationing States Parties, or the quotas and other limitations on States Parties' obligations to receive and rights to conduct inspections.

Paragraph 1 of Section II provides that each State Party is obligated to facilitate inspections conducted pursuant to the Protocol. Paragraph 1 notes that the States Parties have this obligation for the purpose of ensuring verification of compliance with the provisions of the Treaty Section II addresses, in general terms, the respective responsibilities of host and stationing States Parties with respect to conventional armaments and equipment in service with the conventional armed forces of a State Party stationed within the area of application. Paragraph 2 provides that the stationing State Party is fully responsible for compliance with the Treaty with respect to its stationed conventional armaments and equipment in service with its conventional armed forces Paragraph 2 also provides that host and stationing States Parties are obligated to cooperate to ensure compliance with the provisions in the Protocol.

Paragraph 3 of Section II provides that the inspected State Party shall have overall responsibility for the escort team while the inspection team remains on its territory.

Subparagraph (A) of paragraph 3 provides a limited exception to this general rule for inspection sites at which the only conventional armaments and equipment limited by the Treaty are those belonging to a stationing State Party. At such sites, the stationing State Party shall have responsibility for the escort team for the duration of the inspection within that inspection site. Subparagraph (A) is consistent with sub-subparagraph l(A)(1) of Section I (i.e., the definition of the term "inspected State Party"), which provides that the stationing State Party exercises the rights and obligations of the inspected State Party at inspection sites "where only a stationing State Party's conventional armaments and equipment limited by the Treaty are present."

Subparagraph (B) of paragraph 3 of Section II provides that, in the case of inspection sites containing conventional armaments and equipment limited by the Treaty belonging to both host and stationing States Parties, the escort team must include representatives of both States Parties when the stationing State Party's conventional armaments and equipment limited by the Treaty are actually inspected. Subparagraph (B) further provides that the stationing State Party exercises the rights and obligations of the inspected State Party with respect to inspection of its own conventional armaments and equipment limited by the Treaty.

Thus, at "mixed" sites, the State Party on whose territory the inspection takes place (i.e., the host State Party) would retain overall responsibility for the escort team, unless the host State Party and the stationing State Party agreed otherwise. However, in any event, the stationing State Party would exercise the rights and obligations of the inspected State Party with respect to the inspection of its own conventional armaments and equipment limited by the Treaty at the mixed site. In this regard, recall that a declared site with conventional armaments and equipment limited by the Treaty belonging to more than one State Party will often contain more than one object of verification. This is because units belonging to different States Parties are separate objects of verification. Since each object of verification may be part of a separate inspection site, such mixed sites may actually consist of separate inspection sites, each of which contains conventional armaments and equipment of only one State Party. As a result, subparagraph (B) would not apply in such cases. However, such "mixed" sites may very well also have common areas (i.e., areas that do not belong exclusively to any object of verification but which are still part of the inspection site), in which case subparagraph (B) of paragraph 3 of Section II may apply. Subparagraph (B) would also apply if conventional armaments and equipment limited by the Treaty of a stationing State Party are temporarily present as another State Party's object of verification (e.g., for the purpose of training at a military training establishment).

Paragraph 4 of Section II provides that, if an inspection team requests access to a structure or premises utilized by a State Party other than the inspected State Party, that other State Party shall exercise, in cooperation with the inspected State Party, "the rights and obligations set forth in this Protocol with respect to inspections" involving that other State Party's equipment or materiel. Significantly, paragraph 4 of Section II refers to a "State Party other than the inspected State Party," rather than to just a "stationing State Party," because the term "stationing State Party" is more restrictively defined in subparagraph l(B) of Section I in terms of "conventional armaments and equipment in service with its conventional armed forces." On the other hand, paragraph 4 addresses equipment and materiel, including but not limited to conventional armaments, belonging to a State Party that may or may not be in service with its conventional armed forces. The phrase "the rights and obligations set forth in this Protocol with respect to inspections" should be read as encompassing "the rights and obligations of the inspected State Party," that is, the formulation used in subparagraph (A) of Section I and paragraph 3 of Section II.

Moreover, while the definition of "inspected State Party" in subparagraph (A) of Section I grants the United States the rights and obligations of the inspected State Party only at inspection sites containing U.S. conventional armaments and equipment limited by the Treaty, paragraph 4 of Section II grants the United States comparable rights and obligations for all inspections involving its equipment or materiel at structures and premises it utilizes on the territory of another State Party pursuant to an agreement on utilization between the United States and that other State Party.

Paragraph 5 of Section II provides that structures or premises utilized by another State Party by agreement with the inspected State Party are not subject to inspection unless that other State Party is represented on the escort team.

Paragraph 5 should be read in conjunction with paragraph 3 above and paragraph 2 of Section V of the Protocol. Paragraph 3 of Section II obligates the United States to participate on escort teams only at sites where its conventional armaments and equipment limited by the Treaty are present. Paragraph 2 of Section V adds a further obligation for the United States to make a liaison officer available to the escort team throughout the time an inspection team is present on the territory of a State Party on which the United States utilizes structures or premises. Thus, the United States has both the right and the obligation to provide a representative on an escort team whenever its conventional armaments and equipment limited by the Treaty or its structures or premises utilized by agreement with the inspected State Party are involved. If for any reason an inspection team requests access to a structure or premises utilized by the United States and the U.S. is not represented on the escort team, inspection of that structure or premises would be prohibited until U.S. representatives were included on the escort team.

Paragraph 6 of Section II provides that the inspecting State Party has overall responsibility for an inspection team and its subteams. This point is important because inspection teams may include inspectors who are nationals of another State Party.

Paragraph 7 of Section II provides that no State Party is obligated to receive more than one inspection team conducting a declared site inspection or a challenge inspection at a single inspection site at any one time.

Paragraph 8 of Section II provides that the inspecting State Party has the right to determine how long an inspection team remains on the territory of a State Party where inspections are conducted, and at how many and which sites it will inspect during that time. However, paragraph 8 makes clear that this right is subject to other provisions of the Protocol. Other provisions concerning this right include those pertaining to inspection quotas, limits on in-country periods, limits on time at an inspection site, limits on simultaneous inspections, and requirements for prior notification.

Paragraph 9 of Section 11 provides that inspecting State Party must bear the cost of transporting its inspection team from its "home base" to the point of entry on the territory of the inspected State Party, and then from the point of exit back home after completion of the last inspection. Note that subparagraph 2(F) of Article XVI of the Treaty provides that the States Parties must, within the framework of the Joint Consultative Group, work out the distribution of other costs relating to inspections.

Paragraph 10 of Section II sets forth the formula for determining each State Party's passive declared site inspection quota. In this regard, it is important to note that paragraphs 11 and 16 of Section II make clear that the passive challenge inspection quota is a subset of the passive declared site inspection quota for States Parties with territory within the area of application. This means that a State Party's passive declared site quota actually represents the maximum number of aggregate on-site inspections that it will be obligated to receive during any given time period for the purposes of both declared site and challenge inspections on its territory.

For each specified time period, a State Party's passive declared site inspection is calculated as a percentage of the total number of its objects of verification notified in the most recent exchange of information provided pursuant to Article XIII of the Treaty and the Protocol on Information Exchange. There are, however, three important points with respect to how the total number of objects of verification is itself calculated.

First, the chapeau to paragraph 10 of Section II makes clear that the phase "total number of its objects of verification" does not include objects of verification that are reduction sites or certification sites. Reduction and certification sites are not included in the total number of objects of verification used to calculate declared site inspection quotas because such sites are already subject to inspection on a non-quota basis without right of refusal by the inspected State Party when reduction of certification is notified as taking place. On the other hand, if an object of verification were subsequently declared also to be a reduction or certification site, it would still be included in the total number.

Second, the total number of objects of verification does not include objects of verification on a State Party's territory belonging to stationing States Parties. In this respect, the word "its" in the phase "total number of its objects of verification" is critical.

Third, on the other hand, included in the total number are those objects of verification of the State Party that are stationed outside of its territory within the area of application.

Subparagraphs (A) through (D) of paragraph 10 of Section II set forth the percentages for each specified time period: the baseline validation period, the reduction period, the residual level validation period, and the residual period, respectively.

Subparagraph (A) of paragraph 10 provides that, for the baseline validation period, each State Party's passive declared site inspection quota is equal to 20 percent of the number of its objects of verification (excluding reduction and certification sites) notified pursuant to Section V of the Protocol on Information Exchange upon signature of the Treaty.

Subparagraph (B) of paragraph 10 provides that, for each year of the three-year reduction period, each State Party's passive declared site inspection quota is equal to 10 percent of the number of its objects of verification (excluding reduction and certification sites) notified in the most recent information exchange pursuant to Section V of the Protocol on Information Exchange. For the first year of the reduction period, the most recent information exchange will probably be that provided within 30 days after entry into force of the Treaty in accordance with subparagraph l(B) of Section VII of the Protocol on Information Exchange. However, if entry into force occurs 60 to 120 days before December 15th, then the most recent information exchange would be that provided on December 15th. For the second and third years of the reduction period, the most recent information exchange would be that provided on the preceding December 15th in each case in accordance with subparagraph l(C) of Section VII of the Protocol on Information Exchange.

Subparagraph (C) of paragraph 10 of Section II provides that, for the residual level validation period (i.e., the 120-day period beginning 40 months after entry into force of the Treaty), each State Party's passive declared site inspection quota is equal to 20 percent of the total number of its objects of verification (excluding reduction and certification sites) notified in the most recent information exchange pursuant to Section V of the Protocol on Information Exchange. Again, the most recent information exchange would be that provided on the preceding December 15th. While Section VII of the Protocol on Information Exchange obligates the States Parties to provide information "following completion of the 40-month reduction period, with information effective as of that date," no specific deadline is established for that data exchange. Hence, it may be that such information will not be available for determining quotas during the residual level validation period.

Subparagraph (D) of paragraph 10 of Section II provides that, for each year of the residual period, each State Party's passive declared site inspection quota is equal to 15 percent of the total number of its objects of verification (excluding reduction and certification sites) notified in the most recent information exchange pursuant to Section V of the Protocol on Information Exchange. For the first year of the residual period, the most recent information exchange might be, depending upon when entry into force occurs, that provided following completion of the 40-month reduction period in accordance with subparagraph l(D) of Section VII of the Protocol on Information Exchange. Otherwise, it will be the annual exchange on December 15th. For all subsequent years, the most recent information exchange will be December 15th of the preceding year.

Note that paragraph 10 of Section II does not specify whether fractional numbers resulting from quota calculations using the percentages specified in subparagraphs (A) through (D) should be rounded up or down to the nearest integer. For example, in the case of the baseline validation period, if a State Party notified 104 objects of verification (excluding, of course, reduction and certification sites), then its passive declared site inspection quota would be 20.80 inspections (i.e., 104 times .20 equals 10.80). The issue is this: Does the State Party have an inspection quota of 20 (i.e., 20.80 rounded down) or 21 (i.e., 20.80 rounded up to the nearest whole integer)? In this regard, the phrase "shall . . . not exceed its passive declared site inspection quota" in the chapeau of paragraph 10 implies that the fraction should be rounded down. If the fraction were to be rounded up, then the resulting number of inspections would exceed the calculated quota (i.e., using the example above, 21 exceeds 20.80, while 20 does not exceed 20.80).

Paragraph 11 of Section II sets forth the formula for calculating the passive challenge inspection quota. This quota applies only to those States Parties with territory within the area of application. It thus does not apply to the United States or Canada.

While the chapeau to paragraph 11 uses the word "obliged," it should be understood that an inspected State Party has the right, as a general rule subject to paragraph 12 below, to refuse any request to conduct a challenge inspection. This right of refusal stems from paragraph 4 of Section VIII of the Protocol. However, in such a case, the refusing State Party must provide, in accordance with paragraph 9 of Section VIII, "all reasonable assurance" that the specified area does not contain conventional armaments limited by the Treaty. Thus, the passive challenge inspection quota should not be understood as an absolute commitment to receive the number of challenge inspections calculated in accordance with paragraph 11; rather, this quota represents the maximum number of challenge inspections that a State Party could likely be expected to accept. Requests for challenge inspections that fall within the passive challenge inspection quota should be accepted whenever possible. Put another way, a State Party that consistently refused requests for challenge inspections could be said to be acting in "bad faith."

Subparagraph (A) of paragraph 11 specifies that for the baseline validation period, for each year of the reduction period and for the residual level validation period, each State Party with territory within the area of application is obligated to accept a number of challenge inspections no greater than 15 percent of the number of declared site inspections that State Party is obligated to receive on its territory, for the same time period, of its own objects of verification as well as of objects of verification belonging to stationing States Parties on its territory. In this regard, for each of the specified time periods, the number of passive declared site inspections a State Party is obligated to receive on its territory is calculated in accordance with paragraphs 10 and 15 of Section II.

For example, for the baseline validation period, subparagraph 10(A) of Section II provides that the passive declared site inspection quota is 20 percent. In turn, this means that a State Party's passive challenge quota during the baseline validation period is 3 percent (i.e., 15 percent of 20 percent) of the total number of its own and stationed objects of verification on its territory. Thus, if a State Party, for instance, has 60 objects of verification within its territory belonging to its conventional armed forces and another 40 objects of verification belonging to stationing States Parties within its territory (for a total of 100 objects of verification), then the passive challenge inspection quota during the baseline validation period would be 3 (i.e., 15 percent of 20 inspections, where the 20 inspections represent 20 percent of the 100 objects of verification on that State Party's territory).

Subparagraph (B) of paragraph 11 of Section II specifies that for each year of the residual period, each State Party with territory within the area of application is obligated to accept a number of challenge inspections no greater than 23 percent of the number of declared site inspections that the State Party is obligated to receive each year of its own and stationed objects of verification on its territory. Again, the number of declared site inspections a State Party is obligated to receive on its territory each year is determined in accordance with paragraphs 10 and 15 of Section II. Thus, for each year of the residual period, a State Party's passive challenge inspection quota is 23 percent of 15 percent of the total number of its own and stationed objects of verification on its territory.

Paragraph 12 of Section II provides that, notwithstanding any other provisions in Section II, each State Party is obligated to accept a minimum of one inspection of its objects of verification each year, and each State Party with territory within the area of application is obligated to accept a minimum of one challenge inspection each year. The purpose of paragraph 12, with respect to challenge inspections, is to ensure that every State Party with territory within the area of application is obligated to accept at least one challenge inspection per year, even though it may not have any objects of verification within its territory. Thus, although there is a right of refusal with respect to challenge inspection requests in accordance with paragraph 4 of Section VIII of the Protocol, every State Party with territory within the area of application, if acting in good faith, must accept at least one challenge inspection request per year. The minimum requirements in paragraph 12 are annual, and are not based on specified quota periods. Since Iceland currently has no objects of verification of its own, it is not at present subject to any declared site inspections. Note that declared site inspection of a U.S. object of verification in Iceland is another matter, which is not addressed by paragraph 12.

Paragraph 13 of Section II provides that a declared site inspection conducted pursuant to Section VII of one object of verification counts as one against the passive declared site inspection quota of the State Party that owns that object of verification. Note that while paragraphs 10 and 12 of Section II determine how the passive declared site inspection quota is calculated, paragraph 13 (as well as paragraph 16) determines how that quota is exhausted. Paragraph 13 makes clear that a State Party's passive declared site inspection quota is reduced by one for each one of its objects of verification inspected. Note that inspections pursuant to Section VII of decommissioning sites-which Article IX specifies are declared sites-would not count against the passive declared site quota. This is because decommissioning sites are not objects of verification. As a result, inspections of decommissioning sites do not figure into the calculation of passive declared site quotas provided for in paragraph 10, and also do not count in the expenditure of quotas pursuant to paragraph 13.

