BALTIC SEAENVIRONMENT PROCEEDINGS No. 59 - Helcom

denominator, however, in that an affirmative answer to any
one of them would strenghten the convention.
When you compare the new convention with the present one
you can see that all these questions were answered in the
affirmative except one. The decision making powers of the
commission were not extended. I will deal briefly with
this question.
HELCOM has been critisized for its inability to pass
decisions in the fielf of environmental protection that
would have a legally binding character upon the
contracting parties. Under the 1974 convention binding
decisions relate to the internal, administrative functions
of HELCOM. Decisions relating to the implementation of the
convention are termed recommendations whose legal
character, legally binding effect upon the contracting
parties has been much discussed. The truth, of course, is
that HELCOM is not a supranational organization that would
pass legislation with unquestionably binding effect on its
members. The recommendations have been characterized as
"soft law", which the members are under moral obligation
to implement. Non-observance can also lead to political
consequences, critisism from other members of the
organization, but HELCOM has no legal authority to enforce
its recommendations.
During the revision process the question was raised,
whether HELCOM should be given the authority to make
binding decisions, even by a qualified majority, in
matters which now are covered by recommendations. The
conclusion was that it should not. It is not wise. Such an
authority would be counterproductive. It is better to
continue to work by concensus. There are also other means
to improve compliance with the decisions even if they are
recommendations only.
17