scientific law essay

Advertisement

10 Scientific Laws and Theories You Really Should Know

• Share Content on Facebook
• Share Content on LinkedIn
• Share Content on Flipboard
• Share Content on Reddit
• Share Content via Email

Scientists have many tools available to them when attempting to describe how nature and the universe at large work. Often they reach for laws and theories first. What's the difference? A scientific law can often be reduced to a mathematical statement, such as E = mc²; it's a specific statement based on empirical data, and its truth is generally confined to a certain set of conditions. For example, in the case of E = mc², c refers to the speed of light in a vacuum.

A scientific theory often seeks to synthesize a body of evidence or observations of particular phenomena. It's generally — though by no means always — a grander, testable statement about how nature operates. You can't necessarily reduce a scientific theory to a pithy statement or equation, but it does represent something fundamental about how nature works.

Both laws and theories depend on basic elements of the scientific method, such as generating a hypothesis , testing that premise, finding (or not finding) empirical evidence and coming up with conclusions. Eventually, other scientists must be able to replicate the results if the experiment is destined to become the basis for a widely accepted law or theory.

In this article, we'll look at 10 scientific laws and theories that you might want to brush up on, even if you don't find yourself, say, operating a scanning electron microscope all that frequently. We'll start off with a bang and move on to the basic laws of the universe, before hitting evolution . Finally, we'll tackle some headier material, delving into the realm of quantum physics.

• Big Bang Theory
• Hubble's Law of Cosmic Expansion
• Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion
• Universal Law of Gravitation
• Newton's Laws of Motion
• Laws of Thermodynamics
• Archimedes' Buoyancy Principle
• Evolution and Natural Selection
• Theory of General Relativity
• Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle

10: Big Bang Theory

If you're going to know one scientific theory, make it the one that explains how the universe arrived at its present state. Based on research performed by Edwin Hubble, Georges Lemaitre and Albert Einstein, among others, the big bang theory postulates that the universe began almost 14 billion years ago with a massive expansion event. At the time, the universe was confined to a single point, encompassing all of the universe's matter. That original movement continues today, as the universe keeps expanding outward.

The theory of the big bang gained widespread support in the scientific community after Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered cosmic microwave background radiation in 1965. Using radio telescopes, the two astronomers detected cosmic noise, or static, that didn't dissipate over time. Collaborating with Princeton researcher Robert Dicke, the pair confirmed Dicke's hypothesis that the original big bang left behind low-level radiation detectable throughout the universe.

9: Hubble's Law of Cosmic Expansion

Let's stick with Edwin Hubble for a second. While the 1920s roared past and the Great Depression limped by, Hubble was performing groundbreaking astronomical research. Hubble not only proved that there were other galaxies besides the Milky Way , he also discovered that these galaxies were zipping away from our own, a motion he called recession .

In order to quantify the velocity of this galactic movement, Hubble proposed Hubble's Law of Cosmic Expansion , aka Hubble's law, an equation that states: velocity = H × distance . Velocity represents the galaxy's recessional velocity; H is the Hubble constant, or parameter that indicates the rate at which the universe is expanding; and distance is the galaxy's distance from the one with which it's being compared.

Hubble's constant has been calculated at different values over time, but the current accepted value is 70 kilometers/second per megaparsec, the latter being a unit of distance in intergalactic space [source: White ]. For our purposes, that's not so important. What matters most is that Hubble's law provides a concise method for measuring a galaxy's velocity in relation to our own. And perhaps most significantly, the law established that the universe is made up of many galaxies, whose movements trace back to the big bang.

8: Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion

For centuries, scientists battled with one another and with religious leaders about the planets' orbits, especially about whether they orbited our sun. In the 16th century, Copernicus put forth his controversial concept of a heliocentric solar system, in which the planets revolved around the sun — not Earth. But it would take Johannes Kepler, building on work performed by Tyco Brahe and others, to establish a clear scientific foundation for the planets' movements.

Kepler's three laws of planetary motion — formed in the early 17th century — describe how planets orbit the sun. The first law, sometimes called the law of orbits , states that planets orbit the sun elliptically. The second law, the law of areas , states that a line connecting a planet to the sun covers an equal area over equal periods of time. In other words, if you're measuring the area created by drawing a line from Earth to the sun and tracking Earth's movement over 30 days, the area will be the same no matter where Earth is in its orbit when measurements begin.

The third one, the law of periods , allows us to establish a clear relationship between a planet's orbital period and its distance from the sun. Thanks to this law, we know that a planet relatively close to the sun, like Venus, has a far briefer orbital period than a distant planet, such as Neptune.

7: Universal Law of Gravitation

We may take it for granted now, but more than 300 years ago Sir Isaac Newton proposed a revolutionary idea: that any two objects, no matter their mass, exert gravitational force toward one another. This law is represented by an equation that many high schoolers encounter in physics class. It goes as follows:

F = G × [(m 1 m 2 )/r 2 ]

F is the gravitational force between the two objects, measured in Newtons. M 1 and m 2 are the masses of the two objects, while r is the distance between them. G is the gravitational constant , a number currently calculated to be 6.672 × 10 -11 N m 2 kg -2 [source: Weisstein ].

The benefit of the universal law of gravitation is that it allows us to calculate the gravitational pull between any two objects. This ability is especially useful when scientists are, say, planning to put a satellite in orbit or charting the course of the moon .

6: Newton's Laws of Motion

As long as we're talking about one of the greatest scientists who ever lived, let's move on to Newton's other famous laws. His three laws of motion form an essential component of modern physics. And like many scientific laws, they're rather elegant in their simplicity.

The first of the three laws states an object in motion stays in motion unless acted upon by an outside force. For a ball rolling across the floor, that outside force could be the friction between the ball and the floor, or it could be the toddler that kicks the ball in another direction.

The second law establishes a connection between an object's mass ( m ) and its acceleration ( a ), in the form of the equation F = m × a . F represents force, measured in Newtons. It's also a vector, meaning it has a directional component. Owing to its acceleration, that ball rolling across the floor has a particular vector , a direction in which it's traveling, and it's accounted for in calculating its force.

The third law is rather pithy and should be familiar to you: For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. That is, for every force applied to an object or surface, that object pushes back with equal force.

5: Laws of Thermodynamics

The British physicist and novelist C.P. Snow once said that a nonscientist who didn't know the second law of thermodynamics was like a scientist who had never read Shakespeare [source: Lambert]. Snow's now-famous statement was meant to emphasize both the importance of thermodynamics and the necessity for nonscientists to learn about it.

Thermodynamics is the study of how energy works in a system, whether it's an engine or Earth's core. It can be reduced to several basic laws, which Snow cleverly summed up as follows [source: Physics Planet]:

• You can't win.
• You can't break even.
• You can't quit the game.

Let's unpack these a bit. By saying you can't win, Snow meant that since matter and energy are conserved, you can't get one without giving up some of the other (i.e., E=mc²). It also means that for an engine to produce work, you have to supply heat, although in anything other than a perfectly closed system, some heat is inevitably lost to the outside world, which then leads to the second law.

The second statement — you can't break even — means that due to ever-increasing entropy , you can't return to the same energy state. Energy concentrated in one place will always flow to places of lower concentration.

Finally, the third law — you can't quit the game — refers to absolute zero, the lowest theoretical temperature possible, measured at zero Kelvin or (minus 273.15 degrees Celsius and minus 459.67 degrees Fahrenheit). When a system reaches absolute zero, molecules stop all movement, meaning that there is no kinetic energy, and entropy reaches its lowest possible value. But in the real world, even in the recesses of space, reaching absolutely zero is impossible — you can only get very close to it.

4: Archimedes' Buoyancy Principle

After he discovered his principle of buoyancy, the ancient Greek scholar Archimedes allegedly yelled out "Eureka!" and ran naked through the city of Syracuse. The discovery was that important. The story goes that Archimedes made his great breakthrough when he noticed the water rise as he got into the tub [source: Quake ].

According to Archimedes' buoyancy principle , the force acting on, or buoying, a submerged or partially submerged object equals the weight of the liquid that the object displaces. This sort of principle has an immense range of applications and is essential to calculations of density, as well as designing submarines and other oceangoing vessels.

3: Evolution and Natural Selection

Now that we've established some of the fundamental concepts of how our universe began and how physics play out in our daily lives, let's turn our attention to the human form and how we got to be the way we are. According to most scientists, all life on Earth has a common ancestor. But in order to produce the immense amount of difference among all living organisms, certain ones had to evolve into distinct species.

In a basic sense, this differentiation occurred through evolution, through descent with modification [source: UCMP ]. Populations of organisms developed different traits, through mechanisms such as mutation. Those with traits that were more beneficial to survival such as, a frog whose brown coloring allows it to be camouflaged in a swamp, were naturally selected for survival; hence the term natural selection .

It's possible to expand upon both of these theories at greater length, but this is the basic, and groundbreaking, discovery that Darwin made in the 19th century: that evolution through natural selection accounts for the tremendous diversity of life on Earth.

2: Theory of General Relativity

Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity remains an important and essential discovery because it permanently altered how we look at the universe. Einstein's major breakthrough was to say that space and time are not absolutes and that gravity is not simply a force applied to an object or mass. Rather, the gravity associated with any mass curves the very space and time (often called space-time) around it.

To conceptualize this, imagine you're traveling across the Earth in a straight line, heading east, starting somewhere in the Northern Hemisphere. After a while, if someone were to pinpoint your position on a map, you'd actually be both east and far south of your original position. That's because Earth is curved. To travel directly east, you'd have to take into account the shape of Earth and angle yourself slightly north. (Think about the difference between a flat paper map and a spherical globe.)

Space is pretty much the same. For example, to the occupants of the shuttle orbiting Earth, it can look like they're traveling on a straight line through space. In reality, the space-time around them is being curved by Earth's gravity (as it would be with any large object with immense gravity such as a planet or a black hole), causing them to both move forward and to appear to orbit Earth.

Einstein's theory had tremendous implications for the future of astrophysics and cosmology. It explained a minor, unexpected anomaly in Mercury's orbit, showed how starlight bends and laid the theoretical foundations for black holes.

1: Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle

Einstein's broader theory of relativity told us more about how the universe works and helped to lay the foundation for quantum physics, but it also introduced more confusion into theoretical science. In 1927, this sense that the universe's laws were, in some contexts, flexible, led to a groundbreaking discovery by the German scientist Werner Heisenberg.

In postulating his Uncertainty Principle , Heisenberg realized that it was impossible to simultaneously know, with a high level of precision, two properties of a particle. In other words, you can know the position of an electron with a high degree of certainty, but not its momentum and vice versa.

Niels Bohr later made a discovery that helps to explain Heisenberg's principle. Bohr found that an electron has the qualities of both a particle and a wave, a concept known as wave-particle duality , which has become a cornerstone of quantum physics. So when we measure an electron's position, we are treating it as a particle at a specific point in space, with an uncertain wavelength. When we measure its momentum, we are treating it as a wave, meaning we can know the amplitude of its wavelength but not its location.

Keep reading for more science stuff you might like.

Scientific Theory FAQ

What is scientific theory, what is an example of scientific theory, is a scientific law more accurate than a scientific theory, what are the five scientific laws, lots more information, related articles.