Paragraph 14 of Section II provides that the proportion of declared site inspections on the territory of a particular host State Party within a specified time period that are used to inspect objects of verification belonging to a particular stationing State Party shall be no greater than the proportion which that stationing State Party's objects of verification constitute of the total number of objects of verification located on that host State Party's territory. In other words, if, for example, 25 percent of the objects of verification in Germany belong to the United States, then during that quota period only 25 percent of the declared site inspections in Germany may be used to inspect U.S. objects of verification. The purpose of paragraph 14 is to prevent an inspecting State Party (such as the Soviet Union) from concentrating all of its declared site inspections within the territory of a host State Party (such as Germany) against a particular stationing State Party (such as the United States).

Paragraph 15 of Section II provides that the number of declared site inspections of objects of verification within a specified time period on any State Party's territory must be calculated as a percentage of the total number of objects of verification present on that State Party's territory, i.e., those objects belonging to that State Party and those objects belonging to any stationing States Parties there.

Paragraph 15 should be read in conjunction with paragraphs 10 and 14 of Section II. The purpose of paragraph 15 is to ensure that a State Party (such as the United Kingdom or Soviet Union), with territory within the area of application but with objects of verification located in its territory and stationed on the territory of other States Parties, does not have to receive more than its fair share of inspections on its territory. In this sense, paragraph 15 of Section II is the complement to the rule set forth in paragraph 14 of Section II.

Also, the word "percentage" used in paragraph 15 is intended to correspond to the percentage for each specified time period set forth in paragraph 10. Thus, the percentage to be used in the calculation for paragraph 15 of the baseline validation period is the same as for that used for the baseline validation period in subparagraph (A) of paragraph 10, i.e., 20 percent.

The following three examples might serve to clarify the relationship among paragraphs 10, 14, and 15 of Section II.

First, consider the case of a State Party whose objects of verification are located both on its own soil and on the territory of another State party, and which has no objects of verification of a stationing State Party on its own soil. Suppose, for example, that the Soviet Union has 500 objects of verification, of which 400 are on its own territory. Subparagraph 10(A) provides that the Soviet passive declared site inspection quota during the baseline validation period is 100 (i.e., 20 percent of 500). Paragraph 15 provides, however, that no more than 80 of those inspections (i.e., 20 percent of 400) may be conducted on Soviet territory. Other inspections of Soviet objects of verification must be of Soviet forces stationed elsewhere.

Second, consider the case of a State Party whose objects of verification are located both on its own soil and on the territory of another State Party, and which also has objects of verification of a stationing State Party on its territory. Suppose, for example, that the United Kingdom has 100 objects of verification, of which 80 are on its own territory. In addition, there are 10 objects of verification of a stationing State Party on its territory. Subparagraph 10(A) provides that the British passive declared site inspection quota during the baseline validation period is 20 (i.e., 20 percent of 100). Paragraph 15 provides, however, that no more than 18 inspections (i.e., 20 percent of 90, the total number of objects of verification on British soil) may be conducted on British territory. Thus, States Parties wishing to make full use of the British passive declared site inspection quota of 20 also will have to inspect two British objects of verification stationed on the territory of other States Parties.

Furthermore, in this second example, paragraph 14 limits the number of inspections of stationing State Party objects of verification on British soil to two. This result follows from the fact that the 10 stationing State Party objects of verification constitute one-ninth of the total of 90 objects of verification on British soil, and one-ninth of 18 equals two. Note that inspectors could choose to conduct all 18 inspections on British soil of British objects of verification and not inspect any stationing State Party objects of verification on British soil, or they could inspect one or two of the objects of verification stationed on British soil and use the remainder of the inspections permitted on British territory (17 or 16, respectively) to inspect British objects of verification located there.

Third, consider the case of a State Party whose objects of verification are located only on its own territory, and which also has objects of verification of several different stationing States Parties on its soil. Suppose, for example, that Germany has 300 objects of verification, all of which are on its own soil, In addition, there are an additional 200 objects of verification divided evenly among four other States Parties (i.e., 50 each) stationed on German territory. Subparagraph 10(A) provides that the German passive declared site inspection quota during the baseline validation period is 60 (i.e., 20 percent of 300 German objects of verification). Paragraph 14 provides that each of the four stationing States Parties must only receive one-tenth of the total inspections on German soil (i.e., 10 inspections each), since each stationing State Party has one-tenth of the total 500 objects of verification on German soil. Paragraph 15 provides that no more than 100 inspections may be conducted on German soil (i.e., 20 percent of 500, where the number 500 represents 300 German objects of verification and another 200 objects of verification stationed on German soil). Note that Germany will only have to receive on its territory the full obligation of 100 inspections if inspectors choose to conduct all inspections possible of both the host and each of the stationing States Parties.

Paragraph 16 of Section II provides the rule for determining expenditure of the passive challenge inspection quota. Specifically, paragraph 16 provides that a challenge inspection of a single specified area shall count as one against the passive challenge inspection quota of the State Party on whose territory the inspection is conducted, and one against the passive declared site inspection quota of that same State Party, regardless of whose equipment or materiel is inspected. This result is in keeping with the general approach that only States Parties with territory within the area of application have a passive challenge inspection quota. However, this means in particular that challenge inspections of structures or premises utilized by a State Party (e.g., the United States) other than the State Party on whose territory the structure or premises is located would be counted against the passive challenge inspection quota (and thus the passive declared site quota) of the territorial State Party.

Significantly, paragraph 16 also makes clear that the passive challenge inspection quota is a subset of the passive declared site inspection quota. This point has two important implications. First, it means that a State Party's passive challenge inspection quota is not to be added to its passive declared site quota in order to determine the total number of on-site quota inspections it will be obligated to receive on its territory. As noted above in the discussion of paragraph 10, a State Party's passive declared site quota actually represents the maximum number of aggregate on-site inspections that it will be obligated to receive during any given time period for the purposes of both declared site and challenge inspections on its territory. Second, it means that unused portions of a State Party's passive challenge inspection quota may be used by inspecting State Parties to conduct declared site inspections on the territory of that State Party. This latter point is important because, pursuant to paragraph 4 of Section VIII, States Parties have a right of refusal with regard to requests for challenge inspections on their territory.

Paragraph 17 of Section II provides that, unless the escort team and inspection team otherwise agree, an inspection team's in-country period must, up to a total of 10 days, note exceed the total number of hours calculated according to the following formula:

The second purpose of paragraph 17 is to provide a formula, in subparagraphs (A) and (B), in order to ensure that an inspection team cannot prolong its in-country time with long periods unrelated to the conduct of inspections. The formula establishes the minimum number of inspections that must be accomplished during any given in-country time period (as calculated in accordance with the formula). For example, if a team's in-country period, as defined in subparagraph l(R) of Section I, is 84 hours, then the team is required to have conducted at least two inspections. The formula yields this result as follows: the first inspection is counted, pursuant to subparagraph (A), as 48 hours of in-country time; and the second, subsequent inspection is counted, pursuant to subparagraph (B), as 36 hours of in-country time. Thus, the conduct of the two inspections yields a total of 48 plus 36, or 84 hours. Similarly, if a team's in-country period were 156 hours, then the team would be required to have conducted at least 4 inspections (48 hours for the first inspection plus 36 hours for each of the three sequential inspections).

While the formula in paragraph 17 establishes a minimum number of inspections that must be conducted during any given in-country period, it does not affect in any way the time actually spent conducting specific inspections. An inspection team may spend more or less than 48 hours in-country before it completes its first inspection, and it may spend more or less than 36 hours before completing any subsequent inspection. The inspection team could, in the two examples given above, conduct more than two and four inspections, respectively, depending on the actual time spent conducting each inspection and the amount of time between inspections. However, as noted, the inspection teams would be required by paragraph 17 to conduct at least two and four inspections, respectively, given their time in-country.

Also, it should be noted that the calculation of the in-country period will be based initially by the escort team on the notification by the inspecting State Party, provided pursuant to subparagraph 2(l) of Section III, of the "likely" number of sequential inspections it intends to conduct. However, this notification is only an estimate. It neither constitutes a definitive basis for calculating the in-country period nor restricts the inspecting State Party to the number of sequential inspections that it initially notified.

Finally, the formula in paragraph 17 does not affect the maximum time that an inspection team may spend conducting a declared site or challenge inspection. Those time periods are established by paragraph 18 below.

Paragraph 18 of Section II provides that, subject to paragraph 17 above, the maximum time an inspection team may spend conducting an inspection is 48 hours in the case of declared site inspections and 24 hours in the case of challenge inspections. The phrase "subject to the limitations in paragraph 17" in paragraph 18 is intended to make clear that the maximum time limit of 48/24 hours at an inspection site may not supersede the 10-day in-country limit set forth in paragraph 17 in the event that there is a potential conflict between the two provisions. For example, if an inspection team's final sequential inspection is of a declared site, but its in-country period already amounts to nine days at the beginning of that final inspection, then the inspection team may not spend up to 48 hours inspecting that declared site, unless otherwise agreed between the inspection and escort teams, since to do so would cause the inspection team to exceed the 10-day limit established by paragraph 17.

Paragraph 19 of Section II provides that the inspected State Party must ensure that the inspection team travels to a sequential inspection site by the most expeditious means available. Paragraph 19 further provides that if the time between completion of one inspection and arrival at the next inspection site exceeds nine hours, or if the time between completion of the last inspection and arrival at the point of entry/exit exceeds nine hours, then time in excess of nine hours will not count against that inspection team's in-country period. Paragraph 19 helps to ensure that an inspection team is not penalized due to transit delays caused by the inspected State Party. As such, paragraph 19 affects the calculation of an inspection team's in-country period by providing an exception for "excessive" travel time.

Paragraph 20 of Section II provides that no State Party is obligated to accept on its territory simultaneously more than either: (a) two inspection teams conducting declared site or challenge inspections; or (b) a number of inspection teams conducting declared site or challenge inspections equal to two percent of the number of inspections it is obligated to receive on its territory during that specified time period (as calculated in accordance with paragraphs 10 and 15 of Section II), whichever is greater.

Note that, as in the case of the calculation of passive declared site inspection quotas in paragraph 10 of Section II, paragraph 20 does not specify whether fractional numbers resulting from use of the "two percent" rule should be rounded up or down to the nearest integer. In this case the rule is formulated differently than in paragraph 10 of Section II, however. Paragraph 20 specifies whichever is greater." Consequently, it may be argued that this more expansive formulation implies that fractional numbers should be rounded up to the next higher integer, particularly in cases in which the result of the two percent rule yields the number 2 plus a fraction (e.g., 2.33). Since paragraph 20 calls for the higher number, and for example 2.33 is higher than 2, then it follows that 2.33 must be rounded up to 3.

If the inspection team figure-as calculated in accordance with the two percent rule specified in paragraph 20-is rounded up to the nearest integer, then the two percent rule applies only to States Parties that are obligated to receive on their territory during a specified time period more than 100 declared site or challenge inspections. Thus, this provision is likely to affect only the Soviet Union (and possible the Federal Republic of Germany). For all other States Parties, the limit is two simultaneous inspections. While paragraph 7 of Section II limits the number of inspection teams simultaneously at one site, paragraph 20 limits the number of inspection teams simultaneously in one country. This limit is without regard to whose objects of verification or facilities are actually being inspected. Note that paragraph 20 limits how many inspections may be conducted simultaneously, and not how many inspection teams may be in-country simultaneously. This point is important because inspection teams may overlap, at the point of entry/exit, as some conduct inspections and others are on their way to or from inspection sites.

While paragraph 20 limits the number of simultaneous inspections that may be conducted in any one country (regardless of whose forces are being inspected), paragraph 21 of Section II limits the number of inspections that any State Party is obligated to receive simultaneously of its conventional armed forces (regardless of where those forces are located). Thus, the limit in paragraph 21 applies to a State Party's conventional armed forces whether they are on "home soil" within the area of application or stationed on the territory of another State Party within the area of application. Paragraph 21 benefits the United States, which currently has stationed forces on the territory of eight States Parties. It ensures that U.S. forces will only be subject to two declared inspections at any one time within the entire area of application.

Specifically, paragraph 21 of Section II provides that no State Party is obligated to accept simultaneously more than either: (a) two inspection teams conducting declared site or challenge inspections of its conventional armed forces; or (b) a number of inspection teams equal to two percent of its passive declared site inspection quota, whichever is greater. As with paragraph 20 above, if we round up to the nearest integer, then the two percent rule set forth in paragraph 21 would apply only if a State Party's passive declared site inspection quota for a specified time period is greater than 100 (as calculated in accordance with paragraph 10 of Section II). For all other States Parties, the limit would be two simultaneous inspections.

Paragraph 22 of Section II applies specifically to the Soviet Union, which is the only State Party with military districts specified in Articles IV and V of the Treaty. Paragraph 22 provides that, notwithstanding the provisions of paragraphs 20 and 21 above, each State Party with military districts specified in Articles IV and V is obligated to accept simultaneously within any one of those military districts no more than two inspection teams conducting declared site or challenge inspections.

Paragraph 23 of Section II provides that no State Party is obligated to accept from any single State Party in a calendar year a number of declared site and challenge inspections greater than 50 percent of its passive declared site inspection quota. Since States Parties' passive declared site inspection quotas are not based upon calendar years, there may be a problem in relating this calendar year limit to the passive declared site inspection quota. This issue may need to be addressed in the Joint Consultative Group. It should be noted that paragraph 23 limits primarily the Soviet Union in conducting inspections against individual NATO States. In this regard, in the Group of 6's notification of its active inspection quota for the baseline validation period, which was required by subparagraph 24(a) of Section II below, the Soviet Union-with approximately 60 percent of the objects of verification for the Group of 6-only notified 50 percent of the Group's total active inspection quota.

Paragraph 24 of Section II sets forth the substantive Treaty provisions relating to active inspection quotas. It relates to each State Party's right to conduct declared site and challenge inspections, while the passive quota sets forth the obligation to receive a certain number of such inspections.

The first sentence of paragraph 24 provides that each State Party has the right to conduct inspections within the area of application on the territory of any other State Party.

The second sentence of paragraph 24 provides that no State Party may conduct more than five declared site or challenge inspections annually of another State Party within its own group of States Parties. Note that this limit is set forth on an annual basis, rather than on the basis of a specified quota period.

The third sentence of paragraph 24 of Section II provides that any declared site or challenge inspections by members of the same group will count against the passive declared site inspection quota of the State Party being inspected. However, the second and third sentences of paragraph 24 must be read in conjunction with paragraph 3 of Article XIV of the Treaty, which provides that no State Party may exercise this right to "elude" the purposes of the verification regime.

The fourth sentence of paragraph 24 provides that it is the responsibility of each group of States Parties to determine the allocation of active inspection quotas for each State Party within the group. In this regard, there are two important points concerning the determination and allocation of active quotas.

First, while paragraph 24 of Section II makes clear that the allocation of active quotas for each State Party will be handled within each group (somewhat like maximum levels for holdings in Article VII of the Treaty), paragraph 24 does not detail how a group's aggregate active quota is to be determined. This ambiguity was deliberate on the part of the negotiators because a consensus could not be reached on a formula for calculating active quotas. In this regard, the United States, in particular, sought to preserve maximum flexibility in the allocation of inspections quotas within the Group of 16.

Second, since the Group of 16 cannot know in advance how many times members of the Group of 6 will inspect each other, there is no fixed number for the Group of 16's collective active quota on the basis of which an allocation can be determined.

Given the two preceding points, the Group of 16 takes the view that the notified active inspection quotas of one group of States-Parties do not necessarily have to add up to the same number as the other group's aggregate figure for passive quota inspections. This position is based on the fact that passive inspection quotas take precedence over active inspection quotas. Regardless of what a State Party announces as its active quota, States Parties may only expend their active quotas up to the point at which they exhaust the passive quotas of the members of the other group of States Parties.

