{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.011467889908256881, 'fraction_numerical': 0.001834862385321101, 'mean_word_length': 5.649390243902439, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Introductory Remarks by Said Mahmoudi

There is hardly any field of international law, perhaps with the exception of human rights, where the relation between substantive law and institutions has been so close as in international environmental law. The fact that international environmental agreements should be equipped with necessary institution has often been taken for granted. Since 1972, the most common forms of such institutions have been intergovernmental commissions and conferences of parties. Whenever a new international environmental problem emerges or a new perspective on an old problem is discovered, however, the inefficiency of the existing institutions brings to the fore the issue of an appropriate institution to coordinate policies, to elaborate detailed rules, to supervise the implementation of the rules and to disseminate relevant information. The role, scope and competence, and legal status of international environmental institutions have varied depending upon the types of environmental problems they deal with, the geographical location of the problems, the nature of the problems and most importantly, the priorities of the states concerned. Lack of coherent strategy and absence of comprehensiveness in objectives for the protection of the environment at both the national and the international levels have very often led to ad hoc responses of states to environmental problems. This in itself leaves an impact on the structure and power of the institutions. The piecemeal approach to environmental problems, the often temporary nature of legal solutions, the limited competence and inadequate budget of international institutions due to a general reluctance of states or their distrust of these institutions, in most cases has resulted in the inefficiency of such institutions. The functions of international environmental institutions have very often been limited only to making recommendations to states parties or at best facilitating some degree of coordination of national policies. They have generally lacked the power to verify the effective and correct compliance of states with the requirements of international environmental agreements.