• Gravitational Waves! Or the Chirps That Prove Einstein Was Right
• How Newton's Laws of Motion Work
• 10 Scientific Words You're Probably Using Wrong
• How the Scientific Method Works
• Ask an Astronomer. "The Theory of Relativity." Cornell University Astronomy Dept. March 21, 2008. (Jan. 5, 2011) http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/relativity.php
• Bragg, Melvyn. "The Second Law of Thermodynamics." BBC. Dec. 16, 2004. (Jan. 5, 2011) http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p004y2bm
• Glenn Research Center. "First Law of Thermodynamics." NASA. July 11, 2008. (Jan. 5, 2011) http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/thermo1.html
• Lambert, Frank L. "Shakespeare and Thermodynamics: Dam the Second Law!" Occidental College. 2008. (Jan. 5, 2011) http://shakespeare2ndlaw.oxy.edu/
• LaRocco, Chris and Blair Rothstein. "The Big Bang." University of Michigan. (Jan. 5, 2011) http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/bigbang.htm
• Lightman, Alan. "Relativity and the Cosmos." PBS Nova. June 2005. (Jan. 5, 2011) http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/relativity/
• Matson, Ronald H. "Scientific Laws and Theories." Kennesaw State University. (Jan. 5, 2011) http://science.kennesaw.edu/~rmatson/3380theory.html
• Nave, C.R. "Hubble law and the expanding universe." Georgia State University. (Jan. 5, 2011) http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/hubble.html
• Nave, C.R. "Kepler's Laws." Georgia State University. (Jan. 5, 2011) http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/kepler.html
• Nave, C.R. "The Uncertainty Principle." Georgia State University. (Jan. 5, 2011) http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/uncer.html
• PBS. "Big bang theory is introduced." 1998. (Jan. 5, 2011) http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/databank/entries/dp27bi.html
• PBS. "Heisenberg states the uncertainty principle." 1998. (Jan. 5, 2011) http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/databank/entries/dp27un.html
• PBS. "Penzias and Wilson discover cosmic microwave radiation." 1998. (Jan. 5, 2011) http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/databank/entries/dp65co.html
• Pidwirny, Michael. "Laws of Thermodynamics." Physical Geography. April 6, 2010. (Jan. 5, 2011) http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/6e.html
• Quake, Stephen. "Practically pure." The New York Times. Nov. 8, 2009. (Jan. 5, 2011) http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/18/opinion/18iht-edquake.1.20274600.html
• Stern, David P. "Kepler's Three Laws of Planetary Motion." Phy6.org. March 21, 2005. (Jan. 5, 2011) http://www.phy6.org/stargaze/Kep3laws.htm
• Stern, David P. "Newton's theory of 'Universal Gravitation'." NASA. March 24, 2006. (Jan. 5, 2011) http://www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/stargaze/Sgravity.htm
• University of California Museum of Paleontology (UCMP). "Understanding Evolution: An introduction to evolution." (Jan. 5, 2011) http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_02
• University of California Museum of Paleontology (UCMP). "Understanding Evolution: Natural selection." (Jan. 5, 2011) http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_25
• University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Dept. of Physics & Astronomy. "Newton's Three Laws of Motion." (Jan. 5, 2011) http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/history/newton3laws.html
• University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Dept. of Physics & Astronomy. "Sir Isaac Newton: The Universal Law of Gravitation." (Jan. 5, 2011) http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/history/newtongrav.html
• Weisstein, Eric W. "Gravitational Constant." Wolfram Research. (Jan. 5, 2011) http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/GravitationalConstant.html
• Weisstein, Eric W. "Kepler's Laws." Wolfram Research. (Jan. 5, 2011)http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/KeplersLaws.html
• White, Martin. "The Hubble Expansion." University of California, Berkeley. (Jan. 5, 2011) http://astro.berkeley.edu/~mwhite/darkmatter/hubble.html

Please copy/paste the following text to properly cite this HowStuffWorks.com article:

• Table of Contents
• Random Entry
• Chronological
• Editorial Information
• About the SEP
• Editorial Board
• How to Cite the SEP
• Special Characters
• Advanced Tools
• Support the SEP
• PDFs for SEP Friends
• Make a Donation
• SEPIA for Libraries
• Entry Contents

Bibliography

Academic tools.

• Friends PDF Preview
• Author and Citation Info
• Back to Top

Laws of Nature

Science includes many principles at least once thought to be laws of nature: Newton’s law of gravitation, his three laws of motion, the ideal gas laws, Mendel’s laws, the laws of supply and demand, and so on. Other regularities important to science were not thought to have this status. These include regularities that, unlike laws, were (or still are) thought by scientists to stand in need of stronger ground. These include the regularity of the ocean tides, the perihelion of Mercury’s orbit, the photoelectric effect, that the universe is expanding, and so on. Scientists also use laws but not other regularities to sort out what is possible: It is based on their consistency with Einstein’s laws of gravity that cosmologists recognize the possibility that our universe is closed and the possibility that it is open (Maudlin 2007, 7–8). In statistical mechanics, the laws of an underlying physical theory are used to determine the dynamically possible trajectories through the state space of the system (Roberts 2008, 12–16).

Philosophers of science and metaphysicians address various issues about laws, but the basic question is: What is it to be a law? Two influential answers are the systems approach (Lewis, 1973, 1983, 1986, 1994) and the universals approach (Armstrong, 1978, 1983, 1991, 1993). Other treatments include antirealist views (van Fraassen 1989, Giere 1999, Ward 2002, Mumford 2004) and antireductionist views (Carroll 1994 and 2008, Lange 2000 and 2009, Maudlin 2007). Beside the basic question, the recent literature has also focused on (i) whether laws are determined by matters of fact, (ii) the role laws play in the problem of induction, (iii) whether laws involve a strong form of necessity, and (iv) the role of laws in physics and how that contrasts with the role of laws in the special sciences.

1. The Basic Question: What is it to be a Law?

3. universals, 4. humean supervenience, 5. antirealism, 6. antireductionism, 7. induction, 8. necessity, 9. laws, circularity and prospects for explanation, 10.1 do physicists try to discover exceptionless regularities, 10.2 could there be any special-science laws, 11. concluding remarks: what is next, other internet resources, related entries.

Here are four reasons philosophers examine what it is to be a law of nature: First, as indicated above, laws at least appear to have a central role in scientific practice. Second, laws are important to many other philosophical issues. For example, sparked by the account of counterfactuals defended by Chisholm (1946, 1955) and Goodman (1947), and also prompted by Hempel and Oppenheim’s (1948) deductive-nomological model of explanation, philosophers have wondered what makes counterfactual and explanatory claims true, have thought that laws play some part, and so also have wondered what distinguishes laws from nonlaws. Third, Goodman famously suggested that there is a connection between lawhood and confirmability by an inductive inference. So, some sympathetic to Goodman’s idea come to the problem of laws as a result of their interest in the problem of induction. Fourth, philosophers love a good puzzle. Suppose that everyone here is seated (cf., Langford 1941, 67). Then, trivially, that everyone here is seated is true. Though true, this generalization does not seem to be a law. It is just too accidental. Einstein’s principle that no signals travel faster than light is also a true generalization but, in contrast, it is thought to be a law; it is not nearly so accidental. What makes the difference?

This may not seem like much of a puzzle. That everyone here is seated is spatially restricted in that it is about a specific place; the principle of relativity is not similarly restricted. So, it is easy to think that, unlike laws, accidentally true generalizations are about specific places. But that is not what makes the difference. There are true nonlaws that are not spatially restricted. Consider the unrestricted generalization that all gold spheres are less than one mile in diameter. There are no gold spheres that size and in all likelihood there never will be, but this is still not a law. There also appear to be generalizations that could express laws that are restricted. Galileo’s law of free fall is the generalization that, on Earth , free-falling bodies accelerate at a rate of 9.8 meters per second squared. The perplexing nature of the puzzle is clearly revealed when the gold-sphere generalization is paired with a remarkably similar generalization about uranium spheres:

All gold spheres are less than a mile in diameter. All uranium spheres are less than a mile in diameter.

Though the former is not a law, the latter arguably is. The latter is not nearly so accidental as the first, since uranium’s critical mass is such as to guarantee that such a large sphere will never exist (van Fraassen 1989, 27). What makes the difference? What makes the former an accidental generalization and the latter a law?

One popular answer ties being a law to deductive systems. The idea dates back to Mill (1843, 384), but has been defended in one form or another by Ramsey (1978 [f.p. 1928]), Lewis (1973, 1983, 1986, 1994), Earman (1984) and Loewer (1996). Deductive systems are individuated by their axioms. The logical consequences of the axioms are the theorems. Some true deductive systems will be stronger than others; some will be simpler than others. These two virtues, strength and simplicity, compete. (It is easy to make a system stronger by sacrificing simplicity: include all the truths as axioms. It is easy to make a system simple by sacrificing strength: have just the axiom that 2 + 2 = 4.) According to Lewis (1973, 73), the laws of nature belong to all the true deductive systems with a best combination of simplicity and strength. So, for example, the thought is that it is a law that all uranium spheres are less than a mile in diameter because it is, arguably, part of the best deductive systems; quantum theory is an excellent theory of our universe and might be part of the best systems, and it is plausible to think that quantum theory plus truths describing the nature of uranium would logically entail that there are no uranium spheres of that size (Loewer 1996, 112). It is doubtful that the generalization that all gold spheres are less than a mile in diameter would be part of the best systems. It could be added as an axiom to any system, but it would bring little or nothing of interest in terms of strength and adding it would sacrifice something in terms of simplicity. (Lewis later made significant revisions to his account in order to address problems involving physical probability (Lewis 1986, 1994).

Many features of the systems approach are appealing. For one thing, it deals with a challenge posed by vacuous laws. Some laws are vacuously true: Newton’s first law of motion — that all inertial bodies have no acceleration — is a law, even though there are no inertial bodies. But there are also lots of vacuously true nonlaws: all plaid pandas weigh 5 lbs., all unicorns are unmarried, etc. With the systems approach, there is no exclusion of vacuous generalizations from the realm of laws, and yet only those vacuous generalizations that belong to the best systems qualify (cf., Lewis 1986, 123). Furthermore, one goal of scientific theorizing is the formulation of true theories that are well balanced in terms of their simplicity and strength. So, the systems approach seems to underwrite the truism that an aim of science is the discovery of laws (Earman 1978, 180; Loewer 1996, 112). One last aspect of the systems view that is appealing to many (though not all) is that it is in keeping with broadly Humean constraints on a sensible metaphysics. There is no overt appeal to closely related modal concepts (e.g., the counterfactual conditional, causation, dispositions) and no overt appeal to modality-supplying entities (e.g., universals or God; for the supposed need to appeal to God, see Foster 2004). Indeed, the systems approach is the centerpiece of Lewis’s defense of Humean supervenience , “the doctrine that all there is in the world is a vast mosaic of local matters of particular fact, just one little thing and then another” (1986, ix).

Other aspects of the systems approach make philosophers wary. (See, especially, Armstrong 1983, 66–73; van Fraassen 1989, 40–64; Carroll 1990, 197–206.) Some argue that this approach will have the untoward consequence that laws are inappropriately mind-dependent in virtue of the account’s appeal to the concepts of simplicity, strength and best balance, concepts whose instantiation seems to depend on cognitive abilities, interests, and purposes. The appeal to simplicity raises further questions stemming from the apparent need for a regimented language to permit reasonable comparisons of the systems (Lewis 1983, 367.) More recently, Roberts questions the systems approach at a point sometimes thought to be a strength of the view: “We have no practice of weighing competing virtues of simplicity and information content for the purpose of choosing one deductive system over others, where all are presumed to be true” (2008, 10). There is the practice of curve-fitting, which involves weighing the competing virtues of simplicity and closeness of fit, but this is a practice that is part of the process of discovering what is true . Also, the systems approach is ill-suited to rule out widespread and striking regularities as laws, even those that are clearly determined by the initial conditions. That the universe is closed, that entropy generally increases, that the planets of our solar system are co-planar, and others (if true) could be added to any true deductive system, greatly increasing the strength of the system, with only a small cost in terms of simplicity (Maudlin 2007, 16; Roberts 2008, 23). Interestingly, sometimes the systems view is abandoned because it satisfies the broadly Humean constraints on laws of nature; some argue that what generalizations are laws is not determined by local matters of particular fact. (See Section 4 below.) Though Humeans like Lewis generally favor realism to any form of anti-realism (Section 5 below), Berenstain and Ladyman (2012) have argued that scientific realism is incompatible with Humeanism because realism requires a notion of natural necessity not susceptible to Humean analysis.

In the late 1970s, there emerged a competitor for the systems approach and all other Humean attempts to say what it is to be a law. Led by Armstrong (1978, 1983, 1991, 1993), Dretske (1977), and Tooley (1977, 1987), the rival approach appeals to universals (i.e., certain kinds of properties and relations) to distinguish laws from nonlaws.

Focusing on Armstrong’s development of the view, here is a concise statement of the framework characteristic of the universals approach:

Suppose it to be a law that F s are G s. F -ness and G -ness are taken to be universals. A certain relation, a relation of non-logical or contingent necessitation, holds between F -ness and G -ness. This state of affairs may be symbolized as ‘ N ( F , G )’ (1983, 85).

This framework promises to address familiar puzzles and problems: Maybe the difference between the uranium-spheres generalization and the gold-spheres generalization is that being uranium does necessitate being less than one mile in diameter, but being gold does not. Worries about the subjective nature of simplicity, strength and best balance do not emerge; there is no threat of lawhood being mind-dependent so long as necessitation is not mind-dependent. Some think that the framework supports the idea that laws play a special explanatory role in inductive inferences, since a law is not just a universal generalization, but is an entirely different creature — a relation holding between two other universals (Armstrong 1991, Dretske 1977). The framework is also consistent with lawhood not supervening on local matters of particular fact; the denial of Humean supervenience often accompanies acceptance of the universals approach.