Consequently, active quota notifications may be viewed as a statement of intent regarding the maximum number of inspections that each State Party hopes to conduct during a given specified period. If one group's aggregate declarations add up to more than the other group's passive quota, then, in practice, as noted above, some States Parties will not be able to conduct all of their declared active quota of inspections because the inspected State Party's passive quotas will be exhausted before all could do so. On the other hand, if one group's aggregate declared active quotas is less than the other group's aggregate passive quota, then the active quota declarations would set an upper limit to the number of inspections that could be conducted by the first group, even though their numbers fell short of the maximum aggregate number of inspections the second group is obligated to receive. It should be noted, however, that there is no prohibition against amending active inspection quotas.

The fifth sentence of paragraph 24 of Section II provides that each State Party must notify all other States Parties of its active inspection quota in accordance with the following timetable set forth in subparagraphs (A) through (C) of paragraph 24.

Subparagraph (A) of paragraph 24 provides that each State Party must notify its active quota for the baseline validation period within 120 days after Treaty signature, which is 30 days after the corrections to initial information provided for by subparagraph I(A) of Section VII of the Protocol on Information Exchange. It should be noted that subparagraph 24(A) is provisionally applied in accordance with subparagraph l(K) of the Protocol on Provisional Application. The reason that subparagraph 24(A) was provisionally put into effect between signature and entry into force of the Treaty was to ensure that all States Parties were legally obligated to provide that information required in subparagraph 24(A). Without such provisional application, the State Parties would not have been legally obligated to act since the Treaty was not yet in force.

Subparagraph (B) of paragraph 24 of Section II provides that each State Party notify its active quota for the first year of the three-year reduction period within 60 days after entry into force of the Treaty, which is 30 days after the exchange of information required by subparagraph l(B) of Section VII of the Protocol on Information Exchange. Depending upon when the Treaty enters into force, an anomaly could ensue.

Suppose the Treaty enters into force on September 1. Data would then have to be exchanged by September 30 (pursuant to subparagraph l(B) of Section VII of the Protocol on Information Exchange) and active quotas would be notified on the basis of that data by October 30. However, a new data exchange would be required on December 15, which would provide the basis for calculation of passive quotas for the first year of the reduction period (which would begin just before the new year). If the number of objects of verification changed between September 1 and December 15, then the active quota notifications and passive quota calculations would be based upon different numbers, resulting in an apparent anomaly. Subparagraphs 2(B) and 2(C) of Article XVI of the Treaty empower the Joint Consultative Group to handle problems such as this one. However, active quota declarations are essentially statements on national inspection planning and are thus subject to adjustment once passive quota obligations have been reached.

Subparagraph (C) of paragraph 24 of Section II provides that each State Party must notify its active quota for each subsequent year of the reduction period, for the residual level validation period, and for each year of the residual period no later than the January 15 preceding the relevant quota period. This again allows 30 days after the December 15 exchange of information to allocate and notify active quotas. As discussed above, anomalies could ensue, depending upon when the Treaty enters into force, but active quotas may be adjusted to deal with this issue.

There is no explicit provision in the Treaty or Protocol permitting transfers of active quotas between members of the same group. However, there is no prohibition in the Treaty against subsequently amending one's active quota notification. On the other hand, active quotas must be notified. Moreover, in light of the fact that allocations of active quotas within groups are likely to be based upon uncertain information regarding the total number of active quotas to be allocated, and in light of the other anomalies discussed above, amendments to active quota notifications may well be necessary. In this regard, the approach of the Group of 16 to date has been to preserve maximum flexibility by each member notifying active inspection quotas that, in aggregate, exceed the aggregate passive declared site inspection quota of the Group of 6.

Section III of the Protocol sets forth those obligations that must be carried out before the inspection regime established by the Treaty can begin to function. Many of the provisions in Section III take effect provisionally between signature and entry into force of the Treaty in accordance with subparagraph l(K) of the Protocol on Provisional Application. Issues addressed in Section III include: submission, review, and amendment of lists of inspectors and transport crew members; provision of visas for inspectors and transport crew members; assignment of standing diplomatic clearance numbers for transportation means used to transport inspectors into and out of territories where inspections are conducted; designation of points of entry/exit to be used for inspections; and designation of languages to be used for inspections.

Paragraph 1 of Section III provides that inspections conducted pursuant to the Treaty must be carried out by inspectors who have been officially designated as inspectors in accordance with paragraphs 3 through 7 of Section III. Thus, States Parties are not obligated to receive inspectors who have not been officially designated by a State Party. Also, subsequent paragraphs of Section III make clear that designated inspectors must be acceptable to the other States Parties.

Paragraph 2 of Section III provides that inspectors must be nationals of the inspecting State Party or of other States Parties. Thus, paragraph 2 makes clear that nationals of countries other than States Parties are not eligible to serve as inspectors (unless they are also nationals of a State Party).

Paragraph 3 of Section III obligates each State Party to provide to all other States Parties a list of its proposed inspectors and a list of its proposed transport crew members within 90 days after signature of the Treaty. Paragraph 3 also provides that such lists must contain the full names of inspectors and transport crew members, their gender, date of birth, place of birth, and passport numbers. Paragraph 3 further provides that no list of proposed inspectors may contain at any time more than 400 individuals, and no list of proposed transport crew members may contain at any time more than 600 individuals.

Paragraph 4 of Section III obligates each State Party to review the lists of inspectors and transport crew members it receives from other States Parties. Paragraph 4 also provides that if any State Party wishes to delete the name of any individual from a list it has received, it must so notify the State Party providing that list within 30 days after receipt of the list. Note, however, that paragraph 7 of Section III also provides each State Party with the general right to delete any individual from lists of inspectors and transport crew members. Thus, if a State Party did not delete an individual under paragraph 4, that State Party would still retain the right to do so later in accordance with paragraph 7.

Paragraph 5 of Section III provides that if a State Party has not requested deletion of an individual from a list within 30 days, then that individual shall be deemed to have been accepted by that State Party for the purposes of issuing visas and other documents in accordance with paragraph 8 of Section III. In accordance with paragraph 7 of Section III, that State Party may subsequently request deletion of that individual from that list. If one State Party requests deletion of an individual from a list, that does not preclude that individual from being accepted by other States Parties.

Thus, a situation could arise in which, for example, Germany accepts a Soviet inspector whom the United States has refused to accept. If that inspector came to Germany to conduct inspections, the Germans would be obligated to allow him onto their territory, but the United States could deny him access to a U.S. site on German territory.

Paragraph 6 of Section III provides that each State Party has the right to amend its lists of inspectors and transport crew members within one month after entry into force of the Treaty, and once every six months thereafter. Paragraph 6 further provides that proposed additions to lists are not permitted to exceed the numerical limits of 400 inspectors and 600 transport crew members set forth in paragraph 3 of Section III. Paragraph 6 also provides that proposed additions are subject to review in accordance with paragraphs 4 and 5 of Section III. Note that requested deletions are not subject to such review.

Paragraph 7 of Section III provides that a State Party may request, without right of refusal, deletion of any individual from any list of inspectors or transport crew members provided by another State Party. Paragraph 7, when read in conjunction with paragraph 3 of Section III, means that a State Party may always ensure that an individual it objects to is deleted from a list provided by any other State Party.

Paragraph 8 of Section III obligates States Parties to provide approved inspectors and transport crew members with visas and any other documents required to permit such personnel to enter and remain in the territory of those States Parties for the purpose of conducting inspection activities in accordance with the Protocol. Paragraph 8 makes clear that this obligation applies only to States Parties with territory within the area of application, each of which is required to provide visas and other documents only for inspections on its territory. Similarly, paragraph 8 also makes clear that the obligation to provide visas and other documents applies only with respect to those inspectors and transport crew members who have been approved in accordance with paragraph 5 of Section III.

Paragraph 8 of Section III further provides that each State Party with territory within the area of application has two options with respect to the provisions of visas and other necessary documents:

Paragraph 9 of Section III also provides that routings to and from designated points of entry/exit must be along established international airways or other routes that are agreed upon by the States Parties concerned as the basis for such diplomatic clearance. Paragraph 9 further provides that inspectors are permitted to use commercial flights for travel to those points of entry/exit that are served by airlines. Paragraph 9 notes that in such cases a standing diplomatic clearance number is not applicable.

Paragraph 10 of Section III provides that each State Party must notify, in accordance with Section V of the Protocol on Information Exchange, one or more points of entry/exit for each of the declared sites at which its objects of verification are located. Paragraph 10 also provides that, while points of entry/exit may be ground border crossing points, airports or seaports, at least one airport must be designated for each declared site. Paragraph 10 further provides that each declared site must be within nine hours travel time of its associated point(s) of entry/exit or, as an exception, within 15 hours travel time if the site is located in mountainous or terrain difficult to access, as specified by paragraph 8 of Section VII of the Protocol.

Paragraph 11 of Section III provides that each State Party has the right to change the points of entry/exit to its territory. Paragraph 11 specifies that such a change becomes effective 90 days after it has been notified to all other States Parties.

Paragraph 12 of Section III provides that each State Party must notify all other States Parties, within 90 days after signature of the Treaty, of the official language or languages of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE) to be used for inspections of its conventional armed forces. The six official CSCE languages are English, Russian, French, German, Italian, and Spanish. If, for example, the United States designates English as the language to be used for inspections of U.S. forces, then States Parties wishing to inspect U.S. forces must designate English as the inspection language in accordance with subparagraph 2(F) or 3(E) of Section IV of the Protocol.

It should be noted that paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 of Section III are provisionally applied in accordance with subparagraph l(K) of the Protocol on Provisional Application. The reason that these paragraphs were provisionally put into effect between signature and entry into force of the Treaty was to ensure that all States Parties were legally obligated to provide the information and undertakings required by the provisions. Without such provisional application, the States Parties would not have been legally obligated to act since the Treaty was not yet in force.

Section IV of the Protocol sets forth provisions pertaining to the advance notification of inspections. While the notification provisions in Section III relate to the overall inspection regime, the provisions in Section IV concern individual inspections. Section IV also includes provisions for filing and approval of flight plans for aircraft transporting inspectors to a point of entry/exit.

Paragraph 1 of Section IV obligates the inspecting State Party to notify the inspected State Party whenever it intends to conduct an inspection. Paragraph 1 also provides that, in the case of inspections involving stationed conventional armed forces, notifications must be sent simultaneously to the host State Party and the States Parties stationing such forces on the territory of the host State Party. The requirements in paragraph 1 apply as well to certification and reduction inspections involving forces of a stationing State Party.

Paragraph 2 of Section IV provides that, for declared site and challenge inspections carried out pursuant to Sections VII and VIII of the Protocol, respectively, notification of intent to inspect must be provided no less than 36 hours prior to the estimated time of arrival of the inspection team at the point of entry/exit. Paragraph 2 further provides that such notifications must be made in accordance with Article XVII of the Treaty concerning communications and must include the following information:

Paragraph 5 of Section IV provides that the State Party on whose territory an inspection is conducted must, immediately upon receipt of a notification provided pursuant to paragraph 2 or 3 of Section IV, send copies of that notification to all other States Parties. Paragraph 5 also provides that such copies shall be transmitted in accordance with Article XVII of the Treaty concerning communications.

The purpose of paragraph 5 is to ensure that States Parties that utilize structures or premises on the territory of another State Party at locations other than declared sites are forewarned of a possible impending inspection. The requirement for such advance notice is important because States Parties that utilize such structures or premises are afforded certain rights and protection pursuant to paragraphs 4 and 5 of Section II of the Protocol and are required to make a liaison officer available to the escort team of the inspected State Party pursuant to paragraph 2 of Section V of the Protocol.

Paragraph 6 of Section IV provides that, if a State Party on whose territory an inspection is to be carried out is unable to permit the arrival of the inspection team at the point of entry/exit at the estimated time of arrival (as notified by the inspecting State Party pursuant to subparagraph 2(B) of Section IV), then that State Party must permit that inspection team to arrive at the point of entry/exit within two hours before or after the notified estimated time of arrival. Paragraph 6 also provides that, in such a case, the State Party on whose territory an inspection is to be carried out must notify the inspecting State Party of the new time of arrival no later than 24 hours after the original notification was provided pursuant to paragraph 2 or 3 of Section IV. Thus, paragraph 6 given the inspected or host State Party the right to amend the estimated time of arrival, even though paragraph 4 above sets forth the general rule that times of arrival notified by the inspecting State Party times of arrival notified by the inspecting State Party should be respected by the inspected or host State Party.

While paragraph 6 entitles the inspected State Party to amend the time of arrival, paragraph 7 of Section IV entitles the inspecting State Party to amend the estimated time of arrival. Specifically, paragraph 7 provides that, if the inspection team is delayed for more than two hours beyond the estimated time of arrival it notified, or beyond the new time of arrival notified by the inspected State Party in accordance with paragraph 6 of Section IV, then the inspecting State Party must provide a new notification to all the States Parties that received its original notification. Such a notification must specify:

Paragraph 9 of Section IV provides that the State Party on whose territory an inspection is to be carried out must ensure approval of flight plans filed in accordance with paragraph 8 above. Paragraph 9 makes clear that such approval must be granted within three hours after receipt of the flight plan so that the inspection team may arrive at the point of entry/exit at the estimated time of arrival.

Section V of the Protocol sets forth provisions relating to the arrival of the inspection team at the point of entry/exit inside the territory of the State Party on which inspections will be carried out. Some of the provisions of Section V, such as arrangements for meals and lodging, apply throughout the period that the inspection team remains on the territory of the inspected State Party. However, as a general rule, provisions in Section V relate to activities that take place at the point of entry/exit, while provisions in Section VI relate to the actual conduct of inspections at inspection sites.

Paragraph 1 of Section V provides that the escort team of the inspected State Party must meet the inspection team and transport crew members of the inspecting State Party upon their arrival at the point of entry/exit.

Paragraph 2 of Section V provides that States Parties which utilize structures or premises by agreement with the inspected State Party must make a liaison officer available to the escort team at the point of entry/exit. Paragraph 2 also provides that such a liaison officer must be available to accompany the inspection team at any time during the in-country period, as agreed with the escort team.

In this regard, paragraph 2 of Section V must be read in conjunction with paragraph 5 of Section II. Paragraph 5 prohibits inspection of a structure or premise utilized by a State Party other than the inspected State Party unless a representative of that other State Party is included on the escort team. The purpose of paragraph 5 is to ensure both that such a structure or premise is not inspected without the knowledge (and consent) of the State Party utilizing that structure or premise and that such a representative is available to the escort team whenever an inspection team requests access to such a structure or premise (particularly one that does not belong to an object of verification), so that the absence of such a representative does not become grounds for refusing an inspection.

Paragraph 3 of Section V provides that the inspection team and escort team must agree upon and record times of arrival at and return to the point of entry/exit. These times are necessary for determining an inspection team's in-country period. The provisions concerning the calculation of the in-country period are set forth in paragraph 17 of Section II of the Protocol. Exceptions to the in-country limit are set forth in paragraph 19 of Section II, paragraph 8 of Section VII, and subparagraph 6(B) of Section VIII of the Protocol.

Paragraph 4 of Section V provides that States Parties on whose territory an inspection is conducted must ensure that the inspection team's luggage, equipment and supplies are exempt from all customs duties, and that procedures for processing luggage, equipment and supplies at the point of entry/exit are concluded expeditiously. In accordance with paragraph 2 of Section XIII of the Protocol, inspectors and transport crew members are prohibited from bringing into the territory of the inspected State Party any articles the import or export of which is prohibited by law or controlled by quarantine regulations of the inspected State Party.

