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