For there truly to be this payoff, however, more has to be said about what N is. This is a problem van Fraassen calls the identification problem, which he couples this with a second problem, what he calls the inference problem (1989, 96). The essence of this pair of problems was captured early on by Lewis with his usual flair:

Whatever N may be, I cannot see how it could be absolutely impossible to have N ( F , G ) and Fa without Ga . (Unless N just is constant conjunction, or constant conjunction plus something else, in which case Armstrong’s theory turns into a form of the regularity theory he rejects.) The mystery is somewhat hidden by Armstrong’s terminology. He uses ‘necessitates’ as a name for the lawmaking universal N ; and who would be surprised to hear that if F ‘necessitates’ G and a has F , then a must have G ? But I say that N deserves the name of ‘necessitation’ only if, somehow, it really can enter into the requisite necessary connections. It can’t enter into them just by bearing a name, any more than one can have mighty biceps just by being called ‘Armstrong’ (1983, 366).

Basically, there needs to be a specification of what the lawmaking relation is (the identification problem). Then, there needs to be a determination of whether it is suited to the task (the inference problem): Does N ’s holding between F and G entail that F s are G s? Does its holding support corresponding counterfactuals? Do laws really turn out not to supervene, to be mind-independent, to be explanatory? Armstrong does say more about what his lawmaking relation is. He states in reply to van Fraassen:

It is at this point that, I claim, the Identification problem has been solved. The required relation is the causal relation, … now hypothesized to relate types not tokens (1993, 422).

Questions remain about the nature of this causal relation understood as a relation that relates both token events and universals. (See van Fraassen 1993, 435–437, and Carroll 1994, 170–174.)

Rather than detailing all the critical issues that divide the systems approach and the universals approach, attention has been on the divisive issue of supervenience (i.e., determination). It concerns whether Humean considerations really determine what the laws are. There are some important examples that appear to show that they do not.

Suppose that there are ten different kinds of fundamental particles. So, there are fifty-five possible kinds of two-particle interactions. Suppose that fifty-four of these kinds have been studied and fifty-four laws have been discovered. The interaction of X and Y particles have not been studied because conditions are such that they never will interact. Nevertheless, it seems that it might be a law that, when X particles and Y particles interact, P occurs. Similarly it might be a law that when X and Y particles interact, Q occurs. There seems to be nothing about the local matters of particular fact in this world that fixes which of these generalizations is a law (Tooley 1977, 669).

The failure of supervenience arises in other cases. Consider the possibility that there is a lone particle traveling through otherwise empty space at a constant velocity of, say, one meter per second. It seems that this might just be a nearly empty Newtonian universe in which it is accidentally true that all bodies have a velocity of one meter per second; it just so happens that there is nothing to alter the particle’s motion. But, it might also be the case that this world is not Newtonian and that it is a law that all bodies have velocity at one meter per second; it could be that this generalization is not accidental and would have held true even if there were other bodies slamming into the lone particle. (Earman 1986, 100; Lange 2000, 85–90.)

Maudlin presses the case against the Humeans by focusing on the common practice among physicists of considering models of a theory’s laws.

Minkowski space-time, the space-time of Special Relativity, is a model of the field equations of General Relativity (in particular, it is a vacuum solution). So an empty Minkowski space-time is one way the world could be if it is governed by the laws of General Relativity. But is Minkowski space-time a model only of the General Relativistic laws? Of course not! One could, for example, postulate that Special Relativity is the complete and accurate account of space-time structure, and produce another theory of gravitation, which would still have the vacuum Minkowski space-time as a model. So under the assumption that no possible world can be governed by the laws of General Relativity and by a rival theory of gravity, the total physical state of the world cannot always determine the laws (2007, 67).

The suggestion here is that there is the possibility of a matter-less universe with the laws of General Relativity and another with laws of a conflicting theory of gravitation. (For additional examples, see Carroll 1994, 60–80). What Maudlin sees as a consequence of standard scientific reasoning, Humeans will see as an example exposing the absurdity of nonsupervenience.

Humeans contend that the various pairs of so-called possible worlds are not really possible. Sometimes this contention turns on the issue of whether laws govern, sometimes on epistemological or ontological concerns, and sometimes on concerns about about how our language works. One objection to the nonsupervenience arguments from the Humean camp is that, if one comes to the debate with the governing conception in mind, one is likely to find the antisupervenience examples convincing, but using this conception to reject Humean analyses of lawhood is somehow to beg the question or to otherwise be unconvincing because it is a conception Humeans reject (Beebee, 2000). (Also see Loewer 1996 and Roberts 1998.) In contrast, some are sympathetic to Humeanism and aspects of the governing conception (Schneider 2007, Ward 2007, Roberts 2008). In particular, when we consider laws governing the nation, the laws don’t do anything to the governed. What governs is the government that creates and enforces the laws. “The proposition that we call the law is not the agent of the governing, but the content of the governing” (Roberts 2008, 46).

Some argue based on skeptical considerations that their brand of Humean supervenience is true (Earman and Roberts 2005ab). Others reject skeptical concerns (Schaffer 2008, 94–99, Carroll 2008, 75–79). Schaffer presses an ontological concern to the effect that nonsupervening laws are ungrounded entities (Schaffer 2008, 84–85).

An original manner of responding to apparent counterexamples to supervenience takes a semantic turn. In the lone-particle example reported above, there is a world with the lone particle traveling at one meter per second, though it is not a law that all particles travel at that speed. There is also a world with the lone particle traveling at one meter per second, though it is a law that all particles are traveling at that speed. This reasoning does not contradict supervenience because of the context sensitivity of the predicate, ‘is a law’. Though the sentence, ‘It is a law that all particles travel at one meter per second’ is (i) true relative to one context/world pair and (ii) false relative to a different context/world pair. This difference in truth-value could merely be the result of a difference between two contexts (Roberts 2008, 357–61).

For Roberts, a possible world w in which there exists only a single particle traveling at constant velocity throughout all of history and relative to a context in which the salient theory is, say, Newtonian Mechanics, ‘It is a law that all particles have a constant velocity of one meter per second’ is true just in case the reference of the ‘that’ clause plays the law role in the salient theory, which it doesn’t in this case. It might play the law role relative to some other theory, but this would be a different context. A single generalization cannot both play the law role and also not play the law role relative to a single theory, and so a different salient theory and so a different context is required for ‘It is a law that all bodies travel at one meter per second’ to be true (Roberts 2008, 357–61). What is enticing about this reply is that it does not reject any intuitive claim about the laws in the various possible worlds. The antisupervenience judgments about what are the laws are reasonable claims given the contexts. It is just that there is a failure to recognize the influence of context. So, for example, Maudlin’s so-called two possibilities would be seen by Roberts as descriptions of a single possibility that are made relative to two contexts with different salient theories: General Relativity and some rival theory of gravity. (Parallel points could be made about Tooley’s examples involving the 10 different kinds of fundamental particles.) The key is the context sensitivity that is built into the truth conditions of lawhood sentences. Other views that take lawhood sentences to be context sensitive might also be able to avail themselves of Roberts’ challenge to the antisupervenience examples. What is not compelling about Roberts’ position, though, is his view on the context dependence of lawhood ascriptions. His view is devised for one particular phrase of English: ‘law of nature’, but it would be better if the contextual treatment of ‘law of nature’ melded neatly with the context dependence of other natural language words and phrases. We should try to understand the context dependence of our ‘law of nature’ talk by appeal to linguistic principles, and the investigation should be driven by considerations of conversational practice (Carroll 2018, 131–32). ‘Law of nature’ should not be an isolated freak of our language (cf., Unger 1971, 202) on the verb ‘to know’.

The majority of contemporary philosophers are realists about laws; they believe that some reports of what the laws are succeed in describing reality. There are, however, some antirealists who disagree.

For example, van Fraassen, Giere, and also Mumford believe that there are no laws. Van Fraassen finds support for his view in the problems facing accounts like Lewis’s and Armstrong’s, and the perceived failure of Armstrong and others to describe an adequate epistemology that permits rational belief in laws (1989, 130, 180–181). Giere appeals to the origins of the use of the concept of law in the history of science (1999 [f.p. 1995], 86–90) and contends that the generalizations often described as laws are not in fact true (90–91). Mumford’s reasons are more metaphysical; he maintains that, in order to govern, laws must be external to the properties they govern, but, to be external in this way, the governed properties must lack proper identity conditions (2004, 144–145). Others adopt a subtly different sort of antirealism. Though they will utter sentences like ‘It is a law that no signals travel faster than light’, they are antirealists in virtue of thinking that such sentences are not (purely) fact-stating. Whether this Einsteinian generalization is a law is not a fact about the universe; it is not something out there waiting to be discovered. Reports of what are laws only project a certain attitude (in addition to belief) about the contained generalizations (Blackburn 1984, 1986, Ward 2002, 197). Ward takes the attitude to be one regarding the suitability of the generalization for prediction and explanation.

The challenge for antirealism is to minimize the havoc lawless reality would play with our folk and scientific practices. Regarding science, the examples and uses of laws described at the start of this entry attest to ‘law’ having a visible role in science that scientists seem prepared to take as factive. Regarding our folk practices, though ‘law’ is not often part of run-of-the-mill conversations, an antirealism about lawhood would still have wide-ranging consequences. This is due to lawhood’s ties to other concepts, especially the nomic ones, concepts like the counterfactual conditional, dispositions, and causation. For example, it seems that, for there to be any interesting counterfactual truths, there must be at least one law of nature. Would an ordinary match in ordinary conditions light if struck? It seems it would, but only because we presume nature to be regular in certain ways. We think this counterfactual is true because we believe there are laws. Were there no laws, it would not be the case that, if the match were struck, it would light. As a result, it would also not be the case that the match was disposed to ignite, nor the case that striking the match would cause it to light.

Could an antirealist deflect this challenge by denying the connections between lawhood and other concepts? Would this allow one to be an antirealist about laws and still be a realist about, say, counterfactuals? The danger lurking here is that the resulting position seems bound to be ad hoc . Concepts like the counterfactual conditional, dispositions, and causation exhibit many of the same puzzling features that lawhood does; there are parallel philosophical questions and puzzles about these concepts. It is hard to see what would warrant antirealism about lawhood, but not the other nomic concepts.

Some advocate antireductionist, antisupervenience views (Carroll 1994, 2008, Ismael 2015, Lange 2000, 2009, Maudlin 2007, Woodward 1992). Regarding the question of what it is to be a law, they reject the answers given by Humeans; they often deny Humean supervenience, and they see no advantage in an appeal to universals. They reject all attempts to say what it is to be a law that do not appeal to nomic concepts. Yet they still believe that there really are laws of nature; they are not antirealists. Maudlin takes lawhood to be a primitive status and laws to be ontological primitives — fundamental entities in our ontology. His project is to show what work laws can do, defining physical possibility in terms of laws and sketching law-based accounts of the counterfactual conditional and of explanation. Carroll’s analysis of lawhood is in terms of causal/explanatory concepts. The starting point is the intuition that laws are not accidental, that they are not coincidences. Not being a coincidence, however, is not all there is to being a law. For example, it might be true that there are no gold spheres greater than 1000 miles in diameter because there is so little gold in the universe. In that case, strictly speaking, that generalization would be true, suitably general, and not a coincidence. Nevertheless, that would not be a law. Arguably, what blocks this generalization from being a law is that something in nature — really, an initial condition of the universe, the limited amount of gold — accounts for the generalization. Contrast this with the law that inertial bodies have no acceleration. With this and other laws, it seems that it holds because of nature (itself). Lange’s (2000, 2009) treatment includes an account of what it is to be a law in terms of a counterfactual notion of stability. The overall account is intricate, but the basic idea is this: Call a logically closed set of true propositions stable if and only if the members of the set would remain true given any antecedent that is consistent with the set itself. So, for example, the set of logical truths is trivially stable, because logical truths would be true no matter what. A set that included the accidental generalization that all the people in the room are sitting, but is consistent with the proposition that someone in the room shouts ‘Fire!’ would not be a stable set; if someone were to shout ‘Fire’, then someone in the room would not be sitting. Lange argues that no stable set of sub-nomic facts — except maybe the set of all truths — contains an accidental truth. “By identifying the laws as the members of at least one non-maximal stable set, we discover how a sub-nomic fact’s lawhood is fixed by the sub-nomic facts and the subjunctive facts about them” (2009, 43).