Paragraph 5 of Section V provides that the escort team has the right to examine equipment and supplies carried by the inspection team each time such equipment and supplies are brought into the territory of the inspected State Party. Paragraph 5 also provides that such an examination must be carried out in the presence of inspectors, and must be completed prior to the departure of the inspection team from the point of entry/exit to the inspection site. On the other hand, paragraph 2 of Section XIII of the Protocol accords inspectors and transport crew members the privileges and immunities of diplomatic agents, which includes the inviolability of their papers, correspondence, and personal property, including their personal luggage.

Paragraph 6 of Section V makes clear that the purpose of the equipment examination referred to in paragraph 5 above is to determine whether an item of equipment or supplies is capable of performing functions inconsistent with the requirements of the Protocol. Paragraph 6 provides that if the escort team reaches such a determination, it may deny permission to use that item and may impound it at the point of entry/exit. Paragraph 6 also provides that the escort team may impound any item that is not of a type listed in paragraph 15 of Section VI of the Protocol.

Paragraph 6 further provides that if the escort team impounds any item of equipment or supplies, then the inspecting State Party is obligated to remove it from the territory of the inspected State Party no later than the time when the inspection team which brought that item leaves the country, and earlier if the opportunity arises. As provided in paragraph 15 of Section VI, once the inspected State Party has approved the use of a particular item, by not denying permission for its use, then the inspected State Party may subsequently observe the use of that item but may not interfere with its use if it is used in accordance with the Treaty's provisions.

Paragraph 7 of Section V provides that if a State Party other than the inspected State Party has not participated during examination of equipment of an inspection team at the point of entry/ exit, such a State Party has the right to conduct such an examination pursuant to paragraphs 5 and 6 above prior to inspection:

The purpose of paragraph 7 of Section V is to ensure that stationing States Parties as well as States Parties utilizing structures or premises by agreement with the inspected State Party have an opportunity to determine for themselves that the equipment and supplies used by an inspection team are not capable of performing functions inconsistent with the inspection requirements of the Protocol.

Paragraph 8 of Section V provides that the inspected State Party must provide, or arrange for, meals, lodging, work space, transportation, and, as necessary, medical care or any other emergency assistance for inspectors and transport crew members throughout the period in which they remain on the territory of the inspected State Party.

Paragraph 9 of Section V provides that the inspected State Party must provide accommodation (i.e., parking), security protection, fuel and servicing for the transportation means of the inspecting State Party at the point of entry/exit.

While subparagraph 2(F) of Article XVI of the Treaty provides that the Joint Consultative Group will determine the distribution of costs for inspections, paragraphs 8 and 9 of Section V of the Protocol explicitly obligate the inspected State Party to incur the costs of the services described in those paragraphs until and unless the Joint Consultative Group develops different procedures for cost sharing. On the other hand, under subparagraph l(A) of Section I of the Protocol, stationing States Parties exercise the obligations of the inspected State Party under certain circumstances. As a result, stationing States Parties will incur the costs of relevant services for inspections at sites where their conventional armaments and equipment limited by the Treaty are located.

Section VI of the Protocol sets forth the general provisions governing the conduct of inspections. While Sections VII through X of the Protocol set forth provisions applicable to particular types of inspections, the provisions in Section VI are applicable to more than one type of inspection. Slightly more than half of the paragraphs in Section VI apply to all types of inspections; the remainder apply only to declared site and challenge inspections conducted pursuant to Sections VII and VIII, respectively. In essence, Section VI is an amalgam of all the generally applicable provisions that do not fit neatly into any other section of the Protocol.

Paragraph 1 of Section VI provides that an inspection team may include inspectors from States Parties other than the inspecting State Party. Thus, paragraph 1 permits the United States to invite inspectors from any of the other 21 States Parties to participate on a U.S.-led inspection team (subject to the limitations on team size set forth in paragraph 2 below). Conversely, paragraph 1 also allows U.S. inspectors to participate, at the discretion of the inspecting State Party, in inspection teams headed by any of the other 21 States Parties.

In this regard, paragraph 4 of Article XIV of the Treaty specifies that whenever an inspection team includes inspectors from more than one State Party, one State Party must have overall responsibility for the conduct of the inspection. Subparagraph l(D) of Section I of the Protocol makes clear that the State Party with overall responsibility is the inspection State Party (i.e., the State Party that requested the inspection in accordance with Section IV of the Protocol).

Paragraph 2 of Section VI provides that for all types of inspections conducted under the Treaty (i.e., declared site, challenge, certification and reduction inspections), an inspection team may have no more than nine inspectors and may be divided up into no more than three sub-teams.

However, paragraph 2 also provides that if two inspection teams are conducting inspections simultaneously within a single military district of the Soviet Union, then only one of those teams may have three sub-teams while the other inspection team is limited to two sub-teams. Similarly, paragraph 2 further provides that if two inspection teams are conducting inspections simultaneously on the territory of any State Party other than the Soviet Union, then only one of those teams may have three sub-teams while the other inspection team is limited to two sub-teams.

The overall effect of paragraph 2 of Section VI, particularly when read in conjunction with paragraph 20 of Section II, is to ensure that no State Party, with the exception of the Soviet Union, is subjected to more than two inspection teams, 18 inspectors, and 5 sub-teams conducting CFE inspections at any one time on its territory. In the case of the Soviet Union, these limits would apply to inspections conducted in any military district within the area of application. Any additional simultaneous inspections on Soviet territory would be limited in accordance with the formula set forth in paragraph 20 of Section II (i.e., the "two percent" rule with respect to the total number of objects of verification on the territory of the Soviet Union). Thus, paragraph 2 ensures that States Parties, and in particular host States Parties (such as Germany), are not inundated with CFE inspections and inspectors. On the other hand, it must be emphasized that the limit on the number of inspection teams relates only to teams that are simultaneously conducting inspections. Thus, it is possible that there may be more teams in-country waiting to conduct inspections or preparing to leave at the point of entry/exit after having conducted inspections.

Paragraph 3 of Section VI provides that inspectors and escort team members must wear some clear identification (e.g., badges) of their respective roles.

Paragraph 4 of Section VI provides that an inspector must be deemed to assume his or her duties as an inspector upon arrival at the point of entry/exit on the territory of the inspected State Party' and will be deemed to have ceased performing those duties when he or she leaves the territory of the inspected State Party through a point of entry/exit.

Paragraph 5 of Section VI provides that the number of transport crew members must not exceed 10. Paragraph 5 is intended to mean that the number of transport crew members on any one means of transportation (e.g., an aircraft) is limited to ten individuals. Paragraph 3 of Section II of the Protocol provides that each State party may have up to 600 individuals on its proposed list of transport crew members.

Paragraph 6 of Section VI provides that inspectors and transport crew members must:

Paragraph 6 notes that these obligations apply without prejudice to the privileges and immunities of inspectors and transport crew members, which are set forth in Section XIII of the Protocol.

Paragraph 6 further provides that if the inspected State Party determines that an inspector or transport crew member has violated any of the laws or regulations noted above, or any other conditions governing inspection activities that are set forth in the Protocol, then the inspected State Party must so notify the inspecting State Party, which upon request by the inspected States Party must immediately delete the name of that individual from the list of inspectors or transport crew members, as appropriate. Finally, paragraph 6 provides that, if at the time such a notification of deletion is provided, the individual is on the territory of the inspected State Party, then the inspecting State Party must promptly remove that individual from the inspected State Party's territory.

Paragraph 7 of Section VI provides that the inspected State Party is responsible for ensuring the safety of the inspection team and transport crew members throughout the time they remain on the territory of the inspected State Party.

Paragraph 8 of Section VI provides that the escort team is obligated to assist the inspection team in carrying out its functions. Paragraph 8 also highlights the escort team's right to accompany the inspection team at any time while the inspection team remains on the territory of the State Party where the inspection is carried out.

Paragraph 9 of Section VI provides that the inspecting State Party must ensure that each inspection team and each of its subteams have the necessary inspection linguistic ability to communicate freely with the escort team in the official CSCE language notified in accordance with subparagraphs 2(F) and 3(E) of Section IV of the Protocol (i.e., English, French, German, Italian, Russian, or Spanish). Paragraph 9 also provides that the inspected State Party must ensure that the escort team has the necessary linguistic ability to communicate freely in the notified CSCE language with the inspection team and each of its subteams. Finally, paragraph 9 further provides that inspectors and escort team members may communicate in languages other than the six official CSCE languages (e.g., in Portuguese or Hungarian).

Paragraph 10 of Section VI provides that no information obtained during inspections may be disclosed publicly without the express consent of the inspecting State Party. Paragraph 10 at first glance appears to be counterintuitive since it applies to the inspecting State Party, rather than to the inspected State Party (i.e., the State Party that has been subjected to an inspection and thus whose interests are potentially more at risk). However, the purpose of paragraph 10 is to ensure that the results of inspections may be shared freely with other States Parties, in particular within the Group of 16. Moreover, paragraph 10 also helps to protect the inspecting State Party in cases in which the inspection team consists of nationals from different State Parties. In this regard, paragraph 2 of Section III of the Protocol provides that inspectors must be nationals of the inspecting State Party or other States Parties, while paragraph 4 of Article XIV of the Treaty and paragraph 6 of Section 11 of the Protocol make clear that the inspecting State Party (i.e., the State Party that requested the inspection) is in control of, and responsible for, the conduct of the inspection and the inspection team and each of its subteams.

On the other hand, the interests of the inspected State Party are protected by Article XVI(2)(G) of the Treaty. That provision provides that the State Parties will, within the framework of the Joint Consultative Group, consider and work out appropriate measures to ensure that information obtained as a result of inspections is used solely for the purposes of the Treaty, taking into account the requirements of each State Party in respect of the safeguarding of information which it specifies as being sensitive.

Paragraph 11 of Section VI provides that the inspected State Party must provide appropriate telecommunication means that enable inspectors to communicate with the embassy or consulate of the inspecting State Party throughout their presence on the territory of the inspected State Party. Paragraph 11 also states that the inspected State Party must provide a means of communication between subteams of an inspection team.

Paragraph 12 of Section VI provides that the inspected State Party must transport the inspection team to, from, and between inspection sites by a means and route selected by the inspected State Party. Paragraph 12 also provides that the inspecting State Party has the right to request a variation in the route selected by the inspected State Party. Paragraph 12 further provides that the inspected State Party must grant such a request, if possible. Finally, paragraph 12 provides that, whenever mutually agreed, the inspecting State Party may use its own land vehicles. Of course, in such cases, the inspecting State Party would be responsible for its own transportation means, although the inspected State Party would still have the right to select the route.

Paragraph 13 of Section VI provides that, if an emergency arises that necessitates travel of inspectors from an inspection site to a point of entry/exit, or to the embassy or consulate of the inspecting State Party on the territory of the inspected State Party, then the inspection team must notify the escort team that such an emergency as arisen. In that case, paragraph 13 provides that the escort team is obligated to arrange promptly such travel and to provide appropriate means of transportation if the inspection team does not have its own transportation means.

Paragraph 14 of Section VI states that the inspected State Party must provide an administrative area for use by each inspection team at each inspection site. Paragraph 14 also provides that such an administrative area must be suitable for storing equipment and supplies, writing inspection reports, taking rest breaks, and having meals. In accordance with paragraph 9 of Section VII of the Protocol, the administrative area must be depicted on the site diagram for the inspection site.

Paragraph 15 of Section VI provides that inspection teams have the right to bring to inspection sites such documents as needed to conduct inspections, including their own maps and charts. Paragraph 15 also provides that inspectors have the right to bring to and use at inspection sites the following types of equipment.

Paragraph 15 further provides that inspectors have the right to bring and use other equipment, subject to the approval of the inspected State Party. Finally, paragraph 15 provides that, throughout the in-country period, the escort team has the right to observe the equipment brought by inspectors, but may not interfere with the use of equipment that has been approved in accordance with paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 of Section V of the Protocol.

There are two points worth nothing with respect to paragraph 15 of Section VI. First, in accordance with paragraph 6 of Section V, the escort team may deny for any reason permission to use equipment of a type not listed in paragraph 15. However, the escort team may deny permission to use equipment of a type that is listed in paragraph 15 only if it determines upon examination that it is capable of performing functions inconsistent with the requirements of the Protocol. In this regard, there is a presumption that equipment of a type listed in paragraph 15 performs functions consistent with the requirements of the Inspection Protocol-otherwise it would not be listed. Thus, if an escort team wishes to deny permission to use, for example, a pair of binoculars, it is incumbent upon the escort team to establish that the equipment in question is capable of performing functions different from an ordinary pair of binoculars.

Second, while paragraph 15 of Section VI precludes interference with the use of equipment that has been approved in accordance with Section V of the Protocol, there are specific rules elsewhere in the Protocol for the use of video and still cameras and tape measures. Notwithstanding the general prohibition against interference in paragraph 15, escorts may prevent inspectors from using cameras and tape measures in a manner inconsistent with these other provisions, in particular, the rules for taking photographs (including video) and measurements set forth in paragraph 19 and paragraphs 34 through 38 of Section VI.

Paragraph 16 of Section VI provides that, for declared site and challenge inspections conducted pursuant to Section VII or VIII, respectively, whenever an inspection team designates an inspection site, it must indicate how the inspection will be conducted, i.e., by foot, cross-country vehicle, helicopter, or some combination thereof. Paragraph 16 also provides that, unless otherwise agreed, the inspected State Party is obligated to provide and operate cross-country vehicles at the inspection site. In this regard, however, note that paragraph 12 of Section VI provides that the inspection team may use its own land vehicles.

Paragraphs 17 through 21 of the Section VI set forth provisions governing the use of helicopters for declared site and challenge inspections conducted pursuant to Section VII or VIII, respectively. In this regard, note that there are no provisions for use of helicopters during reduction and certification inspections conducted pursuant to Section X or IX, respectively, of the Protocol.

Paragraph 17 of Section VI establishes a right for inspectors to conduct helicopter overflights of declared sites and specified areas, and an obligation for the inspected State Party to provide and operate helicopters for such overflights. However, paragraph 17 also qualifies these rights and obligations in three important ways:

Paragraph 18 of Section VI provides that the inspected State Party is not obligated to provide a helicopter at any inspection site less than 20 square kilometers in area. The purpose of paragraph 18 is to avoid an unnecessary and uneconomical requirement to have helicopters on call at all inspection sites, no matter how small such sites might be. Nonetheless, paragraph 18 does not preclude agreement between an inspection team and an escort team to use helicopters at such smaller sites.

Paragraph 19 of Section VI provides that the inspected State Party has the right to delay, limit or refuse helicopter overflights above sensitive points. Paragraph 19 also provides that the presence of sensitive points is not a sufficient reason for the inspected State Party to prevent overflight of the remainder of the inspection site. Paragraph 19 further provides that photography of or above sensitive points during helicopter overflights is permitted only with the approval of the escort team. In accordance with paragraph 28 of Section VI, the inspected State Party is obligated to limit as much as possible the number and extent of sensitive points that it designates.

Paragraph 20 of Section VI provides that the inspection team may spend no more than a total of one hour overlying an inspection site during any single inspection, unless the escort team agrees to waive this one hour limit. Note, however, that the one-hour limit is cumulative. Thus, an inspection team may conduct several overflights during an inspection as long as they do not add up to more than one hour of flight time (or the time limit is waived).

Paragraph 21 of Section VI provides that any helicopter provided by the inspected State Party must:

Paragraph 22 of Section VI provides that inspectors may not interfere "directly" with activities at an inspection site. Paragraph 22 also provides that inspectors shall avoid "unnecessarily" hampering or delaying operations at the inspection site. Finally, paragraph 22 prohibits inspectors from taking actions affecting the safe operation of a facility.

Paragraphs 23 through 33 of Section VI set forth provisions governing the rights of inspectors to have access to areas, structures, objects, containers, and equipment during declared site and challenge inspections. In other words, these paragraphs establish what inspectors have a right to see within an inspection site, what escorts are obligated to show them, and what escorts have a right to prevent inspectors from seeing. These provisions apply only to declared site and challenge inspections, and not to declared site and challenge inspections, and not to reduction or certification inspections (i.e., these provisions apply to Sections VII and VIII, rather than to Sections IX and X of the Protocol).

Paragraph 23 of Section VI states that, except as provided for in paragraphs 24 through 29 of Section VI, inspectors must be permitted access and entry to, as well as unobstructed inspection of:

However, paragraph 24 of Section VI also provides that, unless permission is granted by the escort team, inspectors may not enter structures-or areas within such structures-other than those listed in the preceding paragraph if the entry points to which are physically accessible only by personnel doors that do not exceed two meters in width. In this regard, the "two meter" rule is based on the fact that the smallest type of towed artillery piece limited by the Treaty, when assembled, has a width in excess of two meters. Thus, it is precluded from entering such structures or areas without being disassembled. It also was calculated that the smallest types of battle tank, armored combat vehicle, combat aircraft, attack helicopter, and self-propelled artillery piece limited. by the Treaty would not be able to enter through doors less than two meters in width. This rule, however, would not prevent some small types of mortar limited by the Treaty from entering such structures or areas. This is because their width, even when assembled, is less than two meters. The overall purpose of paragraph 24 is to prevent inspectors from disrupting a site by intruding unnecessarily while ostensibly searching for such small types of mortar.

Finally, paragraph 24 provides that the inspection rights set forth in the paragraph are also subject to the provisions of paragraph 25 below.

Paragraph 25 of Section VI further limits the general right of entry into structures-and areas within structures-granted in paragraph 23 in cases in which the structures are hardened aircraft shelters. Specifically, paragraph 25 provides that inspectors are prohibited from entering the interior of hardened aircraft shelters without the approval of the escort team. Paragraph 25 also provides that if the escort team denies inspectors access to the interior of a hardened aircraft shelter, then the escort team, upon request by the inspectors, must display outside the shelter any battle tanks, armored combat vehicles, artillery, combat helicopters, combat aircraft, reclassified combat-capable trainer aircraft, armored personnel carrier look-alikes, armored infantry fighting vehicle look-alikes, or armored vehicle launched bridges that are present in that shelter. Paragraph 25 further provides that inspectors have the right to look into a hardened aircraft shelter to confirm visually whether any battle tanks, armored combat vehicles, artillery, combat helicopters, combat aircraft, reclassified combat-capable trainer aircraft, armored personnel carrier look-alikes, armored infantry fighting vehicle look-alikes or armored vehicle launched bridges are present within the shelter, and if so, to confirm the number and type, model or version of such equipment. In this regard, the provisions in the Protocol referring to visual confirmation or models or versions apply only to those types of armaments and equipment that have specific models or versions listed in the Protocol on Existing Types. For example, inspectors could not demand access to an F-16 combat aircraft to determine if it is an "A" of "C" model because there are not any models or versions listed for this particular type of combat aircraft in the Protocol on Existing Types.

Paragraph 26 of Section VI qualifies the general right to inspect armaments and equipment without obstruction granted in paragraph 23 above. Specifically, paragraph 26 provides that, during declared site inspections of an object of verification or challenge inspections within a specified area, inspectors shall be granted access to conventional armaments and equipment only in so far as is necessary to confirm visually their number and type, model or version. Paragraph 26 also provides that this access and inspection right is further qualified by paragraphs 27 through 33 of Section VI. Note that paragraph 26 does not restrict access to conventional armaments and equipment during inspection of certification or inspection of reduction conducted pursuant to Section IX of X, respectively, of the Protocol.

Paragraph 27 of Section VI further qualifies the inspection rights granted in paragraph 23 above.

Specifically, paragraph 27 provides that the inspected State Party has the right to shroud individual items of equipment, thereby precluding "unobstructed inspection" of those shrouded items.

The phrase "individual sensitive items" is critical to an understanding of paragraph 27. The words "individual" and "items" were used in order to make clear that large areas within an inspection site should not, whenever possible, be shrouded under paragraph 27. Furthermore, the right to shroud sensitive items is in turn qualified by the obligation in paragraph 29 of Section VI for the escort team to "take steps to satisfy" the inspection team that no more than the declared number of conventional armaments and equipment are concealed beneath the shroud. Finally, unlike some other provisions in Section VI, paragraph 27 does not restrict the right to shroud sensitive items to declared site or challenge inspections. This means that the right to shroud also is available to the inspected State Party during certification and reduction inspections as long as such shrouding does not conflict with other provisions of the Treaty.

Paragraph 28 of Section VI is the last in a series of qualifications to the general inspection rights granted in paragraph 23. Paragraph 28 provides that the escort team has the general right to deny inspectors access to sensitive points, shrouded objects, and certain types of containers.

However, the right of the escort team to deny access to such items is in turn qualified by paragraph 28 as well as other provisions of Section VI. First, with respect to sensitive points, paragraph 28 provides that the number and extent of sensitive points "should be as limited as possible." Second, with respect to shrouded objects, the key qualification is that, in accordance with paragraph 27, the right to shroud applies to "individual" items of equipment. However, this qualification is not interpreted as a prohibition against shrouding large numbers of identical items, such as ammunition or other munitions. Third, with respect to containers, paragraph 28 provides that the escort team may deny access to a container if only one of its dimensions (length, width, height or diameter) is less than two meters. In this regard, note how the "two meter" rule in paragraph 28 tracks with the same rule set forth in paragraph 24 of Section VI.

Paragraph 28 further provides that, whenever the escort team denies physical or visual access to a sensitive point, shrouded object or container, it must declare whether any battle tanks, armored combat vehicles, artillery, combat helicopters, combat aircraft, reclassified combat-capable trainer aircraft, armored personnel carrier look-alikes, armored infantry fighting vehicle look-alikes or armored vehicle launched bridges are held within that sensitive point, shrouded object or container, and if so, the number and type, model or version.

Paragraph 29 of Section VI provides that, if an escort team declares pursuant to paragraph 28 above that conventional armaments and equipment of the types listed are present within a sensitive point, shrouded object or container, then the escort team must "display or declare" such armaments and equipment to the inspection team. Paragraph 29 also provides that the escort team must "take steps to satisfy" the inspection team that no more than the declared number of such conventional armaments and equipment are present.

The "display or declare" rule in paragraph 29 essentially means that the escort team always will have the option to simply declare again (having already made such a declaration pursuant to paragraph 28) that conventional armaments and equipment of the types listed are present in the sensitive point, shrouded object or container in question. This means that the "take steps to satisfy" rule also in paragraph 29 takes on added importance.

Paragraph 29 of Section VI does not address the question of whether escorts are obligated to "take steps to satisfy" inspectors in cases when a sensitive point, shrouded object or container is declared, pursuant to paragraph 28, not to contain conventional armaments and equipment of the types listed in paragraph 28. However, since paragraph 29 deals only with cases in which the listed armaments and equipment are declared to be present, this implies that the escort team is not obligated to take steps to satisfy the inspection team in cases in which no listed armaments and equipment are declared to be present. Nonetheless, paragraph 38 of Section VI permits the inspection team to declare an ambiguity in the latter case is the inspection team questions whether listed armaments and equipment are in fact present. Paragraph 38 also obligates the escort team to "provide clarifications" whenever an ambiguity is declared. In this regard, the Treaty does not provide a standard for establishing what constitutes a "clarification." Both the obligation to "provide clarifications" and the obligation to "take steps to satisfy" obviously fall short of a standard to "prove beyond a reasonable doubt," but they do represent a balance between the legitimate interests of those who conduct inspections and those who receive inspections.

One way to meet the obligations to "take steps to satisfy" or "provide clarifications" is to demonstrate that any dimension of the sensitive point, shrouded object or container is less than two meters. This interpretation is consistent with the "two meter" rule in paragraphs 24 and 28 of Section VI, and with the fact that virtually all Treaty-limited armaments and equipment are larger than two meters in every dimension (except for some types of small mortar listed in subparagraph 3(B) of Section I of the Protocol on Existing Types).

Paragraphs 30 through 33 of Section VI set forth special exceptions to the general rule in paragraphs 26 that limits inspectors' access to conventional armaments and equipment. These special exceptions relate to: helicopters of a type that is on the multipurpose attack helicopter list in the Protocol on Existing Types but that are declared to be combat support helicopters as well as to the 100 Soviet Mi-24R or Mi-24K specialized attack helicopters that are not counted as Treaty-limited (paragraph 30); combat-capable trainer aircraft that have been reclassified as unarmed trainer aircraft in accordance with the Protocol on Aircraft Reclassification (paragraph 31); armored personnel carrier or armored infantry fighting vehicle look-alikes (paragraphs 32); and items that have been reduced in accordance with the Protocol on Reduction (paragraph 33). Hence, paragraphs 30 through 33 expand inspectors' rights beyond the narrow right, provided in paragraph 26, to confirm visually the number and type, model or version of conventional armaments and equipment.

Paragraph 30 of Section VI provides inspectors with the right, during a declared site inspection of an object of verification or a challenge inspection within a specified area, to inspect internally any helicopter found at the inspection site that is declared by the escort team to be either:

Paragraph 31 of Section VI provides inspectors with the right, during declared site inspections of objects of verification or challenge inspections within specified areas, to inspect internally any aircraft of a specific model or version listed in Section II of the Protocol on Reclassification that is declared by the escort team to have been certified as unarmed. Paragraph 31 also provides that the internal inspection of such aircraft must be carried out in accordance with paragraphs 4 and 5 of Section IX of the Protocol (i.e., in accordance with the provisions relating to the inspection of the certification of reclassified combat-capable trainer aircraft). The purpose of paragraph 31 is to provide States Parties with an opportunity to inspect reclassified combat-capable trainer aircraft to ensure that they remain unarmed.

Paragraph 32 of Section VI provides inspectors with the right, during declared site inspections of objections of verification or during challenge inspections within specified areas, to inspect any armored vehicle at the inspection site declared by the escort team to be an armored personnel carrier look-alike or armored infantry fighting vehicle look-alike. Paragraph 32 also provides that the purpose of such inspections is to determine that a vehicle is not capable of transporting a combat infantry squad. This point is important because armored vehicle look-alikes are not counted as Treaty-limited armaments and equipment by virtue of their inability to carry troops (see subparagraphs l(D) and l(S) of Article II of the Treaty). In accordance with this purpose, paragraph 32 further provides that inspectors have the right to require the doors and hatches of the vehicle to be opened so that the interior can be visually inspected from outside the vehicle. Finally, paragraph 32 restates the escorts team's right, provided in paragraph 27 of Section VI, to shroud sensitive equipment in or on the vehicle. Ambulances also are not counted as Treaty-limited armaments and equipment. Nor are they deemed to be look-alikes pursuant to subparagraph l(S) of Article II of the Treaty.

Paragraph 33 of Section VI provides inspectors the right, during declared site inspections of objects of verification or challenge inspections within specified areas, to inspect items of equipment at the inspection site declared by the escort team to have been reduced in accordance with the Protocol on Reduction. Paragraph 33 makes clear that the purpose of such inspections is to confirm that the items of equipment have been reduced in accordance with the procedures specified in Sections III through XII of the Protocol on Reduction.

Paragraphs 34 through 38 of Section VI set forth a set of interrelated provisions concerning photography, measurements and ambiguities relating to inspections conducted pursuant to Sections VII through X of the Protocol (i.e., relating to declared site, challenge, certification, and reduction inspections, respectively).

Paragraph 34 of Section VI provides inspectors with the general right to take photographs, including video, for the purpose of recording the presence of conventional armaments and equipment subject to the Treaty. Paragraph 34 also provides that this right to take photographs applies within all designated permanent storage sites and within all other storage sites containing more than 50 items of conventional armaments and equipment subject to the Treaty. Note that the explicit reference to such storage sites does not mean that photography is prohibited at inspection sites other than storage sites. To the contrary, photography is permitted at all types of inspections sites, subject to the restrictions in paragraphs 35 and 36, provided that it is for the purpose of recording the presence of armaments and equipment.

Paragraph 34 further provides that, on the one hand, the escort team must cooperate with the inspection team's taking of photographs and that, on the other hand, the inspectors must advise the escort team in advance whether they plan to take photographs. Finally, paragraph 34 provides that the use by the inspection team of still cameras other than 35 millimeter cameras and those capable of producing instantly developed photographic prints is prohibited.

Paragraph 35 of Section VI provides that the photography of sensitive points will be permitted only with the approval of the escort team. As provided in paragraph 38, this prohibition applies even in the case of ambiguities. Note how paragraph 35 states the general rule prohibiting photography of sensitive points (to include use of video), while the rule stated in paragraph 19 of Section VI presents a special case invoking this prohibition during helicopter overflights of inspection sites.

Paragraph 36 of Section VI provides that, with two exceptions, the photography of interiors of structures is prohibited without the approval of the escort team. First, paragraph 36 makes clear that this prohibition does not apply to the interiors of structures specified in paragraph 34 of Section VI (i.e., all designated permanent storage sites as well as all other storage sites containing more than 50 conventional armaments and equipment subject to the Treaty). Second, paragraph 36 also makes clear that this prohibition does not apply in the case of ambiguities raised in accordance with paragraph 38 of Section VI. Thus, the escort team may not deny permission for the inspection team to document an unresolved ambiguity involving an interior of a structure by means of photography, unless the object of the photograph is declared to be a sensitive point by the escort team.

Paragraph 37 of Section VI provides that inspectors have the right to take measurements to resolve ambiguities during inspections. In this regard, they may make such measurements using tape measures as provided for in paragraph 15 of Section VI. Paragraph 37 also provides that measurements recorded during inspections must be confirmed immediately after they are taken by a member of the inspection team and a member of the escort team. Paragraph 37 further provides that such confirmed data must be included in the inspection report (see also Section XII of the Protocol regarding inspection reports).

Paragraph 38 of Section VI provides that the States Parties must, whenever possible, resolve during inspections ambiguities that arise regarding factual information. In particular, paragraph 38 states that the escort team must provide promptly to the inspectors clarifications of ambiguities upon request by inspectors. Paragraph 38 further provides that if inspectors remain unsatisfied with the clarifications provided, then they have a right to document the ambiguity by means of photography. In such cases, paragraph 38 provides that the escort team must cooperate with the inspection team's taking of appropriate photographs, except that escorts may prohibit photography of sensitive points. For the purpose of documenting ambiguities paragraph 38 mandates the use of cameras capable of producing instantly developed photographic prints. Finally, paragraph 38 provides that whenever an ambiguity cannot be resolved during an inspection, then the inspector's question, the escort team's clarifications, and any pertinent photographs must be included in the inspection report in accordance with Section XII of the Protocol.

Paragraph 39 of Section VI provides that declared site and challenge inspections, conducted pursuant to Section VII or VIII of the protocol, respectively, shall be deemed to be completed once the inspection report has been signed and countersigned.

Paragraph 40 of Section VI establishes procedures for conducting sequential inspections, that is, inspections following the first inspection notified in accordance with Section IV of the Protocol. Paragraph 40 provides that the inspection team must inform the escort team, prior to or upon completion of a declared site or challenge inspection, whether it intends to conduct a sequential inspection. Paragraph 40 provides that if the inspection team does intend to conduct a sequential inspection, it must designate the next inspection site at the same time it declares its intent. Paragraph 40 notes that paragraphs 42 and 43 of Section VI address the case when an inspection team does not intend to conduct a sequential inspection.