Attempts to undermine antireductionism often include challenges to antisupervenience like those mentioned at the end of Section 4. Hildebrand challenges Carroll’s and Maudlin’s antireductionisms based on the failure of primitive laws to explain the uniformity of nature (Hildebrand, 2013). A symposium on Lange’s (2009) Laws and Lawmakers includes, along with Lange’s replies, a variety of criticisms from Carroll, Loewer, and Woodward. (See Lange et al. , 2011.) Demerest (2012) raises three challenges to Lange’s antireductionism all centered on whether subjunctives are suited to play the role of lawmakers.

Goodman thought that the difference between laws of nature and accidental truths was linked inextricably with the problem of induction. In his “The New Riddle of Induction” (1983, [f.p. 1954], 73), Goodman says,

Only a statement that is lawlike — regardless of its truth or falsity or its scientific importance — is capable of receiving confirmation from an instance of it; accidental statements are not.

(Terminology: P is lawlike only if P is a law if true.) Goodman claims that, if a generalization is accidental (and so not lawlike), then it is not capable of receiving confirmation from one of its instances.

This has prompted much discussion, including some challenges. For example, suppose there are ten flips of a fair coin, and that the first nine land heads (Dretske 1977, 256–257). The first nine instances — at least in a sense — confirm the generalization that all the flips will land heads; the probability of that generalization is raised from (.5) 10 up to .5. But this generalization is not lawlike; if true, it is not a law. It is standard to respond to such an example by arguing that this is not the pertinent notion of confirmation (that it is mere “content-cutting”) and by suggesting that what does require lawlikeness is confirmation of the generalization’s unexamined instances. Notice that, in the coin case, the probability that the tenth flip will land heads does not change after the first nine flips land heads. There are, however, examples that generate problems for this idea too.

Suppose the room contains one hundred men and suppose you ask fifty of them whether they are third sons and they reply that they are; surely it would be reasonable to at least increase somewhat your expectation that the next one you ask will also be a third son (Jackson and Pargetter 1980, 423)

It does no good to revise the claim to say that no generalization believed to be accidental is capable of confirmation. About the third-son case, one would know that the generalization, even if true, would not be a law. The discussion continues. Frank Jackson and Robert Pargetter have proposed an alternative connection between confirmation and laws on which certain counterfactual truths must hold: observation of A s that are F -and- B confirms that all non- F A s are B s only if the A s would still have been both A and B if they had not been F . (This suggestion is criticized by Elliott Sober 1988, 97–98.) Lange (2000, 111–142) uses a different strategy. He tries to refine further the relevant notion of confirmation, characterizing what he takes to be an intuitive notion of inductive confirmation, and then contends that only generalizations that are not believed not to be lawlike can be (in his sense) inductively confirmed.

Sometimes the idea that laws have a special role to play in induction serves as the starting point for a criticism of Humean analyses. Dretske (1977, 261–262) and Armstrong (1983, 52–59, and 1991) adopt a model of inductive inference that involves an inference to the best explanation. (Also see Foster 1983 and 2004.) On its simplest construal, the model describes a pattern that begins with an observation of instances of a generalization, includes an inference to the corresponding law (this is the inference to the best explanation), and concludes with an inference to the generalization itself or to its unobserved instances. The complaint lodged against Humeans is that, on their view of what laws are, laws are not suited to explain their instances and so cannot sustain the required inference to the best explanation.

This is an area where work on laws needs to be done. Armstrong and Dretske make substantive claims on what can and can’t be instance confirmed: roughly, Humean laws can’t, laws-as-universals can. But, at the very least, these claims cannot be quite right. Humean laws can’t? As the discussion above illustrates, Sober, Lange and others have argued that even generalizations known to be accidental can be confirmed by their instances. Dretske and Armstrong need some plausible and suitably strong premise connecting lawhood to confirmability and it is not clear that there is one to be had. Here is the basic problem: As many authors have noticed (e.g., Sober 1988, 98; van Fraassen 1987, 255), the confirmation of a hypothesis or its unexamined instances will always be sensitive to what background beliefs are in place. So much so that, with background beliefs of the right sort, just about anything can be confirmed irrespective of its status as a law or whether it is lawlike. Thus, stating a plausible principle describing the connection between laws and the problem of induction will be difficult.

Philosophers have generally held that some contingent truths are (or could be) laws of nature. Furthermore, they have thought that, if it is a law that all F s are G s, then there need not be any (metaphysically) necessary connection between F -ness and G -ness, that it is (metaphysically) possible that something be F without being G . For example, any possible world that, as a matter of law, obeys the general principles of Newtonian physics is a world in which Newton’s first law is true, and a world containing accelerating inertial bodies is a world in which Newton’s first law is false. The latter world is also a world where inertia is instantiated but does not necessitate zero acceleration. Some necessitarians , however, hold that all laws are necessary truths. (See Shoemaker 1980 and 1998, Swoyer 1982, Fales 1990, Bird 2005. See Vetter 2012 for criticism of Bird 2005 from within the dispositional essentialist camp.) Others have held something that is only slightly different. Maintaining that some laws are singular statements about universals, they allow that some laws are contingently true. So, on this view, an F -ness/ G -ness law could be false if F -ness does not exist. Still, this difference is minor. These authors think that, for there to be an F -ness/ G -ness law, it must be necessarily true that all F s are G s. (See Tweedale 1984, Bigelow, Ellis, and Lierse 1992, Ellis and Lierse 1994, and Ellis 2001, 203–228; 2009, 51–72.)

Two reasons can be given for believing that being a law does not depend on any necessary connection between properties. The first reason is the conceivability of it being a law in one possible world that all F s are G s even though there is another world with an F that is not G . The second is that there are laws that can only be discovered in an a posteriori manner. If necessity is always associated with laws of nature, then it is not clear why scientists cannot always get by with a priori methods. Naturally, these two reasons are often challenged. The necessitarians argue that conceivability is not a guide to possibility. They also appeal to Saul Kripke’s (1972) arguments meant to reveal certain a posteriori necessary truths in order to argue that the a posteriori nature of some laws does not prevent their lawhood from requiring a necessary connection between properties. In further support of their own view, the necessitarians argue that their position is a consequence of their favored theory of dispositions, according to which dispositions have their causal powers essentially. So, for example, on this theory, charge has as part of its essence the power to repel like charges. Laws, then, are entailed by the essences of dispositions (cf., Bird 2005, 356). As necessitarians see it, it is also a virtue of their position that they can explain why laws are counterfactual-supporting; they support counterfactuals in the same way that other necessary truths do (Swoyer 1982, 209; Fales 1990, 85–87).

The primary worry for necessitarians concerns their ability to sustain their dismissals of the traditional reasons for thinking that some laws are contingent. The problem (cf., Sidelle 2002, 311) is that they too make distinctions between necessary truths and contingent ones, and even seem to rely on considerations of conceivability to do so. Prima facie, there is nothing especially suspicious about the judgment that it is possible that an object travel faster than light. How is it any worse than the judgment that it is possible that it is raining in Paris? Another issue for necessitarians is whether their essentialism regarding dispositions can sustain all the counterfactuals that are apparently supported by laws of nature (Lange 2004).

Going back to Armstrong (1983, 40), there have been challenges to those who hold a Humean account of laws, and about whether Humean laws are explanatory. More recently, Maudlin has put the challenge in a perspicuous way:

If one is a Humean, then the Humean Mosaic itself appears to admit of no further explanation. Since it is the ontological bedrock in terms of which all other existent things are to be explicated, none of these further things can really account for the structure of the Mosaic itself. This complaint has been long voiced, commonly as an objection to any Humean account of laws. If the laws are nothing but generic features of the Humean Mosaic, then there is a sense in which one cannot appeal to those very laws to explain the particular features of the Mosaic itself: the laws are what they are in virtue of the Mosaic rather than vice versa (Maudlin 2007, 172).

Loewer (2012, 131) offers a response to the issue that Maudlin highlights. Loewer’s response is that the great Humean mosaic makes the laws of nature true. The move he makes to avoid the circularity is that Humean laws do not metaphysically explain elements of the mosaic, but they do scientifically explain aspects of the mosaic, suggesting that there are two notions of explanation and so no circularity. This move has spawned a recent slew of excellent journal articles regarding the viability of Loewer’s move (see especially Lange 2013, Miller 2015, Roski 2018, and Shumener 2017).

An increasingly popular way to look at the relation between laws and their instances is taking instances as grounding laws. No individual instance of a law can fully ground the law, but a conjunction of instances does more fully ground the law. Another plausible way of viewing the relation between laws and their instances is to see laws as grounding their instances (Emery 2019). Because the grounding relation is non-symmetric, both of these views cannot be true. The way out of this dilemma is one that illuminates the debate about explanation in an interesting way. Consider that while ( P & Q ) is a full ground for Q , it seems wrong to claim that ( P & Q ) explains why Q (Roski 2018). This is because the content of the explanandum (what is to be explained) is embedded in the content of the explanans (what is intended to do the explaining), and something cannot explain itself (or be an essential part of an explanation of itself). Notice that this formulation exposes the problem: if the explanans includes the explanandum as part of its content, it makes the explanation devoid of understanding. Ones audience would have to already have had an understanding of the explanandum. Successful explanations are not circular, so anyone taking laws as grounds for their instances ought not to think that the grounding relation is explanatory. The point here is not to show that grounding is not an explanatory relation, but rather to show that laws of nature are not suited to explain their instances. Circularity also infects the DN model of explanations. As the authors of the DN model pointed out:

… the content of the explanandum is contained in the explanans. That is correct since the explanandum is a semantic consequence of the explanans (Hempel and Oppenheim, cf. 1948, 162; also see Shumener 2017, 793).

The issue here undermines the importance of the role for explanations to provide understanding. The required validity brings semantic circularity, because the content of the explanans would then be sufficient for the truth of the explanandum. In line with the regular presentations of the DN model, at least one law of nature is required to be a premise in an “explanatory argument”. Indeed, at least one law needs to be essential to the validity of the argument, and the laws being part of the explanans are clearly a factor regarding the circularity. To add to these challenges, it is good to remember what Dretske pointed out regarding laws and explanation.

To say that a law is a universal truth having explanatory power is like saying a chair is a breath of air used to seat people. You cannot make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear, not even a very good sow’s ear; and you cannot make a generalization, not even a purely universal generalization, explain its instances. The fact that every F is G fails to explain why any F is G, and it fails to explain it, not because its explanatory efforts are too feeble to have attracted our attention, but because the explanatory attempt is never even made … Subsuming an instance under a universal generalization has exactly as much explanatory power as deriving Q from P & Q. None (1977, 26).

Dretske’s reaction to this quotation was to conclude that laws of nature are not universally quantified conditionals; that they are not mere generalizations. Instead, it was thought that laws had to be a different kind of thing: a relation between universals, physically necessary generalizations, or a true axiom or theorem of an ideal system, or even a metaphysically necessary generalization. Another approach needs to be considered, maybe, just maybe, laws of nature are generalizations and just aren’t explanatory in any very significant way. This is an approach that identifies what sort of entity a law of nature is.

10. Physics and the Special Sciences

Two separate (but related) questions have received much recent attention in the philosophical literature surrounding laws. Neither has much to do with what it is to be a law. Instead, they have to do with the nature of the generalizations scientists try to discover. First: Does any science try to discover exceptionless regularities in its attempt to discover laws? Second: Even if one science — fundamental physics — does, do others?

Philosophers draw a distinction between strict generalizations and ceteris-paribus generalizations. The contrast is supposed to be between universal generalizations of the sort discussed above (e.g., that all inertial bodies have no acceleration) and seemingly less formal generalizations like that, other things being equal, smoking causes cancer. The idea is that the former would be contradicted by a single counterinstance, say, one accelerating inertial body, though the latter is consistent with there being one smoker who never gets cancer. Though in theory this distinction is easy enough to understand, in practice it is often difficult to distinguish strict from ceteris-paribus generalizations. This is because many philosophers think that many utterances which include no explicit ceteris-paribus clause implicitly do include such a clause.