Paragraph 40 further provides that the inspected State Party must ensure that, if an inspection team does declare a sequential inspection, the team arrives at the sequential inspection site as soon as possible after completion of the previous inspection, subject to two caveats. First, pursuant to paragraph 6 of Section VII and paragraph 6 of Section VIII (i.e., in the case of both declared site and challenge inspections), the inspected State Party has the right to utilize up to six hours after designation of the sequential inspection site to prepare for arrival of the inspection team at that site. Second, pursuant to paragraph 17 of Section VII, if, during a declared site inspection, the inspection team decides to conduct at that declared site an inspection of another object of verification that it had not previously designated to be inspected, then the inspected State Party has up to three hours from the time that the object of verification is designated to prepare for the inspection before the inspection team may commence the inspection. Thus, since an inspection team may declare a sequential inspection several hours prior to completing an inspection, it may in such a case begin the sequential inspection immediately upon arrival at the site.

Paragraph 41 of Section VI sets forth which declared sites and specified areas are eligible for designation as sequential inspection sites. Paragraph 41 provides that sequential inspections are permitted only for declared sites and specified areas in the same country as the preceding inspection site. Subject to this general constraint and any other relevant provisions in Section VII or VIII for the Protocol, an inspection team may declare a sequential inspection of any site that satisfies any one of the following five criteria:

Paragraph 43 of Section VI provides that the inspection team must depart the territory of the inspected State Party from the same point of entry/exit at which it arrived, unless the escort team agrees otherwise. Paragraph 43 also provides that, if an inspection team wishes to proceed to the territory of another State Party for the purpose of conducting inspections, it may do so only if the inspecting State Party has provided the appropriate notification in accordance with paragraph 1 of Section IV of the Protocol.

Section VII of the Protocol sets forth the specific procedures for the conduct of inspections at declared sites (i.e., at facilities or locations that contain one or more objects of verification). States Parties may not refuse declared site inspections, but such inspections are conducted on a quota basis for each State Party calculated in accordance with paragraph 10 of Section II of the Protocol. Section VII is to be implemented in conjunction with Sections I through VI and XI through XIII of the Protocol.

Paragraph 1 of Section VII provides that State Parties have the right to conduct inspections of declared sites without right of refusal by the inspected State Party. Paragraph 1 also provides that declared site inspections may be delayed only for reasons of force majeure or in accordance with paragraph 7 and paragraphs 20 through 22 of Section 11 of the Protocol.

The term "delay" as used in paragraph 1 refers to the right of an inspected State Party to delay the commencement of an inspection beyond the times specified in paragraph 8 of Section VII of the Protocol by which the inspecting State Party's inspection team must be allowed to arrive at the designated inspection site.

The term "force majeure" in paragraph I is understood to mean a superior or irresistible force beyond the control of a State Party that was unforeseeable and could not be avoided by the exercise of due care. Thus, the term would include, but not be limited to, extreme weather conditions, earthquakes and landslides, epidemics and sudden deaths or catastrophic illnesses, strikes and lockouts, riots and civil commotions, and deliberate interference (such as by a third party).

With regard to the other types of delay specified in paragraph 1 of Section VII, paragraph 7 of Section II provides that there may be only one inspection team at a given inspection site. This means that if an inspection team is already at the site designated for inspection, the inspected State Party can delay a subsequent inspection team until the first team has departed the site. Paragraphs 20 through 22 of Section II limit the number of inspection teams that can simultaneously be inspecting the forces of a State Party or on the territory of a State Party or, in the case of the Soviet Union, in a single military district. The delay allowed by paragraph 7 of Section II as well as by paragraphs 20, 21 and 22 of Section II could be a delay between arrival in country and arrival at the site designated for inspection. Finally, while paragraph 1 of Section VII specifies several legitimate instances in which delay may occur, it should be noted that paragraph 5 of Section VII provides another legitimate instance in which the commencement of an inspection may be delayed beyond the time limit set forth in paragraph 8 of Section VII.

Paragraph 2 of Section VII provides that, as a general rule, if an inspection team intends to designate a declared site as the first inspection site after arrival at the point of entry/exit, then it must arrive at a point of entry/exit identified in accordance with Section V of the Protocol on Information Exchange as being associated with that declared site. An exception to this general rule is set forth in paragraph 3 below.

Paragraph 3 of Section VII provides that the inspecting State Party has the right to propose a ground border crossing point or seaport as a point of entry/exit for its first inspection pursuant to paragraph 4 of Section IV of the Protocol if. (a) it wishes to arrive by means of ground of sea transportation to inspect a declared site; and (b) the inspected State Party has not previously notified a ground border crossing point or seaport as a point of entry/exit as being associated with the declared site the inspecting State Party desires to inspect. Paragraph 3 further provides that the inspected State Party has the right to reject the proposed ground border crossing point or seaport, but is obligated to notify the inspecting State Party of another point of entry/exit as near as possible to the one requested. Such an alternate point of entry/exit notified by the inspected State Party may be either an airport (notified pursuant to Section V of the Protocol on Information Exchange), ground border crossing point, or seaport.

Paragraph 4 and 5 of Section VII provide additional rules with regard to the rights provided in paragraph 3 above.

Paragraph 4 of Section VII, in effect, places a condition upon the right of an inspecting State Party to notify and request use of a ground border crossing point or seaport as a point of entry/exit for a declared site at which no such point of entry has been declared. Paragraph 4 provides that, prior to notifying such a request, the inspecting State Party must determine that there is a "reasonable certainty" that its inspection team can reach the first inspection site, when using ground transportation, within the time limit specified in paragraph 8 of Section VII. In this regard, paragraph 8 limits this travel time to nine hours for most sites and to 15 hours for sites in mountainous terrain or terrain to which access is difficult.

Paragraph 5 of Section VII provides that if an inspected State Party agrees to receive an inspection team at an alternative point of entry/exit in accordance with paragraph 3 above, then the inspected State Party must facilitate access to the site as expeditiously as possible, but is permitted to exceed the 9 to 15 hour time limit established by paragraph 8 of Section VII.

Paragraph 6 of Section VII provides that the inspected State Party has the right to utilize up to six hours after designation of a declared site by the inspection team in order to prepare for the arrival of the inspection team at that declared site. Thus, paragraph 6 essentially qualifies the obligation - as set forth in paragraph 8 of Section VII with regard to the first inspection and as set forth in paragraph 40 of Section VI with regard to sequential inspections - for the inspected State Party to ensure that the inspection team arrives as soon as possible at the declared site. In this regard, note that paragraph 6 refers only to the time after designation of a declared site. Once the inspection team arrives at the site and designates the first object of verification to be inspected at that site, there is no additional delay to prepare for that inspection.

Paragraph 7 of Section VII provides that the inspection team must designate the first declared site to be inspected within the time interval set forth in the notification of intent to inspect that the inspecting State Party provided to the inspected State Party in accordance with subparagraph 2(E) of Section IV of the Protocol. Paragraph 7 also makes clear that this time interval must be no less than one hour and no more than 16 hours after arrival of the inspection team at the point of entry/exit.

Paragraph 8 of Section VII provides that the inspected State Party must transport the inspection team to the first declared site by the most expeditious means possible and as soon as possible (except when the inspection team is using its own transportation, in which case the obligation to "ensure" is essentially an obligation to facilitate expeditious travel). Paragraph 8 also provides that the inspected State Party must ensure arrival of the inspection team within nine hours after designation of that site, but also provides exceptions for sites located in mountainous terrain or in terrain to which access is difficult. In such exceptional case, paragraph 8 further provides that the inspection team must be transported to the inspection site no later than 15 hours after designation of the site. Finally, paragraph 8 provides that travel time in excess of nine hours will not count as part of the in-country period defined in paragraph 17 of Section II.

Thus, when paragraph 8 is read in conjunction with paragraph 6 of Section VII, it means that the inspected State Party must ensure arrival of the inspection team at the first declared site as soon as possible, but in any event no later than between six and nine (or 15) hours after the site has been designated by the inspection team at the point of entry/exit, except under the special (and presumably rare) circumstances provided for in paragraph 1 of Section VII (e.g., delays due to force majeure) and in paragraph 5 of Section VII (e.g., delays due to requests for special ground border crossing points or seaports as point of entry/exit).

Paragraph 9 Section VII provides that, immediately upon arrival at the declared site, the inspection team must be: (a) escorted to a briefing facility; and (b) provided with a diagram of the declared site, unless such a diagram was already provided to the inspected State Party in a previous exchange of site diagrams (e.g., if the inspection State Party has previously conducted an inspection of that particular declared site, then the escort team of the inspected State Party would not be required to provide another site diagram, unless the earlier site diagram was no longer accurate). Also, it should be noted that paragraph 9 is intended to allow for the possibility that States Parties might exchange site diagrams on a bilateral basis prior to or upon entry into force of the Treaty, or that agreement to that effect might be reached within the framework of the Joint Consultative Group.

Paragraph 9 of Section VII also provides that the declared site diagram must contain an accurate depiction of the information required to be provided by subparagraphs (A) through (G) below.

Subparagraph (A) of paragraph 9 provides that the diagram must contain the geographic coordinates of a point within the inspection site, to the nearest 10 seconds, with an indication of that point and true north. The purpose of a designated point on the site diagram is to permit the inspection team to verify that it, in fact, has been taken to the correct site.

Subparagraph (B) of paragraph 9 of Section VII provides that the diagram must show the scale used in the diagram.

Subparagraph (C) of paragraph 9 provides that the diagram must depict the perimeter of the declared site. In this regard, in accordance with subparagraph l(N) of Section I of the Protocol, the perimeter depicted on the site diagram should encompass: (a) all territory within the outermost boundary of the facility (e.g., if there is an outer fence and one or more interior fences, all territory within the outer fence must be included on the diagram); and (b) all "associated territory" outside of the perimeter boundary, such as firing ranges, at which battle tanks, armored combat vehicles, artillery. combat aircraft, combat helicopters, reclassified combat-capable trainer aircraft, armored personnel carrier or armored infantry fighting vehicle look-alikes, or armored vehicle launched bridges are permanently or routinely present.

Subparagraph (D) of paragraph 9 provides that the diagram must precisely delineate the boundaries of those areas belonging exclusively to each object of verification at the declared site. Subparagraph (D) also provides that the diagram must indicate the formation or unit record number of each object of verification in each such area. In this regard, each object of verification is required to have a formation or unit record number in accordance with Section V(2)(D) of the Annex on Format to the Protocol on Information Ex- change.

Subparagraph (D) of paragraph 9 of Section VII further provides that the diagram depict any separately located areas of an object of verification where battle tanks, armored combat vehicles, artillery, combat aircraft, combat helicopters, reclassified combat-capable trainer aircraft, armored personnel carrier or armored infantry fighting vehicle look-alikes, or armored vehicle launched bridges are permanently assigned. The requirement in subparagraph (D) to delineate such separately located areas is necessary because paragraph 12 of Section VII provides that the inspecting State Party has the right, during an inspection, to inspect separate locations containing conventional armaments and equipment subject to the Treaty belonging to the same object of verification that is being inspected. In this regard, Section V(1)(B) of the Protocol on Information Exchange provides that battalions located in the vicinity of each other or their brigade headquarters may be deemed as not separately located, if the distance between such separately located battalions or to their headquarters does not exceed 15 kilometers.

Subparagraph (E) of paragraph 9 of Section VII provides that the site diagram show major buildings and roads on the declared site.

Subparagraph (F) of paragraph 9 provides that the site diagram depict entrances to the declared site.

Subparagraph (G) of paragraph 9 provides that the diagram depict the location of an administrative area for the inspection team, which is to be provided for the use of the inspection team pursuant to paragraph 14 of Section VI of the Protocol.

Paragraph 10 of Section VII provides that the inspection team must designate the particular object of verification to be inspected within one-half hour after receipt of the site diagram. Note, however, that this provision applies only for cases in which the declared site has more than one object of verification.

Paragraph 10 of Section VII also states that the escort team must then provide a pre-inspection briefing for the inspection team. Paragraph 10 further provides that the briefing may last no more than one hour and must include the information specified in subparagraphs (A) through (C) below.

Subparagraph (A) of paragraph 10 provides that the briefing must describe the safety and administrative procedures the inspection team is to follow while at the inspection site.

Subparagraph (B) of paragraph 10 provides that the briefing must include the modalities of transportation and communication for the inspectors while they are at the site.

Subparagraph (C) of paragraph 10 provides that the briefing must include information on the holdings and locations at the inspection site of the following armaments and equipment belonging to the object of verification to be inspected: battle tanks, armored combat vehicles, artillery, combat aircraft, combat helicopters, reclassified combat-capable trainer aircraft, armored personnel carrier or armored infantry fighting vehicle look-alikes, and armored vehicle launched bridges. Subparagraph (C) of paragraph 10 also provides that the information must include: (a) all such armaments and equipment of the object of verification located in areas not belonging exclusively to any object of verification at the declared site; and (b) all such armaments and equipment of the object of verification that are at separately located subordinate elements (e.g., battalions/squadrons or their equivalent or lower that belong to the object of verification and are not located at the inspection site).

When paragraph 10 is read together with paragraph 8 of Section VII, the result is that, while the inspection must be commenced as soon as possible and the maximum time after site designation which the inspected State Party may use to transport the inspection team to the inspection site is nine (or 15) hours, the inspection may not in some cases actually commence for up to 10 to 10.5 (or 16 to 16.5) hours after designation of the site (e.g., for reasons of travel time, site diagram review, and pre-inspection briefing).

Paragraph 11 of Section VII provides that the escort team must explain during the pre-inspection briefing any differences between the numbers of battle tanks, armored combat vehicles, artillery, combat aircraft, combat helicopters, or armored vehicle launched bridges that are present at the inspection site and the numbers of such armaments and equipment notified in the most recent notification pursuant to the Protocol on Information Exchange. Paragraph 11 also provides that such explanations must provide the following information:

Paragraph 12 of Section VII provides that the inspection team has the right, when inspecting an object of verification, to inspect all territory delineated on the site diagram as belonging to that object of verification, including those separately located areas, within the territory of the inspected State Party, at which conventional armaments and equipment belonging to the object of verification are permanently assigned.

Paragraph 13 of Section VII provides that the inspection team has the right, when inspecting an object of verification, to inspect the entire declared site, except for those areas belonging exclusively to another object of verification that has not been designated by the inspection team for inspection.

In summary, bearing in mind the definition of "inspection site" in subparagraph l(I) of Section 1, the definition of "declared site" in subparagraph l(N) of Section I, and paragraphs 9, 10 and 12 of Section VII, the following rules apply with respect to the areas that may be inspected during a declared site inspection. First, the declared site consists of all territory within the "outer boundary" of the site as well as any "associated territory" outside of the perimeter of the declared site (e.g., firing ranges, training areas, etc.). Second, the territory within the declared site (i.e., within the outer boundary is divided into: (a) areas belonging exclusively to any single object of verification; and (b) "common areas" not belonging exclusively to any object of verification. Third, when inspecting a single object of verification, the inspection team must be provided access and entry to, and unobstructed inspection of, all the common areas within the site as well as the area belonging exclusively to that object of verification. Fourth, the inspection team also must be provided access and entry to, and unobstructed inspection of, all separately located areas that are not part of the declared site at which armaments and equipment belonging to the inspected object of verification are permanently assigned. Fifth, of course, when considering the right of access and entry to, and unobstructed inspection of, the object of verification, the special provisions in Section VI of the Protocol relating to sensitive points, the two meter door rule, containers, hardened aircraft shelters, shrouding, and photography must be observed (e.g., paragraphs 26 through 38).

Paragraph 14 of Section VII provides that the escort team must ensure that the inspection team has access to conventional armaments and equipment belonging to the object of verification being inspected that are located on a part of the declared site belonging exclusively to another object of verification. Paragraph 14 makes clear that this rule applies to battle tanks, armored combat vehicles, artillery, combat aircraft, combat helicopters, reclassified combat-capable trainer aircraft, armored personnel carrier or armored infantry fighting vehicle look-alikes, or armored vehicle launched bridges. With regard to the issue of access, it is understood that the escort team has the right to decide either to take inspectors to the other object of verification where such armaments and equipment are located or bring the armaments and equipment to the inspectors.

Paragraph 15 of Section VII provides that the escort team must, with respect to conventional armaments and equipment limited by the Treaty or armored vehicle launched bridges located within the common areas of a declared site, inform the inspectors to which object of verification such armaments and equipment belong. In this regard, subparagraph l(J) of Article II of the Treaty defines the term "conventional armaments and equipment limited by the Treaty" to consist of battle tanks, armored combat vehicles, artillery, combat aircraft, and attack helicopters subject to the numerical limitations set forth in the Treaty.

Paragraph 16 of Section VII provides that each State Party must, upon request by another State Party, account for the aggregate total of any category of conventional armaments and equipment limited by the Treaty and notified pursuant to Section III of the Protocol on Information Exchange at the organizational level above brigade, regiment, or the equivalent (e.g., a division). Furthermore, the phrase "any category" means that the information can be requested for all Treaty-limited armaments and equipment, not just for a single category. The purpose of paragraph 16 is to ensure that an accounting will be available of Treaty-limited armaments and equipment that may not be captured under the definition of the term "object of verification" in subparagraph l(J) of Section I of the Protocol on Inspection.

Paragraph 17 of Section VII provides that, if during an inspection at a declared site, the inspection team decides to conduct at the same declared site an inspection of another object of verification, then the inspection team has the right to begin such an inspection not later than three hours after designating such a sequential inspection, but not prior to completion of the current inspection (see paragraph 40 of Section VI of the Protocol). Paragraph 17 also provides that a briefing, in accordance with paragraphs 10 and 11 of Section VII, must be given concerning the object of verification being sequentially inspected.

Section VIII of the Protocol sets forth the procedures pertinent (i.e., any area within the area of application other than at declared sites, reduction sites or certification sites). Like declared site inspections, challenge inspections are conducted on a quota basis calculated in accordance with the provisions of Section II of the Protocol. However, unlike declared site inspections, each State Party with territory within the area of application has a right to refuse any particular challenge inspection on its territory (subject to paragraph 12 of Section 11 of the Protocol). In addition to Section VIII, Sections I, II through VI, and XI through XIII of the Protocol also apply to challenge inspections. Finally, it should be noted that the term "challenge inspection" is not defined in the Treaty, but the definition of the term "specified area" in subparagraph l(O) of Section I provides that challenge inspections are carried out in accordance with Section VIII of the Protocol.

Paragraph 1 of Section VIII provides that each State Party has the right to conduct challenge inspections within specified areas in accordance with the provisions of the Protocol. The qualifying phrase "in accordance with the provisions of the Protocol" is critical to the understanding of paragraph 1. This is because paragraph 4 of Section VIII provides that an inspected State Party may refuse requests for challenge inspections. Since paragraph 1 is drafted with a qualification and paragraph 4 is expressed without qualification, paragraph 4 takes precedence over paragraph 1. This means that States Parties do, in fact, have a right to refuse requests for challenge inspections on their territory.

Paragraph 2 of Section VIII sets forth procedures in subparagraphs (A) and (B) that an inspecting State Party must follow in the event that it intends to conduct a challenge inspection as its first inspection after arrival at a point of entry/exit.

Subparagraph (A) of paragraph 2 provides that the point of entry/exit to be notified pursuant to Section IV of the Protocol must be the designated point of entry/exit nearest to or within the specified area to be inspected that is capable of receiving the inspecting State Party's chosen means of transportation (i.e., air, sea or ground transportation). It is understood that subparagraph (A) does not require the inspecting State Party to choose the nearer of two designated points of entry/exit in cases when one ground or sea and one airport point of entry/exit have been designated. Rather, if the inspecting State Party chooses to arrive by air, it must notify the nearest designated airport point of entry/exit; on the other hand, if it chooses to arrive by ground (or sea), it must notify the nearest designated ground (or sea) point of entry/exit.

Subparagraph (B) of paragraph 2 of Section VIII provides that the inspection team must designate the first specified area to be inspected at the time it indicated in the notification of intent to conduct an inspection that it provided pursuant to subparagraph 2(E) of Section IV of the Protocol. Subparagraph (B) makes clear that the time in which the inspection site must be designated is between one and 16 hours after the inspection team arrives at the point of entry/exit.

Subparagraph (B) of paragraph 2 of Section VIII further provides that the inspection team must, as part of its inspection request, provide to the escort team a geographic description of the specified area to be inspected that delineates its outer boundaries. Finally, subparagraph (B) provides that the inspection team has the right, as part of its request, to identify any structure or facility it wishes to inspect.

Paragraph 3 of Section VIII provides that the State Party on whose territory the challenge inspection is requested must notify all other States Parties that utilize by agreement with the inspected State Party structures or premises on that territory. Paragraph 3 also provides that such notification by the inspected State Party must: (a) be provided immediately upon receipt of the designation of a specified area; and (b) include the geographic description delineating the outer boundaries of the specified area.

Thus, for example, whenever the Soviet Union requests to conduct a challenge inspection in the United Kingdom, paragraph 3 requires that the U.K. must inform the United States of the boundaries of the specified area so that it can determine whether there are U.S. assets within the specified area. This point is important because: (a) Section 11(4) of the Protocol makes clear that structures or premises used by a State Party in agreement with the inspected State Party may not be inspected unless the other State Party's representative is on the escort team; and (b) Section V(2) of the Protocol requires that the State Party that utilizes such structures or premises must provide a liaison officer to the escort team at the point of entry/exit to accompany the inspection team if so requested by the escort team.

Paragraph 4 of Section VIII provides that the inspected State Party has the right to refuse requests for challenge inspections. As noted above, paragraph 4 takes precedence over paragraph I of Section VIII. This means that States Parties, in fact, do not have an absolute right to conduct challenge inspections; rather, they only have the right under the Treaty to request such inspections. However, note that paragraph 12 of Section II provides, in pertinent part, that "each State Party with territory within the area of application is obliged to accept a minimum of one inspection each year within a specified area pursuant to Section VIII of the Protocol."

With regard to paragraphs 3 and 4 of Section VIII, it is important to note that, in accordance with paragraph 4 of Section II, if the specified area designated for inspection consists entirely of a structure or premises utilized by another State Party by agreement with the inspected State Party, then the other State Party may request that the inspected State Party refuse the inspection request. If a specified area includes a structure or premise utilized by the United States by agreement with the inspected State Party, the U.S. does not have a right of refusal, but may deny access to that structure or premises in accordance with the access provisions in Section VI of the Protocol, In addition, the United States also may exercise the rights specified in the Protocol with respect to the inspection of its equipment and material in such structures and premises, including the designation of sensitive points and the shrouding of sensitive items.

Paragraph 5 of Section VIII provides that the inspected State Party must respond "yes or no" to the inspection team's request to conduct an inspection within a specified area within two hours after designation of the specified area within two hours after designation of the specified area. If, pursuant to subparagraph 2(B) above, the inspection team has identified, as part of its request, specific structures or facilities it wishes to inspect, then approval of the request by the inspected State Party should also indicate whether those specified structures and facilities may be inspected.

Paragraph 6 of Section VIII sets forth the procedures for conducting a challenge inspection once the inspection request is accepted pursuant to paragraph 5 above.

Subparagraph (A) of paragraph 6 provides that the inspected State Party may use up to six hours to prepare the specified area before the arrival of the inspection team. It is analogous to paragraph 6 of Section VII of the Protocol, except that the six-hour preparation time begins upon acceptance of the inspection, rather than designation of the site.

Subparagraph (B) of paragraph 6 is analogous to paragraph 8 of Section VII, except that the nine (or 15) hour travel time begins upon acceptance of the inspection, rather than designation of the site. Specifically, subparagraph (B) provides that the inspected State Party must ensure that the inspection team arrives at the specified area to be inspected by the most expeditious route and as soon as possible, but no later than nine hours after the inspection has been accepted, unless:

Subparagraph (C) of paragraph 6 of Section VIII provides that the provisions of Section VI of the Protocol apply to challenge inspections within specified areas. In particular, subparagraph (C) provides that the escort team has the right to delay access to, or overflight of, particular parts of a specified area, but any delay time does not count against either the in-country period of the inspection team or the maximum time the inspection team is allowed within the specified area. Since Section VI grants the inspected State Party the right to deny or delay access to, or helicopter overflight of, sensitive points, the right of delay provided by subparagraph (C) must be understood to apply to other parts of the specified area that are not designated as sensitive points by the escort team.

Subparagraph (C) of paragraph 6 of Section VIII also provides that the inspection team has the right to cancel the inspection if the delay is greater than four hours in duration. Although not specifically stated, this right of cancellation should be understood in the same light as the rule in subparagraph 9(B) of Section VIII, i.e., if the inspection is canceled by the inspecting State Party because of a delay that exceeds four hours, no inspection quota shall be counted against the inspecting State Party, and the time between designation of the specified area and the cancellation of the inspection will not count against the inspection team's in-country period.

Paragraph 7 of Section VIII sets forth the procedures to be followed in the event that, during inspection within a specified area, the inspection team requests access to a structure or premises that another State Party utilizes by agreement with the inspected State Party. In such a case, paragraph 7 provides that the inspected State Party must immediately inform that other State Party of the request. Paragraph 7 of Section VIII also provides that the escort team must inform the inspection team that the other State Party shall, in cooperation with the inspected State Party and to the extent consistent with the agreement between them on utilization, exercise the rights and obligations set forth in the Protocol with respect to inspections involving equipment or material of the State Party using the structure or premises.

Paragraph 7 is a critical provision in the Treaty's inspection regime for States Parties, such as the United States, that have installations within the area of application at which Treaty-limited armaments and equipment are not present. In such cases, the protective rights afforded to the United States under subparagraph l(A) of Section I and paragraph 3 of Section II will not be available because those provisions are applicable only when the United States has Treaty-limited armaments and equipment present. The purpose of paragraph 7 is to provide those protective rights that the United States would otherwise lack. In effect, then, paragraph 7 protects U.S. interests during challenge inspections just as Section I(l)(A) and paragraphs 2 and 3 of Section II do during declared site inspections. Paragraph 7 applies to installations that are being used by the United States by agreement with the inspected State Party (i.e., the State Party on whose territory the installation used by the United States is located). An example of such a utilization agreement would be the various status of forces (SOFA) agreements negotiated between the United States and its NATO allies concerning military bases. Pursuant to paragraph 4 of Section II, such structures or premises may not be inspected, unless a representative of the United States is on the escort team. As such, the inspection team may be delayed until such a representative is as- signed.

Paragraph 8 of Section VIII provides that the inspected State Party has the right to conduct a pre-inspection briefing, to include safety and administrative procedures, upon arrival of the inspection team at the specified area. Paragraph 8 also provides that, if the inspected State Party does elect to provide such a briefing, it may not last longer than one hour.

Paragraph 9 of Section VIII sets forth in subparagraphs (A) and (B) below the procedures in the event that the inspected State Party denies the inspection team's request to conduct a challenge inspection of a specified area.

Subparagraph (A) of paragraph 9 provides that, if an inspection is denied, the inspected State Party, or the other State Party exercising the rights and obligations of the inspected State Party, must "provide all reasonable assurance that the specified area does not contain conventional armaments and equipment limited by the Treaty." Subparagraph (A) assumes that no such armaments and equipment are normally present in the specified area, but correctly recognizes that this may not always be the case.

For example, Treaty-limited armaments and equipment notified as belonging to units (i.e., objects of verification) located outside of the specified area could be temporarily in the area as part of an exercise or in transit from one object of verification to another. Moreover, since there are several organizations or locations that could have conventional armaments and equipment limited by the Treaty but that are not objects of verification (e.g., internal security organizations containing battle tanks or artillery or units with equipment reported pursuant to paragraph 2 of Section III of the Protocol on Information Exchange) or have conventional armaments and equipment that are of a type limited by the Treaty but are not counted under the Treaty (e.g., equipment being held for export), there will be some conventional armaments equipment limited by the Treaty, or of a type limited by the Treaty, that are located at other than declared sites.

Subparagraph (A) of paragraph 9 of Section VIII also provides for a special case in which:

Subparagraph (B) of paragraph 9 of Section VIII provides that when a challenge inspection is denied:

Subparagraph (B) of paragraph 9 of Section VIII also provides that when the inspection is denied, the inspection team has the right to:

Section IX of the Protocol sets forth the specific procedures pertaining to certification inspections. The purpose of these inspections is to provide States Parties with an opportunity to ensure that multipurpose attack helicopters have been recategorized into combat support helicopters in accordance with the Protocol on Helicopter Recategorization and that combat-capable trainer aircraft have been reclassified into unarmed trainer aircraft in accordance with the Protocol on Aircraft Reclassification. Although States Parties may not inspect the actual process of recategorization or reclassification, they do have the right under Section IX to confirm that such processes were carried out properly as certified by the State Party undertaking the recategorization or reclassification. These inspection procedures are important because, unlike multipurpose attack helicopters and combat-capable trainer aircraft, recategorized multipurpose attack helicopters and reclassified combat-capable trainer aircraft, respectively, are not subject to the numerical limitations set forth in paragraph 1 of Article IV and in Article VI of the Treaty.

Certification inspections conducted pursuant to Section IX are without right of refusal by the State Party conducting the certification process and are not subject to inspection quotas. In particular, such inspections do not count against declared site or challenge inspection quotas. Unlike the other provisions in the Protocol, Section IX permits the intrusive internal inspection of helicopters and trainer aircraft. Section IX also works in conjunction with paragraphs 30 and 31 of Section VI of the Protocol, which permit inspectors during declared site or challenge inspections to conduct internal inspections of combat support helicopters of a type that may be recategorized and trainer aircraft that have been reclassified. In addition to Section VI, Section IX is to be implemented in conjunction with Sections I through V and XI through XIII of the Protocol.

Paragraph I of Section IX provides that each State Party has the right to inspect, without right of refusal, the certification of recategorized multipurpose attack helicopters and reclassified combat-capable trainer aircraft in accordance with the provisions of Section IX of the Protocol, the Protocol on Helicopter Recategorization, and the Protocol on Aircraft Reclassification. Paragraph I also provides that such inspections shall not count against the quotas established in Section II of the Protocol. Paragraph 1 further provides that inspection teams may be composed of representatives of different States Parties. Finally, paragraph 1 provides that no inspected State Party is obligated to receive more than one inspection team at a time at each certification site.

Paragraph 2 of Section IX provides that an inspection team has the right to spend up to two days at a certification site during a certification inspection, unless otherwise agreed.

Paragraph 3 of Section IX provides that the State Party conducting the certification must provide notification to all other States Parties at least 15 days in advance of the certification of recategorized multipurpose attack helicopters or reclassified combat-capable trainer aircraft. This reporting requirement is parallel to the notification provision for reduction activities provided pursuant to paragraph 5 of Section X of the Protocol on Reduction.

Subparagraphs (A) through (H) of paragraph 3 requires that the following information be provided in the advance notification of certification activities:

Paragraph 5 of Section IX provides that the escort team must remove, upon request by the inspection team, access panels that conceal areas from which components and wiring were removed pursuant to the provisions of the Protocol on Helicopter Recategorization or the Protocol on Aircraft Reclassification.

Paragraph 6 of Section IX provides that inspectors have the right to request and observe, subject to a right of refusal on the part of the State Party conducting the certification, the activation of weapon system components in multipurpose attack helicopters being certified or declared to have been recategorized.

Note that in accordance with paragraphs 30 and 31 of Section VI of the Protocol, the same inspection rights set forth in paragraphs 4 through 6 above also apply, during declared site and challenge inspections, to inspections of:

Paragraph 8 of Section IX provides that inspectors have the right, upon completion of an inspection at a certification site, to either:

Paragraph 9 is important because of its connection to paragraph 4 of Section IV of the Protocol on Helicopter Recategorization and to paragraph 4 of Section IV of the Protocol on Aircraft Reclassification. These two provisions provide that, regardless of whether any State Party has chosen to conduct a certification inspection, the recategorization or reclassification process shall be deemed completed 30 days after notification has been provided pursuant to paragraph 9 above, unless a State Party notifies all other State Parties that it considers that there is an ambiguity relating to that certification and recategorization or reclassification process.