For the most part, philosophers have thought that if scientists have discovered any exceptionless regularities that are laws, they have done so at the level of fundamental physics. A few philosophers, however, are doubtful that there are exceptionless regularities at even this basic level. For example, Cartwright has argued that the descriptive and the explanatory aspects of laws conflict. “Rendered as descriptions of fact, they are false; amended to be true, they lose their fundamental explanatory force” (1980, 75). Consider Newton’s gravitational principle, F = G mm ′/ r 2 . Properly understood, according to Cartwright, it says that for any two bodies the force between them is G mm ′/ r 2 . But if that is what the law says then the law is not an exceptionless regularity. This is because the force between two bodies is influenced by other properties than just their mass and the distance between them, by properties like the charge of the two bodies as described by Coulomb’s law. The statement of the gravitational principle can be amended to make it true, but that, according to Cartwright, at least on certain standard ways of doing so, would strip it of its explanatory power. For example, if the principle is taken to hold only that F = G mm ′/ r 2 if there are no forces other than gravitational forces at work, then though it would be true it would not apply except in idealized circumstances. Lange (1993) uses a different example to make a similar point. Consider a standard expression of the law of thermal expansion: ‘Whenever the temperature of a metal bar of length L 0 changes by T , the length of the bar changes by L = k L 0 T ,’ where k is a constant, the thermal expansion coefficient of the metal. If this expression were used to express the strict generalization straightforwardly suggested by its grammar, then such an utterance would be false since the length of a bar does not change in the way described in cases where someone is hammering on the ends of the bar. It looks like the law will require provisos, but so many that the only apparent way of taking into consideration all the required provisos would be with something like a ceteris-paribus clause. Then the concern becomes that the statement would be empty. Because of the difficulty of stating plausible truth conditions for ceteris-paribus sentences, it is feared that ‘Other things being equal, L = kL 0 T ’ could only mean ‘ L = kL 0 T provided that L = kL 0 T .’

Even those who agree with the arguments of Cartwright and Lange sometimes disagree about what ultimately the arguments say about laws. Cartwright believes that the true laws are not exceptionless regularities, but instead are statements that describe causal powers. So construed, they turn out to be both true and explanatory. Lange ends up holding that there are propositions properly adopted as laws, though in doing so one need not also believe any exceptionless regularity; there need not be one. Giere (1999) can usefully be interpreted as agreeing with Cartwright’s basic arguments but insisting that law-statements don’t have implicit provisos or implicit ceteris-paribus clauses. So, he concludes that there are no laws.

Earman and Roberts hold that there are exceptionless and lawful regularities. More precisely, they argue that scientists doing fundamental physics do attempt to state strict generalizations that are such that they would be strict laws if they were true:

Our claim is only that … typical theories from fundamental physics are such that if they were true, there would be precise proviso free laws. For example, Einstein’s gravitational field law asserts — without equivocation, qualification, proviso, ceteris paribus clause — that the Ricci curvature tensor of spacetime is proportional to the total stress-energy tensor for matter-energy; the relativistic version of Maxwell’s laws of electromagnetism for charge-free flat spacetime asserts — without qualification or proviso — that the curl of the E field is proportional to the partial time derivative, etc. (1999, 446).

About Cartwright’s gravitational example, they think (473, fn. 14) that a plausible understanding of the gravitational principle is as describing only the gravitational force between the two massive bodies. (Cartwright argues that there is no such component force and so thinks such an interpretation would be false. Earman and Roberts disagree.) About Lange’s example, they think the law should be understood as having the single proviso that there be no external stresses on the metal bar (461). In any case, much more would need to be said to establish that all the apparently strict and explanatory generalizations that have been or will be stated by physicists have turned or will turn out to be false. (Earman, et al ., 2003 includes more recent papers by both Cartwright and Lange, and also many other papers on ceteris-paribus laws.)

Supposing that physicists do try to discover exceptionless regularities, and even supposing that our physicists will sometimes be successful, there is a further question of whether it is a goal of any science other than fundamental physics — any so-called special science — to discover exceptionless regularities and whether these scientists have any hope of succeeding. Consider an economic law of supply and demand that says that, when demand increases and supply is held fixed, price increases. Notice that, in some places, the price of gasoline has sometimes remained the same despite an increase in demand and a fixed supply, because the price of gasoline was government regulated. It appears that the law has to be understood as having a ceteris-paribus clause in order for it to be true. This problem is a very general one. As Jerry Fodor (1989, 78) has pointed out, in virtue of being stated in a vocabulary of a special science, it is very likely that there will be limiting conditions — especially underlying physical conditions — that will undermine any interesting strict generalization of the special sciences, conditions that themselves could not be described in the special-science vocabulary. Donald Davidson prompted much of the recent interest in special-science laws with his “Mental Events” (1980 [f.p. 1970], 207–225). He gave an argument specifically directed against the possibility of strict psycho-physical laws. More importantly, he made the suggestion that the absence of such laws may be relevant to whether mental events ever cause physical events. This prompted a slew of papers dealing with the problem of reconciling the absence of strict special-science laws with the reality of mental causation (e.g., Loewer and Lepore 1987 and 1989, Fodor 1989, Schiffer 1991, Pietroski and Rey 1995).

Progress on the problem of provisos depends on three basic issues being distinguished. First, there is the question of what it is to be a law, which in essence is the search for a necessarily true completion of: “ P is a law if and only if …”. Obviously, to be a true completion, it must hold for all P , whether P is a strict generalization or a ceteris-paribus one. Second, there is also a need to determine the truth conditions of the generalization sentences used by scientists. Third, there is the a posteriori and scientific question of which generalizations expressed by the sentences used by the scientists are true. The second of these issues is the one where the action needs to be.

On this score, it is striking how little attention is given to the possible effects of context. Mightn’t it be that, when the economist utters a certain strict generalization sentence in an “economic setting” (say, in an economics textbook or at an economics conference), context-sensitive considerations affecting its truth conditions will have it turn out that the utterance is true? This might be the case despite the fact that the same sentence uttered in a different context (say, in a discussion among fundamental physicists or better yet in a philosophical discussion of laws) would result in a clearly false utterance. These changing truth conditions might be the result of something as plain as a contextual shift in the domain of quantification or perhaps something less obvious. Whatever it is, the important point is that this shift could be a function of nothing more than the linguistic meaning of the sentence and familiar rules of interpretation (e.g., the rule of accommodation).

Consider a situation where an engineering professor utters, “When a metal bar is heated, the change in its length is proportional to the change in its temperature” and suppose a student offers, “Not when someone is hammering on both ends of the bar.” Has the student shown that the teacher’s utterance was false? Maybe not. Notice that the student comes off sounding a bit insolent. In all likelihood, such an unusual situation as someone hammering on both ends of a heated bar would not have been in play when the professor said what he did. In fact, the reason the student comes off sounding insolent is because it seems that he should have known that his example was irrelevant. Notice that the professor’s sentence needn’t include some implicit ceteris-paribus clause in order for his utterance to be true; as this example illustrates, in ordinary conversations, plain old strict generalization sentences are not always used to cover the full range of actual cases. Indeed, they are rarely used in this way. If special scientists do make true utterances of generalization sentences (sometimes ceteris-paribus generalization sentences, sometimes not), then apparently nothing stands in the way of them uttering true special-science lawhood sentences. The issue here has been the truth of special-science generalizations, not any other requirements of lawhood.

How will matters progress? How can philosophy advance beyond the current disputes about laws of nature? Three issues are especially interesting and important ones. The first concerns whether lawhood is a part of the content of scientific theories. This is a question often asked about causation, but less frequently addressed about lawhood. Roberts offers an analogy in support of the thought that it is not: It is a postulate of Euclidean geometry that two points determine a line. But it is not part of the content of Euclidean geometry that this proposition is a postulate. Euclidean geometry is not a theory about postulates; it is a theory about points, lines, and planes … (2008, 92). This may be a plausible first step toward understanding the absence of some nomic terms from formal statements of scientific theories. The second issue is whether there are any contingent laws of nature. Necessitarians continue to work on filling in their view, while Humeans and others pay relatively little attention to what they are up to; new work needs to explain the source of the underlying commitments that divide these camps. Finally, more attention needs to be paid to the language used to report what are the laws and the language used to express the laws themselves and whether the laws explain. It is clear that recent disputes about generalizations in physics and the special sciences turn on precisely these matters, but exploring them may also pay dividends on central matters regarding ontology, realism vs. antirealism, and supervenience.

• Armstrong, D., 1978, A Theory of Universals , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• –––, 1983, What Is a Law of Nature? , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• –––, 1991, “What Makes Induction Rational?,” Dialogue , 30: 503–511.
• –––, 1993, “The Identification Problem and the Inference Problem,” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research , 53: 421–422.
• Beebee, H., 2000, “The Nongoverning Conception of Laws of Nature,” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research , 61: 571–594.
• Berenstain, N. and Ladyman, J., 2012, “Ontic Structural Realism and Modality,” in E. Landry and D. Rickles (eds.), Structural Realism: Structure, Object, and Causality . Dordrecht: Springer.
• Bigelow, J., Ellis, B., and Lierse, C., 1992, “The World as One of a Kind: Natural Necessity and Laws of Nature,” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science , 43: 371–388.
• Bird, A., 2005, “The Dispositionalist Conception of Laws,” Foundations of Science , 10: 353–370.
• Blackburn, S., 1984, Spreading the Word , Oxford: Clarendon Press.
• –––, 1986, “Morals and Modals,” in Fact, Science and Morality , G. Macdonald and C. Wright (eds.), Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
• Carroll, J., 1990, “The Humean Tradition,” The Philosophical Review , 99: 185–219.
• –––, 1994, Laws of Nature , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• –––, (ed.), 2004, Readings on Laws of Nature , Pittsburgh: Pittsburgh University Press.
• –––, 2008, “Nailed to Hume’s Cross?,” in Contemporary Debates in Metaphysics , J. Hawthorne, T. Sider and D. Zimmerman, (eds.), Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
• ___, 2018, “Becoming Humean,” in Laws of Nature , W. Ott and L. Patton (eds.), Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Cartwright, N., 1980, “Do the Laws of Physics state the Facts,” Pacific Philosophical Quarterly , 61: 75–84.
• Chisholm, R., 1946, “The Contrary-to-Fact Conditional,” Mind , 55: 289–307.
• –––, 1955, “Law Statements and Counterfactual Inference,” Analysis , 15: 97–105.
• Cross, T., 2012, “Goodbye, Humean Supervenience,” Oxford Studies in Metaphysics 7: 129–153.
• Davidson, D., 1980, Essays on Actions and Events , Oxford: Clarendon Press.
• Demerest, H., 2012, “Do Counterfactuals Ground the Laws of Nature? A Critique of Lange,” Philosophy of Science , 79: 333–344.
• –––, 2015, “Fundamental Properties and the Laws of Nature” Philosophy Compass, 10: 334–344.
• Dretske, F., 1977, “Laws of Nature,” Philosophy of Science , 44: 248–268.
• Earman, J., 1978, “The Universality of Laws,” Philosophy of Science , 45: 173–181.
• –––, 1984, “Laws of Nature: The Empiricist Challenge,” in D. M. Armstrong , R. Bogdan (ed.), Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company.
• –––, 1986, A Primer on Determinism , Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company.
• Earman, J., Glymour, C., and Mitchell, S., (eds.), 2003, Ceteris Paribus Laws , Berlin: Springer.
• Earman, J. and Roberts, J., 1999, “ Ceteris Paribus , There is No Problem of Provisos,” Synthese , 118: 439–478.
• –––, 2005a, “Contact with the Nomic: A Challenge for Deniers of Humean Supervenience about Laws of Nature (Part I),” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research , 71: 1–22.
• –––, 2005b, “Contact with the Nomic: A Challenge for Deniers of Humean Supervenience about Laws of Nature (Part II),” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research , 71: 253–286.
• Ellis, B., 2001, Scientific Essentialism , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• –––, 2009 Metaphysics of Scientific Essentialism , Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press.
• Ellis, B. and Lierse, C., 1994, “Dispositional Essentialism,” Australasian Journal of Philosophy , 72: 27–45.
• Emery, N., 2019, “Laws and Their Instances” Philosophical Studies , 176: 1535–1561.
• Fales, E., 1990, Causation and Universals , London: Routledge.
• Fodor, J., 1989, “Making Mind Matter More,” Philosophical Topics , 17: 59–79.
• Foster, J., 1983, “Induction, Explanation and Natural Necessity,” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society , 83: 87–101.
• –––, 2004, The Divine Lawmaker , Oxford: Clarendon Press.
• Friend, T., 2016, “Laws are Conditionals,” European Journal for the Philosophy of Science , 6: 123–144.
• Giere, R., 1999, Science Without Laws , Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Goodman, N., 1947, “The Problem of Counterfactual Conditionals,” Journal of Philosophy , 44: 113–128.
• –––, 1983, Fact, Fiction, and Forecast , Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
• Hall, N, 2015, “Humean Reductionism about Laws,” in A Companion to David Lewis , B. Loewer and J. Schaffer (eds.), Oxford: John Wiley and Sons.
• Hempel, C. and Oppenheim, P., 1948, “Studies in the Logic of Explanation,” Philosophy of Science , 15: 135–175.
• Hildebrand, T., 2013, “Can Primitive Laws Explain?” Philosophers’ Imprint 13(5) (July) [ Available online ].
• –––, 2014, “Can Bare Dispositions Explain Categorical Regularities?,” Philosophical Studies , 167 (3): 569–584
• Ismael, J., 2015, “How to be Humean,” in A Companion to David Lewis , B. Loewer and J. Schaffer (eds.). Oxford: John Wiley and Sons.
• Jackson, F. and Pargetter, R., 1980, “Confirmation and the Nomological,” Canadian Journal of Philosophy , 10: 415–428.
• Kripke, S., 1972, Naming and Necessity , Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
• Lange, M., 1993, “Natural Laws and the Problem of Provisos,” Erkenntnis , 38: 233–248.
• –––, 2000, Natural Laws in Scientific Practice , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 2004, “A Note on Scientific Essentialism, Laws of Nature, and Counterfactual Conditionals,” Australasian Journal of Philosophy , 82: 227–41.
• –––, 2009, Laws and Lawmakers , New York: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 2013, “Grounding, Scientific Explanation, and Humean Laws,” Philosophical Studies , 164: 255–61.
• Lange, M., et al. , 2011, “Counterfactuals All the Way Down? Marc Lange: Laws and Lawmakers ,” Metascience , 20: 27–52.
• Langford, C., 1941, Review of “An Interpretation of Causal Laws,” Journal of Symbolic Logic , 6: 67–68.
• Lewis, D., 1973, Counterfactuals , Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
• –––, 1983, “New Work for a Theory of Universals,” Australasian Journal of Philosophy , 61: 343–377.
• –––, 1986, Philosophical Papers , Volume II, New York: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 1994, “Humean Supervenience Debugged,” Mind , 103: 473–390.
• Loewer, B., 1996, “Humean Supervenience,” Philosophical Topics , 24: 101–126.
• –––, 2012, “Two Accounts of Laws and Time,” Philosophical Studies , 160: 115–137.
• Loewer, B. and Lepore, E., 1987, “Mind Matters,” Journal of Philosophy , 84: 630–642.
• –––, 1989, “More on Making Mind Matter,” Philosophical Topics , 17: 175–191.
• Lyon, A., 1976–1977, “The Immutable Laws of Nature,” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society , 77: 107–126
• Marshall, D., 2015, “Humean Laws and Explanations,” Philosophical Studies , 172: 3145–3165.
• Maudlin, T., 2007, The Metaphysics Within Physics , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Mill, J.S., 1843, A System of Logic , London: Longmans, Green and Co.
• Miller, E., 2015, “Humean Scientific Explanation,” Philosophical Studies , 172: 1311–1332.
• Mumford, S., 2004, Laws in Nature , London: Routledge.
• Pietroski, P. and Rey, G., 1995, “When Other Things Aren’t Equal: Saving Ceteris Paribus Laws from Vacuity,” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science , 46: 81–110.
• Ramsey, F., 1978, Foundations , London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
• Roberts, J., 1998, “Lewis, Carroll, and Seeing through the Looking Glass,” Australasian Journal of Philosophy , 76: 426–438.
• –––, 2008, The Law-Governed Universe , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Roski, S., 2018, “Grounding and the explanatory role of generalizations,” Philosophical Studies ,175, 1985–2003.
• Schaffer, J., 2008, “Causation and Laws of Nature: Reductionism,” in Contemporary Debates in Metaphysics , J. Hawthorne, T. Sider, and D. Zimmerman, (eds.), Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
• Schiffer, S., 1991, “ Ceteris Paribus Laws,” Mind , 100: 1–17.
• Schneider, S., 2007, “What is the Significance of the Intuition that Laws of Nature Govern?,” Australasian Journal of Philosophy , 85: 307–324.
• Shoemaker, S., 1980, “Causality and Properties,” in Time and Cause , P. van Inwagen, (ed.), Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company.
• –––, 1998, “Causal and Metaphysical Necessity,” Pacific Philosophical Quarterly , 79: 59–77.
• Shumener, E., 2017, “Laws of Nature, Explanation, and Semantic Circularity,” The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science , 70: 787–815.
• Sidelle, A., 2002, “On the Metaphysical Contingency of Laws of Nature,” in Conceivability and Possibility , T. Szabó Gendler and J. Hawthorne, (eds.), Oxford: Clarendon Press.
• Sober, E., 1988, “Confirmation and Lawlikeness,” Philosophical Review , 97: 93–98.
• Swoyer, C., 1982, “The Nature of Natural Laws,” Australasian Journal of Philosophy , 60: 203–223.
• Tooley, M., 1977, “The Nature of Laws,” Canadian Journal of Philosophy , 7: 667–698.
• –––, 1987, Causation , Oxford: Clarendon Press.
• Tweedale, M., 1984, “Armstrong on Determinable and Substantival Universals,” in D.M. Armstrong , R. Bogdan (ed.), Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company.
• Unger, P., 1971, “A Defense of Skepticism” The Philosophical Review 80, 198–219.
• Vetter, B., 2012, “Dispositional Essentialism and the Laws of Nature,” Properties, Powers and Structures , A. Bird, B. Ellis, and H. Sankey (eds.), New York: Routledge.
• van Fraassen, B., 1987, “Armstrong on Laws and Probabilities,” Australasian Journal of Philosophy , 65: 243–259.
• –––, 1989, Laws and Symmetry , Oxford: Clarendon Press.
• –––, 1993, “Armstrong, Cartwright, and Earman on Laws and Symmetry,” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research , 53: 431–444.
• Ward, B., 2002, “Humeanism without Humean supervenience: A projectivist account of laws and possibilities,” Philosophical Studies , 107: 191–218.
• –––, 2007, “Laws, Explanation, Governing, and Generation,” Australasian Journal of Philosophy , 85: 537–552.
• Woodward, J., 1992, “Realism about Laws,” Erkenntnis , 36: 181–218.

How to cite this entry . Preview the PDF version of this entry at the Friends of the SEP Society . Look up topics and thinkers related to this entry at the Internet Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO). Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers , with links to its database.

• Laws of Nature , by Norman Swartz (Simon Fraser University), in The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

causation: counterfactual theories of | causation: the metaphysics of | conditionals | conditionals: counterfactual | determinism: causal | dispositions | Hempel, Carl | Hume, David | induction: problem of | laws of nature: ceteris paribus | Lewis, David | Lewis, David: metaphysics | metaphysics | models in science | possible worlds | probability, interpretations of | properties | scientific explanation | supervenience

Acknowledgments

Portions of the 2006 update to this entry were drawn directly from the introduction to Carroll (2004). The original version of this entry (2003) served as a basis for that introduction. Thanks to Arnold Koslow for a helpful correction. Thank you to my student research assistant, Chase Dill, for searching out sources and providing good philosophical insight. Ann Rives provided excellent proofreading.

Copyright © 2020 by John W. Carroll < carroll @ ncsu . edu >

• Accessibility

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

• Info about mirror sites

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is copyright © 2023 by The Metaphysics Research Lab , Department of Philosophy, Stanford University

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

Law, Renaissance Idea of Natural

• Living reference work entry
• First Online: 19 February 2018
• Cite this living reference work entry

• Maarten Van Dyck 2  

142 Accesses

1 Citations

The introduction of laws of nature is often seen as one of the hallmarks of the scientific revolution of the seventeenth century. The new sciences are thought to have introduced the revolutionary idea that explanations of natural phenomena have to be grounded in exceptionless regularities of universal scope, i.e., laws of nature. The use of legal terminology to talk about natural regularities has a longer history, though. This article traces these earlier uses.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Chapter 2 Natural Law in Germany in the 20th Century

Chapter 1 introduction: natural law theories in the 20th century.

Adams, Marilyn McCord. 2013. Powers versus laws. In The Divine order, the human order, and the order of nature , ed. Eric Watkins, 3–26. New York: Oxford University Press.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Armogathe, Jean-Robert. 2008. Deus legislator. In Natural law and laws of nature in early modern Europe: Jurisprudence, theology, moral and natural philosophy , ed. Lorraine Daston and Michael Stolleis, 265–277. Farnham: Ashgate.

Google Scholar  

Asmis, Elizabeth. 2008a. Cicero on natural law and the laws of the state. Classical Antiquity 27 (1): 1–33.

Article   Google Scholar  

Asmis, Elizabeth. 2008b. Lucretius’ new world order: Making a pact with nature. The Classical Quarterly 58 (1): 141–157.

Chene, Dennis Des. 2000. On Laws and Ends: A response to Hattab and Menn. Perspectives on Science 8 (2): 144–163.

Chesnut, Glenn F. 1986. The first Christian histories: Eusebius, Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret, and Evagrius . Macon: Mercer University Press.

Courtine, Jean-François. 1999. Nature et empire de la loi: études suaréziennes . Paris: Vrin.

Crombie, A.C. 1996. Infinite power and the laws of nature: A medieval speculation. In Science, art, and nature in medieval and modern thought , 67–87. London: Hambledon Press.

Daston, Lorraine, and Michael Stolleis, eds. 2008. Natural law and laws of nature in early modern Europe: Jurisprudence, theology, moral and natural philosophy . Farnham: Ashgate.

Festa, Egidio, and Sophie Roux. 2001. Le “para phusin” et l’imitation de la nature dans quelques commentaires du prologue des Questions mécaniques. In Largo Campo di Filosofare , ed. José Montesinos and Carlos Solis Santos, 237–253. La Orotava: Fundacion Canaria Orotava de Historia de la Ciencia.

Funkenstein, Amos. 1986. Theology and the scientific imagination from the Middle Ages to the seventeenth century . Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Hartbecke, Karin, and Christian Schütte. 2006. Naturgesetze: Historisch-systematische Analysen eines wissenschaftlichen Grundbegriffs . 1st ed. Paderborn: mentis Verlag.

Henry, John. 2004. Metaphysics and the origins of modern science: Descartes and the importance of laws of nature. Early Science and Medicine 9 (2): 73–114.

Hooker, Richard. 1593. Of the Lawes of Ecclesiasticall Politie . London: John Windet.

Kusukawa, Sachiko. 2008. Nature’s regularity in some protestant natural philosophy textbooks 150–1630. In Natural law and laws of nature in early modern Europe: Jurisprudence, theology, moral and natural philosophy , 105–121. Farnham: Ashgate.

Lehoux, Daryn. 2006. Laws of nature and natural laws. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 37 (4): 527–549.

Manzo, Silvia. 2013. The preservation of the whole and the teleology of nature in late medieval, renaissance and early modern debates on the void. Journal of Early Modern Studies 2 (2): 9–34.

Milton, John R. 1981. The origin and development of the concept of the ‘laws of nature’. European Journal of Sociology/Archives Européennes de Sociologie 22 (02): 173–195.

Milton, J.R. 2012. Laws of nature. In The Cambridge history of seventeenth-century philosophy , ed. Daniel Garber and Michael Ayers, 680–701. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Oakley, Francis. 1961. Christian theology and the Newtonian science: The rise of the concept of the laws of nature. Church History 30 (4): 433–457.

Roux, Sophie. 2001. Les lois de la nature à l’âge classique la question terminologique. Revue de Synthèse 122 (2–4): 531–576.

Ruby, Jane E. 1986. The origins of scientific “law”. Journal of the History of Ideas 47 (3): 341–359.

Schnepf, Robert. 2006. Gottes Handeln und der Lauf der Natur: Probleme und Perspektiven der theologischen Vorgeschichte des neuzeitlichen Naturgesetzbgriffs im Mittelalter. In Naturgesetze , ed. Karin Hartbecke and Christian Schütte, 85–114. Paderborn: mentis Verlag.

Schramm, Matthias. 1981. Roger Bacons Begriff vom Naturgesetz. In Die Renaissance der Wissenschaften im 12. Jahrhundert , 197–209. Zurich: Artemis.

Specht, Rainer. 1987. Naturgesetz und Bindung Gottes. In Search Results Philosophie im Mittelalter: Entwicklungslinien und Paradigmen , ed. Jan P. Beckmann, Ludger Honnefelder, Gangolf Schrimpf, and Georg Wieland, 409–423. Hamburg: Felix Meiner Verlag.