Section X of the Protocol sets forth the specific procedures pertaining to the inspection of reductions that are carried out pursuant to the Protocol on Reduction. The purpose of these inspections is to provide States Parties with an opportunity to ensure that such reductions of conventional armaments and equipment limited by the Treaty are being carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Protocol on Reduction. Unlike inspections of certification carried out pursuant to Section IX, all inspections of reduction under Section X, except for those relating to final conversion for nonmilitary purposes, include the right to inspect the process of reduction, rather than merely the results of such reduction. These inspections are important because Treaty-limited armaments and equipment reduced in accordance with the Protocol on Reduction are no longer subject to the numerical limitations set forth in Articles IV, V, and VI of the Treaty.

Inspections of reduction conducted pursuant to Section X are without right of refusal by the inspected State Party. Except for inspections to validate final conversion into vehicles for nonmilitary purposes, inspections of reduction are not subject to quotas. Section X is to be implemented in conjunction with Sections I through VI and XI through XIII of the Protocol.

Paragraph 1 of Section X provides that each State Party has the right to conduct, without right of refusal by the inspected State Party, inspections of the process of reduction carried out pursuant to Sections I through VIII and X through XII of the Protocol on Reduction. Thus, paragraph I of Section X permits the inspection of the process of destruction of battle tanks (Section III of the Protocol on Reduction), destruction of armored combat vehicles (Section IV), destruction of artillery (Section V), destruction of combat aircraft (Section VI), destruction of attack helicopters (Section VII), reduction prior to final conversion of Treaty-limited armaments and equipment for nonmilitary purposes (Section VIII), reduction by means of static display (Section X), reduction by use as ground targets (Section XI), and reduction by use for ground instruction (Section XII). However, the right of inspection of reduction does not apply to reduction by accident (i.e., to the reduction procedures specified in Section IX of the Protocol on Reduction).

Paragraph 1 of Section X also provides that reduction inspections shall not count against the quotas established in Section II of the Protocol. Paragraph 1 further provides that inspection teams conducting such inspections may be composed of representatives of different States Parties. Finally, paragraph 1 provides that the inspected State Party is not obligated to accept more than one inspection team at a time at each reduction site.

Paragraph 2 of Section X provides that the inspected State Party may organize and implement the reduction process in any way it desires, subject only to the provisions of Article VIII of the Treaty and the Protocol on Reduction. Paragraph 2 also provides that inspections of the process of reduction must not interfere with ongoing activities at the reduction site or unnecessarily hamper, delay or complicate the reduction process. This provision, in effect, constitutes a restatement of the general principle of noninterference set forth in paragraph 22 of Section VI of the Protocol.

Paragraph 3 of Section X provides that if a reduction site is used by more than one State Party, then reduction inspections must be conducted in accordance with the schedules of such use provided by each State Party using the reduction site. In this regard, paragraph 4 below requires the notification of such reduction schedules.

It should be noted that paragraphs 1 and 3 of Section X, when read together, provide that, even if two States Parties notify reduction schedules calling for simultaneous reduction activities at the same reduction site, there still may be only one inspection team at the site at any one time. However, paragraph 6 of Section X provides that the single inspection team has the right to inspect the process of reduction carried out by both States Parties at that site.

Paragraph 4 of Section X provides that each State Party that intends to reduce conventional armaments and equipment limited by the Treaty must notify all other State Parties of which conventional armaments and equipment are to be reduced at each reduction site during a calendar reporting period. Paragraph 4 also provides that each such calendar reporting period must be no less than 30 days and no greater than 90 days in duration. Paragraph 4 further provides that these notifications of calendar reporting periods must be given in all cases, regardless of whether the reduction process is to be carried out continuously or intermittently.

Paragraph 5 of Section X provides that the state Party intending to implement reduction procedures must provide to all other States Parties the calendar reporting period notification at least 15 days in advance of the scheduled date for initiation of reduction for that calendar reporting period.

Paragraph 5 of Section X also specifies that the following information must be provided in the calendar reporting period notification:

Thus, paragraph 6 of Section X gives inspections teams freedom to come and go as many times as they wish throughout the specified reduction process for any given calendar reporting period. In particular, inspection teams have the right to:

Paragraph 8 of Section X provides that each State Party engaged in the reduction of conventional armaments and equipment limited by the Treaty must maintain a "working register" at each reduction site. Paragraph 8 also provides that the register must be made available to the inspection team for the period of the inspection. Paragraph 8 further provides that the following information must be specified in each register:

Paragraph 9 of Section X provides that the inspection team must complete, in accordance with Section XII of the Protocol, an inspection report at the conclusion of each inspection of the reduction process.

Paragraph 10 of Section X provides that inspectors have the right, upon completion of an inspection at a reduction site, to:

Paragraph 10 also provides that the inspection team must inform the escort team, at least 24 hours before its intended departure, of:

Subparagraph (A) of paragraph 11 of Section X provides that the notification by the State Party intending to complete such conversion procedures, provided pursuant to subparagraph (E) of paragraph 5 of Section X, must identify only the date and time by which an inspection team must arrive at the point of entry/exit in order to conduct its inspection. Thus, there is no requirement that the converting State Party notify the inspecting State Party so that the inspection team may arrive before completion of the conversion procedures.

Subparagraph (B) of paragraph 11 of Section X provides that the inspection team only has the right to arrive at or depart from the reduction site during the three days after the end of the notified completion date of conversion. Thus, the arrival date for inspectors notified in the calendar reporting period notification must be within three days after the completion of the conversion process, rather than before or during the reduction process as in other types of reduction inspections. The purpose of paragraph 11 is to provide for inspections to validate the completion of conversion and not to inspect the process of conversion. Such validation provides the opportunity to ensure that vehicles are in fact being converted into the specific types of vehicles for nonmilitary purposes that the converting State Party declared that they would be converted into.

It also should be emphasized that the exceptions in paragraph 11 apply only to the "final conversion" of battle tanks and armored combat vehicles for nonmilitary purposes. As noted above, the "procedures before conversion," as specified in paragraph 6 of Section VIII of the Protocol on Reduction, are subject to all of the provisions in paragraphs 1 through 10 of Section X of that Protocol without exception.

Paragraph 12 of Section X provides that the State Party responsible for reductions must notify all other States Parties of the completion of reductions for each calendar reporting period within seven days after the end of that reporting period. Paragraph 12 also provides that such notifications must include the following information in cases in which the reduction involved the destruction of conventional armaments and equipment limited by the Treaty pursuant to Section III, IV, V, VI or VII of the Protocol on Reduction:

Finally, paragraph 12 of Section X provides that, in the case of conventional armaments and equipment reduced by conversion pursuant to Section VIII of the Protocol on Reduction, the notification must specify the reduction site at which final conversion will be carried out or the storage site to which each item designated for conversion will be transferred.

Section XI sets forth provisions relating to the cancellation of inspections conducted pursuant to Section VII, VIII, IX, or X of the Protocol (i.e., declared site, challenge, certification, or reduction inspections).

Paragraphs 1 of Section XI addresses the cancellation of an inspection before the inspection team arrives at the point of entry/exit of the inspected State Party. Specifically, paragraph 1 provides that the inspecting State Party must inform the States Parties that were notified of an intended inspection pursuant to paragraph 1 of Section IV of the Protocol if an inspection team finds itself unable to arrive at the point of entry/exit:

Note that cancellations pursuant to paragraph 1 of Section XI are not at the discretion of the inspecting State Party. Rather, the delay of six hours is sufficient grounds for the notification of intent to inspect to lapse. If the inspection team wishes to continue with an inspection, it must provide a new notification of intent to inspect in accordance with either paragraph 2 or 3 of Section IV. This means that the new notification must be, in the case of declared site or challenge inspections, no less than 36 hours in advance of the estimated time of arrival at the point of entry/exit or, in the case of reduction or certification inspections, no less than 96 hours in advance of the estimated time of arrival at the point of entry/exit.

Paragraph 2 of Section XI provides that an inspecting State Party has the right to cancel a declared site or challenge inspection, if the inspection is delayed:

It should be noted that challenge inspections may also be canceled by the inspection team, in accordance with Section VIII(6)(C) of the Protocol, if, after access to a specified area has been granted, the escort team then delays access to, or overflight of, particular parts of that specified area for more than four hours.

Section XII sets forth the procedures to be followed by the inspection team and the escort team in order to produce a report after an inspection conducted pursuant to Section VII, VIII, IX, or X of the Protocol (i.e., declared site, challenge, certification, or reduction inspections).

Paragraph 1 of Section XII states that the inspection team must provide the escort team with an inspection report before leaving an inspection site. Paragraph 1 also provides that the escort team has the right to include its comments in the report. Paragraph 1 further provides that the escort team must countersign the report within one hour after having received the report from the inspection team, unless an extension has been agreed between the two teams. Finally, paragraph 1 makes clear that the inspection is not considered completed until the report is completed pursuant to the procedures in Section XII.

Paragraph 2 of Section XII provides that the inspection team leader must sign the inspection report and that the escort team leader must acknowledge receipt of the report.

Paragraph 3 of Section XII provides that inspection reports must be factual and standardized. Paragraph 3 also charges the Joint Consultative Group to develop inspection report formats, for each type of inspection, prior to entry into force of the Treaty, taking into account the provisions of paragraphs 4 and 5 below. In this regard, paragraph 3 of Section XII was not listed in the Protocol on Provisional Application as being provisionally applied between the signing and entry into force of the Treaty. As a result, it may be argued that the States Parties are not legally obligated to agree to such formats prior to entry into force of the Treaty.

Paragraph 4 of Section XII provides that reports of declared site and challenge inspections conducted pursuant to Sections VII and VIII, respectively, must include the following information:

Paragraph 7 of Section XII provides that the inspecting State Party and inspected State Party must each retain one copy of the inspection report. Paragraph 7 provides that either State Party may, at its option, forward copies to other States Parties, and further provides that, as a rule, such reports must be made available to the Joint Consultative Group. In this regard, the contents of the reports are protected in accordance with paragraph 10 of Section VI of the Protocol and subparagraph 2(G) of Article XVI of the Treaty.

Paragraph 8 of Section XII sets forth the rights and obligations of stationing States Parties with respect to inspection reports. Subparagraph (A) of paragraph 8 provides that the stationing State Party has the right to include written comments in an inspection report related to the inspection of its stationed conventional armed forces. Subparagraph (B) of paragraph 8 provides that the stationing State Party has the right to retain a copy of the inspection report in the case of inspection of its stationed conventional armed forces. In this regard, the use of the broad term "conventional armed forces" in paragraph 8 means that the United States will have an opportunity to comment on and receive reports whenever any part of its conventional armed forces, including its conventional armaments and equipment subject to the Treaty, are inspected. Also, when inspections are conducted involving equipment or materiel belonging to a State Party utilizing structures or premises by agreement with the inspected State Party, but such equipment or materiel is not conventional armaments or equipment subject to the Treaty, then the State Party to which that equipment or materiel belongs would have the right to include written comments in the inspection report and receive a copy of that report.

Section XIII of the Protocol sets forth the privileges and immunities that the States Parties must accord to each others' inspectors and transport crew members who are engaged in activity pursuant to the Treaty. The purpose of such privileges and immunities is to ensure that inspectors and transport crew members may carry out their duties efficiently and without interference. The privileges and immunities set forth in Section XIII are largely based on the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of April 18, 1961⁴ (the Vienna Convention), which is the primary international agreement governing such privileges and immunities. The privileges and immunities set forth in Section XIII apply to inspectors and transport crew members while in transit, during the in-country period, and thereafter with respect to acts performed during the course of their official duties.

Paragraph 1 of Section XIII provides that, in order to exercise their functions effectively, for the purpose of implementing the Treaty and not for their personal benefit, inspectors and transport crew members must be accorded those privileges and immunities enjoyed by diplomats that are set forth in the following provisions of the Vienna Convention:

In this regard, Article 29 of the Vienna Convention provides:

Paragraph 2 of Article 30 of the Vienna Convention provides:

In spite of the fact that paragraph 1 of Section XIII (and thus by incorporation Article 30 of the Vienna Convention) provides that the property of an inspection team, including the personal luggage of the team members, will enjoy inviolability, paragraph 5 of Section V of the Protocol nonetheless states that the inspected State Party has the right to examine-and impound-equipment and supplies brought by the inspection team onto the territory of the inspected State Party at a point of entry/exit. Thus, in this limited sense, paragraph 5 of Section V constitutes an exception to the general rule stated in paragraph 1 of Section XIII. On the other hand, paragraph 1 of Section XIII ensures that during the examination conducted pursuant to paragraph 5 of Section V, the escort team may not destroy or damage the inspection team's equipment and supplies.

Paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 of Article 31 of the Vienna Convention provide:

Article 35 of the Vienna Convention provides that:

Paragraph 2 of Section XIII of the Protocol provides that inspectors and transport crew members shall, in addition to the privileges and immunities granted in paragraph 1 above, be accorded the privileges enjoyed by diplomatic agents pursuant to subparagraph (b) of paragraph 1 of Article 36 of the Vienna Convention. In this regard, subparagraph l(b) of Article 36 provides that:

Paragraph 2 of Section XIII also provides that inspectors and transport crew members shall not be permitted to bring into the territory of the State Party where the inspection is to be carried out articles of the import or export of which is prohibited by law or controlled by quarantine regulations of that State Party. On the other hand, paragraph 4 of Section V of the Protocol provides that the inspecting State Party must ensure that luggage, equipment and supplies of the inspection team are exempt from all custom duties and are expeditiously processed at the point of entry/exit.

Paragraph 3 of Section XIII provides that the transportation means (i.e., aircraft, ship or ground vehicle) of the inspection team shall be inviolable, except as otherwise provided for in the Treaty. In this regard, the Treaty does not otherwise expressly derogate from the inviolability of transportation means.

Paragraph 4 of Section XIII provides that the inspecting State Party may waive the immunity from jurisdiction of any of its inspectors or transport crew members in those cases when it is of the opinion that immunity would impede the course of justice and that it can be waived without prejudice to the implementation of the provisions of the Treaty. Paragraph 4 also provides that the immunity of inspectors and transport crew members who are not nationals of the inspecting State Party may be waived only by the State Parties of which those inspectors are nationals. This point is important because inspection teams may be composed of inspectors of different nationalities. Finally, paragraph 4 provides that waiver must always be express (rather than implied).

Paragraph 5 of Section XIII provides that the privileges and immunities provided for in Section XIII must be accorded to inspectors and transport crew members:

Paragraph 6 of Section XIII provides that, if the inspected State Party considers that an inspector or transport crew member has abused his or her privileges and immunities, then the provisions set forth in paragraph 6 of Section VI of the Protocol shall apply. In this regard, Section VI(6) provides, in part, that States Parties may request the removal from their territory of inspectors or transport crew members who have violated their laws or regulations. Thus, while Section VI(6) provides that an inspecting State Party does not have to tolerate an inspector or transport crew member, Section XIII provides that such individuals may not be punished by the inspecting State Party (if their objectionable behavior occurred during the course of their official duties).

Paragraph 6 of Section XIII also provides that, at the request of any of the States Parties concerned, consultations must be held between them in order to prevent a repetition of such an abuse. In accordance with paragraph 6 of Article XVI of the Treaty, such consultations may be conducted on a bilateral basis or within the framework of the Joint Consultative Group.

Return to Top
Return to Table of Contents
Return to CFE Treaty Main Page