Specht, Rainer. 2001. Regulae quaedam sive leges naturae. In Kausalität und Naturgesetz in der Frühen Neuzeit , ed. Andreas Hüttemann, 65–75. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag.

Steinle, Friedrich. 1995. The amalgamation of a concept. Laws of nature in the new sciences. In Laws of nature: Essays on the philosophical, scientific and historical dimensions , ed. Friedl Weinert, 316–368. Berlin: de Gruyter.

Watkins, Eric. 2013. The Divine order, the human order, and the order of nature. Historical perspectives . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Book   Google Scholar  

William, J. 1985. Courtenay. The dialectic of omnipotence in the high and late Middle Ages. In Divine omniscience and omnipotence in medieval philosophy , 243–269. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.

Wilson, Catherine. 2008. From limits to Laws: The transformation of ancient atomism in early modern philosophy. In Natural law and laws of nature in early modern Europe: Jurisprudence, theology, moral and natural philosophy , ed. Lorraine Daston and Michael Stolleis, 13–28. Farnham: Ashgate.

Zilsel, Edgar. 1942. The genesis of the concept of physical law. Philosophical Review 51 (3): 245–279.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Philosophy and Moral Science, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium

Maarten Van Dyck

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maarten Van Dyck .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Dept. of Philosophy a. Cultural Heritage, Università Ca’ Foscari Venezia Dept. of Philosophy a. Cultural Heritage, Venezia, Italy

Marco Sgarbi

Section Editor information

University Ca' Foscari Venice, Venice, Italy

The Warburg Institute, School of Advanced Study, University of London, London, UK

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG

About this entry

Cite this entry.

Van Dyck, M. (2018). Law, Renaissance Idea of Natural. In: Sgarbi, M. (eds) Encyclopedia of Renaissance Philosophy. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02848-4_71-1

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02848-4_71-1

Received : 11 July 2017

Accepted : 21 October 2017

Published : 19 February 2018

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-319-02848-4

Online ISBN : 978-3-319-02848-4

eBook Packages : Springer Reference Religion and Philosophy Reference Module Humanities and Social Sciences Reference Module Humanities

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

• Architecture and Design
• Asian and Pacific Studies
• Business and Economics
• Classical and Ancient Near Eastern Studies
• Computer Sciences
• Cultural Studies
• Engineering
• General Interest
• Geosciences
• Industrial Chemistry
• Islamic and Middle Eastern Studies
• Jewish Studies
• Library and Information Science, Book Studies
• Life Sciences
• Linguistics and Semiotics
• Literary Studies
• Materials Sciences
• Mathematics
• Social Sciences
• Sports and Recreation
• Theology and Religion
• Publish your article
• The role of authors
• Promoting your article
• Abstracting & indexing
• Publishing Ethics
• Why publish with De Gruyter
• How to publish with De Gruyter
• Our book series
• Our subject areas
• Your digital product at De Gruyter
• Contribute to our reference works
• Product information
• Tools & resources
• Product Information
• Promotional Materials
• Orders and Inquiries
• FAQ for Library Suppliers and Book Sellers
• Repository Policy
• Free access policy
• Open Access agreements
• Database portals
• For Authors
• Customer service
• People + Culture
• Journal Management
• How to join us
• Working at De Gruyter
• Mission & Vision
• De Gruyter Foundation
• De Gruyter Ebound
• Our Responsibility
• Partner publishers

Your purchase has been completed. Your documents are now available to view.

Origins of Scientific “Law”

From the book laws of nature.

• X / Twitter

Supplementary Materials

Please login or register with De Gruyter to order this product.

Chapters in this book (18)

Scientific Hypothesis, Model, Theory, and Law

Understanding the Difference Between Basic Scientific Terms

Hero Images / Getty Images

• Chemical Laws
• Periodic Table
• Projects & Experiments
• Scientific Method
• Biochemistry
• Physical Chemistry
• Medical Chemistry
• Chemistry In Everyday Life
• Famous Chemists
• Activities for Kids
• Abbreviations & Acronyms
• Weather & Climate
• Ph.D., Biomedical Sciences, University of Tennessee at Knoxville
• B.A., Physics and Mathematics, Hastings College

Words have precise meanings in science. For example, "theory," "law," and "hypothesis" don't all mean the same thing. Outside of science, you might say something is "just a theory," meaning it's a supposition that may or may not be true. In science, however, a theory is an explanation that generally is accepted to be true. Here's a closer look at these important, commonly misused terms.

A hypothesis is an educated guess, based on observation. It's a prediction of cause and effect. Usually, a hypothesis can be supported or refuted through experimentation or more observation. A hypothesis can be disproven but not proven to be true.

Example: If you see no difference in the cleaning ability of various laundry detergents, you might hypothesize that cleaning effectiveness is not affected by which detergent you use. This hypothesis can be disproven if you observe a stain is removed by one detergent and not another. On the other hand, you cannot prove the hypothesis. Even if you never see a difference in the cleanliness of your clothes after trying 1,000 detergents, there might be one more you haven't tried that could be different.

Scientists often construct models to help explain complex concepts. These can be physical models like a model volcano or atom  or conceptual models like predictive weather algorithms. A model doesn't contain all the details of the real deal, but it should include observations known to be valid.

Example: The  Bohr model shows electrons orbiting the atomic nucleus, much the same way as the way planets revolve around the sun. In reality, the movement of electrons is complicated but the model makes it clear that protons and neutrons form a nucleus and electrons tend to move around outside the nucleus.

A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say that it's an accepted hypothesis.

Example: It is known that on June 30, 1908, in Tunguska, Siberia, there was an explosion equivalent to the detonation of about 15 million tons of TNT. Many hypotheses have been proposed for what caused the explosion. It was theorized that the explosion was caused by a natural extraterrestrial phenomenon , and was not caused by man. Is this theory a fact? No. The event is a recorded fact. Is this theory, generally accepted to be true, based on evidence to-date? Yes. Can this theory be shown to be false and be discarded? Yes.

A scientific law generalizes a body of observations. At the time it's made, no exceptions have been found to a law. Scientific laws explain things but they do not describe them. One way to tell a law and a theory apart is to ask if the description gives you the means to explain "why." The word "law" is used less and less in science, as many laws are only true under limited circumstances.

Example: Consider Newton's Law of Gravity . Newton could use this law to predict the behavior of a dropped object but he couldn't explain why it happened.

As you can see, there is no "proof" or absolute "truth" in science. The closest we get are facts, which are indisputable observations. Note, however, if you define proof as arriving at a logical conclusion, based on the evidence, then there is "proof" in science. Some work under the definition that to prove something implies it can never be wrong, which is different. If you're asked to define the terms hypothesis, theory, and law, keep in mind the definitions of proof and of these words can vary slightly depending on the scientific discipline. What's important is to realize they don't all mean the same thing and cannot be used interchangeably.

• Theory Definition in Science
• Hypothesis, Model, Theory, and Law
• What Is a Scientific or Natural Law?
• Scientific Hypothesis Examples
• The Continental Drift Theory: Revolutionary and Significant
• What 'Fail to Reject' Means in a Hypothesis Test
• What Is a Hypothesis? (Science)
• Hypothesis Definition (Science)
• Definition of a Hypothesis
• Processual Archaeology
• The Basics of Physics in Scientific Study
• What Is the Difference Between Hard and Soft Science?
• Tips on Winning the Debate on Evolution
• Geological Thinking: Method of Multiple Working Hypotheses
• 5 Common Misconceptions About Evolution
• Deductive Versus Inductive Reasoning

• Search Menu
• Browse content in Arts and Humanities
• Browse content in Archaeology
• Anglo-Saxon and Medieval Archaeology
• Archaeological Methodology and Techniques
• Archaeology by Region
• Archaeology of Religion
• Archaeology of Trade and Exchange
• Biblical Archaeology
• Contemporary and Public Archaeology
• Environmental Archaeology
• Historical Archaeology
• History and Theory of Archaeology
• Industrial Archaeology
• Landscape Archaeology
• Mortuary Archaeology
• Prehistoric Archaeology
• Underwater Archaeology
• Urban Archaeology
• Zooarchaeology
• Browse content in Architecture
• Architectural Structure and Design
• History of Architecture
• Residential and Domestic Buildings
• Theory of Architecture
• Browse content in Art
• Art Subjects and Themes
• History of Art
• Industrial and Commercial Art
• Theory of Art
• Biographical Studies
• Byzantine Studies
• Browse content in Classical Studies
• Classical Literature
• Classical Reception
• Classical History
• Classical Philosophy
• Classical Mythology
• Classical Art and Architecture
• Classical Oratory and Rhetoric
• Greek and Roman Archaeology
• Greek and Roman Epigraphy
• Greek and Roman Law
• Greek and Roman Papyrology
• Late Antiquity
• Religion in the Ancient World
• Digital Humanities
• Browse content in History
• Colonialism and Imperialism
• Diplomatic History
• Environmental History
• Genealogy, Heraldry, Names, and Honours
• Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing
• Historical Geography
• History by Period
• History of Agriculture
• History of Education
• History of Emotions
• History of Gender and Sexuality
• Industrial History
• Intellectual History
• International History
• Labour History
• Legal and Constitutional History
• Local and Family History
• Maritime History
• Military History
• National Liberation and Post-Colonialism
• Oral History
• Political History
• Public History
• Regional and National History
• Revolutions and Rebellions
• Slavery and Abolition of Slavery
• Social and Cultural History
• Theory, Methods, and Historiography
• Urban History
• World History
• Browse content in Language Teaching and Learning
• Language Learning (Specific Skills)
• Language Teaching Theory and Methods
• Browse content in Linguistics
• Applied Linguistics
• Cognitive Linguistics
• Computational Linguistics
• Forensic Linguistics
• Grammar, Syntax and Morphology
• Historical and Diachronic Linguistics
• History of English
• Language Variation
• Language Families
• Language Acquisition
• Language Evolution
• Language Reference
• Lexicography
• Linguistic Theories
• Linguistic Typology
• Linguistic Anthropology
• Phonetics and Phonology
• Psycholinguistics
• Sociolinguistics
• Translation and Interpretation
• Writing Systems
• Browse content in Literature
• Bibliography
• Children's Literature Studies
• Literary Studies (Modernism)
• Literary Studies (Asian)
• Literary Studies (European)
• Literary Studies (Eco-criticism)
• Literary Studies (Romanticism)
• Literary Studies (American)
• Literary Studies - World
• Literary Studies (1500 to 1800)
• Literary Studies (19th Century)
• Literary Studies (20th Century onwards)
• Literary Studies (African American Literature)
• Literary Studies (British and Irish)
• Literary Studies (Early and Medieval)
• Literary Studies (Fiction, Novelists, and Prose Writers)
• Literary Studies (Gender Studies)
• Literary Studies (Graphic Novels)
• Literary Studies (History of the Book)
• Literary Studies (Plays and Playwrights)
• Literary Studies (Poetry and Poets)
• Literary Studies (Postcolonial Literature)
• Literary Studies (Queer Studies)
• Literary Studies (Science Fiction)
• Literary Studies (Travel Literature)
• Literary Studies (War Literature)
• Literary Studies (Women's Writing)
• Literary Theory and Cultural Studies
• Mythology and Folklore
• Shakespeare Studies and Criticism
• Browse content in Media Studies
• Browse content in Music
• Applied Music
• Dance and Music
• Ethics in Music
• Ethnomusicology
• Gender and Sexuality in Music
• Medicine and Music
• Music Cultures
• Music and Culture
• Music and Religion
• Music and Media
• Music Education and Pedagogy
• Music Theory and Analysis
• Musical Scores, Lyrics, and Libretti
• Musical Structures, Styles, and Techniques
• Musicology and Music History
• Performance Practice and Studies
• Race and Ethnicity in Music
• Sound Studies
• Browse content in Performing Arts
• Browse content in Philosophy
• Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art
• Epistemology
• Feminist Philosophy
• History of Western Philosophy
• Metaphysics
• Moral Philosophy
• Non-Western Philosophy
• Philosophy of Action
• Philosophy of Law
• Philosophy of Religion
• Philosophy of Science
• Philosophy of Language
• Philosophy of Mind
• Philosophy of Perception
• Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic
• Practical Ethics
• Social and Political Philosophy
• Browse content in Religion
• Biblical Studies
• Christianity
• East Asian Religions
• History of Religion
• Judaism and Jewish Studies
• Qumran Studies
• Religion and Education
• Religion and Health
• Religion and Politics
• Religion and Science
• Religion and Law
• Religion and Art, Literature, and Music
• Religious Studies
• Browse content in Society and Culture
• Cookery, Food, and Drink
• Cultural Studies
• Customs and Traditions
• Ethical Issues and Debates
• Hobbies, Games, Arts and Crafts
• Lifestyle, Home, and Garden
• Natural world, Country Life, and Pets
• Popular Beliefs and Controversial Knowledge
• Sports and Outdoor Recreation
• Technology and Society
• Travel and Holiday
• Visual Culture
• Browse content in Law
• Arbitration
• Browse content in Company and Commercial Law
• Commercial Law
• Company Law
• Browse content in Comparative Law
• Systems of Law
• Competition Law
• Browse content in Constitutional and Administrative Law
• Government Powers
• Judicial Review
• Local Government Law
• Military and Defence Law
• Parliamentary and Legislative Practice
• Construction Law
• Contract Law
• Browse content in Criminal Law
• Criminal Procedure
• Criminal Evidence Law
• Sentencing and Punishment
• Employment and Labour Law
• Environment and Energy Law
• Browse content in Financial Law
• Banking Law
• Insolvency Law
• History of Law
• Human Rights and Immigration
• Intellectual Property Law
• Browse content in International Law
• Private International Law and Conflict of Laws
• Public International Law
• IT and Communications Law
• Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law
• Law and Society
• Law and Politics
• Browse content in Legal System and Practice
• Courts and Procedure
• Legal Skills and Practice
• Primary Sources of Law
• Regulation of Legal Profession
• Medical and Healthcare Law
• Browse content in Policing
• Criminal Investigation and Detection
• Police and Security Services
• Police Procedure and Law
• Police Regional Planning
• Browse content in Property Law
• Personal Property Law
• Study and Revision
• Terrorism and National Security Law
• Browse content in Trusts Law
• Wills and Probate or Succession
• Browse content in Medicine and Health
• Browse content in Allied Health Professions
• Arts Therapies
• Clinical Science
• Dietetics and Nutrition
• Occupational Therapy
• Operating Department Practice
• Physiotherapy
• Radiography
• Speech and Language Therapy
• Browse content in Anaesthetics
• General Anaesthesia
• Neuroanaesthesia
• Browse content in Clinical Medicine
• Acute Medicine
• Cardiovascular Medicine
• Clinical Genetics
• Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics
• Dermatology
• Endocrinology and Diabetes
• Gastroenterology
• Genito-urinary Medicine
• Geriatric Medicine
• Infectious Diseases
• Medical Oncology
• Medical Toxicology
• Pain Medicine
• Palliative Medicine
• Rehabilitation Medicine
• Respiratory Medicine and Pulmonology
• Rheumatology
• Sleep Medicine
• Sports and Exercise Medicine
• Clinical Neuroscience
• Community Medical Services
• Critical Care
• Emergency Medicine
• Forensic Medicine
• Haematology
• History of Medicine
• Medical Ethics
• Browse content in Medical Dentistry
• Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
• Paediatric Dentistry
• Restorative Dentistry and Orthodontics
• Surgical Dentistry
• Browse content in Medical Skills
• Clinical Skills
• Communication Skills
• Nursing Skills
• Surgical Skills
• Medical Statistics and Methodology
• Browse content in Neurology
• Clinical Neurophysiology
• Neuropathology
• Nursing Studies
• Browse content in Obstetrics and Gynaecology
• Gynaecology
• Occupational Medicine
• Ophthalmology
• Otolaryngology (ENT)
• Browse content in Paediatrics
• Neonatology
• Browse content in Pathology
• Chemical Pathology
• Clinical Cytogenetics and Molecular Genetics
• Histopathology
• Medical Microbiology and Virology
• Patient Education and Information
• Browse content in Pharmacology
• Psychopharmacology
• Browse content in Popular Health
• Caring for Others
• Complementary and Alternative Medicine
• Self-help and Personal Development
• Browse content in Preclinical Medicine
• Cell Biology
• Molecular Biology and Genetics
• Reproduction, Growth and Development
• Primary Care
• Professional Development in Medicine
• Browse content in Psychiatry
• Addiction Medicine
• Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
• Forensic Psychiatry
• Learning Disabilities
• Old Age Psychiatry
• Psychotherapy
• Browse content in Public Health and Epidemiology
• Epidemiology
• Public Health
• Browse content in Radiology
• Clinical Radiology
• Interventional Radiology
• Nuclear Medicine
• Radiation Oncology
• Reproductive Medicine
• Browse content in Surgery
• Cardiothoracic Surgery
• Gastro-intestinal and Colorectal Surgery
• General Surgery
• Neurosurgery
• Paediatric Surgery
• Peri-operative Care
• Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
• Surgical Oncology
• Transplant Surgery
• Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery
• Vascular Surgery
• Browse content in Science and Mathematics
• Browse content in Biological Sciences
• Aquatic Biology
• Biochemistry
• Bioinformatics and Computational Biology
• Developmental Biology
• Ecology and Conservation
• Evolutionary Biology
• Genetics and Genomics
• Microbiology
• Molecular and Cell Biology
• Natural History
• Plant Sciences and Forestry
• Research Methods in Life Sciences
• Structural Biology
• Systems Biology
• Zoology and Animal Sciences
• Browse content in Chemistry
• Analytical Chemistry
• Computational Chemistry
• Crystallography
• Environmental Chemistry
• Industrial Chemistry
• Inorganic Chemistry
• Materials Chemistry
• Medicinal Chemistry
• Mineralogy and Gems
• Organic Chemistry
• Physical Chemistry
• Polymer Chemistry
• Study and Communication Skills in Chemistry
• Theoretical Chemistry
• Browse content in Computer Science
• Artificial Intelligence
• Computer Architecture and Logic Design
• Game Studies
• Human-Computer Interaction
• Mathematical Theory of Computation
• Programming Languages
• Software Engineering
• Systems Analysis and Design
• Virtual Reality
• Browse content in Computing
• Business Applications
• Computer Games
• Computer Security
• Computer Networking and Communications
• Digital Lifestyle
• Graphical and Digital Media Applications
• Operating Systems
• Browse content in Earth Sciences and Geography
• Atmospheric Sciences
• Environmental Geography
• Geology and the Lithosphere
• Maps and Map-making
• Meteorology and Climatology
• Oceanography and Hydrology
• Palaeontology
• Physical Geography and Topography
• Regional Geography
• Soil Science
• Urban Geography
• Browse content in Engineering and Technology
• Agriculture and Farming
• Biological Engineering
• Civil Engineering, Surveying, and Building
• Electronics and Communications Engineering
• Energy Technology
• Engineering (General)
• Environmental Science, Engineering, and Technology
• History of Engineering and Technology
• Mechanical Engineering and Materials
• Technology of Industrial Chemistry
• Transport Technology and Trades
• Browse content in Environmental Science
• Applied Ecology (Environmental Science)
• Conservation of the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Environmental Sustainability
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Environmental Science)
• Management of Land and Natural Resources (Environmental Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environmental Science)
• Nuclear Issues (Environmental Science)
• Pollution and Threats to the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Environmental Science)
• History of Science and Technology
• Browse content in Materials Science
• Ceramics and Glasses
• Composite Materials
• Metals, Alloying, and Corrosion
• Nanotechnology
• Browse content in Mathematics
• Applied Mathematics
• Biomathematics and Statistics
• History of Mathematics
• Mathematical Education
• Mathematical Finance
• Mathematical Analysis
• Numerical and Computational Mathematics
• Probability and Statistics
• Pure Mathematics
• Browse content in Neuroscience
• Cognition and Behavioural Neuroscience
• Development of the Nervous System
• Disorders of the Nervous System
• History of Neuroscience
• Invertebrate Neurobiology
• Molecular and Cellular Systems
• Neuroendocrinology and Autonomic Nervous System
• Neuroscientific Techniques
• Sensory and Motor Systems
• Browse content in Physics
• Astronomy and Astrophysics
• Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics
• Biological and Medical Physics
• Classical Mechanics
• Computational Physics
• Condensed Matter Physics
• Electromagnetism, Optics, and Acoustics
• History of Physics
• Mathematical and Statistical Physics
• Measurement Science
• Nuclear Physics
• Particles and Fields
• Plasma Physics
• Quantum Physics
• Relativity and Gravitation
• Semiconductor and Mesoscopic Physics
• Browse content in Psychology
• Affective Sciences
• Clinical Psychology
• Cognitive Neuroscience
• Cognitive Psychology
• Criminal and Forensic Psychology
• Developmental Psychology
• Educational Psychology
• Evolutionary Psychology
• Health Psychology
• History and Systems in Psychology
• Music Psychology
• Neuropsychology
• Organizational Psychology
• Psychological Assessment and Testing
• Psychology of Human-Technology Interaction
• Psychology Professional Development and Training
• Research Methods in Psychology
• Social Psychology
• Browse content in Social Sciences
• Browse content in Anthropology
• Anthropology of Religion
• Human Evolution
• Medical Anthropology
• Physical Anthropology
• Regional Anthropology
• Social and Cultural Anthropology
• Theory and Practice of Anthropology
• Browse content in Business and Management
• Business History
• Business Strategy
• Business Ethics
• Business and Government
• Business and Technology
• Business and the Environment
• Comparative Management
• Corporate Governance
• Corporate Social Responsibility
• Entrepreneurship
• Health Management
• Human Resource Management
• Industrial and Employment Relations
• Industry Studies
• Information and Communication Technologies
• International Business
• Knowledge Management
• Management and Management Techniques
• Operations Management
• Organizational Theory and Behaviour
• Pensions and Pension Management
• Public and Nonprofit Management
• Strategic Management
• Supply Chain Management
• Browse content in Criminology and Criminal Justice
• Criminal Justice
• Criminology
• Forms of Crime
• International and Comparative Criminology
• Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
• Development Studies
• Browse content in Economics
• Agricultural, Environmental, and Natural Resource Economics
• Asian Economics
• Behavioural Finance
• Behavioural Economics and Neuroeconomics
• Econometrics and Mathematical Economics
• Economic Methodology
• Economic Systems
• Economic History
• Economic Development and Growth
• Financial Markets
• Financial Institutions and Services
• General Economics and Teaching
• Health, Education, and Welfare
• History of Economic Thought
• International Economics
• Labour and Demographic Economics
• Law and Economics
• Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics
• Microeconomics
• Public Economics
• Urban, Rural, and Regional Economics
• Welfare Economics
• Browse content in Education
• Adult Education and Continuous Learning
• Care and Counselling of Students
• Early Childhood and Elementary Education
• Educational Equipment and Technology
• Educational Strategies and Policy
• Higher and Further Education
• Organization and Management of Education
• Philosophy and Theory of Education
• Schools Studies
• Secondary Education
• Teaching of a Specific Subject
• Teaching of Specific Groups and Special Educational Needs
• Teaching Skills and Techniques
• Browse content in Environment
• Applied Ecology (Social Science)
• Climate Change
• Conservation of the Environment (Social Science)
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Social Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environment)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Social Science)
• Browse content in Human Geography
• Cultural Geography
• Economic Geography
• Political Geography
• Browse content in Interdisciplinary Studies
• Communication Studies
• Museums, Libraries, and Information Sciences
• Browse content in Politics
• African Politics
• Asian Politics
• Chinese Politics
• Comparative Politics
• Conflict Politics
• Elections and Electoral Studies
• Environmental Politics
• European Union
• Foreign Policy
• Gender and Politics
• Human Rights and Politics
• Indian Politics
• International Relations
• International Organization (Politics)
• International Political Economy
• Irish Politics
• Latin American Politics
• Middle Eastern Politics
• Political Theory
• Political Methodology
• Political Communication
• Political Philosophy
• Political Sociology
• Political Behaviour
• Political Economy
• Political Institutions
• Politics and Law
• Public Administration
• Public Policy
• Quantitative Political Methodology
• Regional Political Studies
• Russian Politics
• Security Studies
• State and Local Government
• UK Politics
• US Politics
• Browse content in Regional and Area Studies
• African Studies
• Asian Studies
• East Asian Studies
• Japanese Studies
• Latin American Studies
• Middle Eastern Studies
• Native American Studies
• Scottish Studies
• Browse content in Research and Information
• Research Methods
• Browse content in Social Work
• Addictions and Substance Misuse
• Adoption and Fostering
• Care of the Elderly
• Child and Adolescent Social Work
• Couple and Family Social Work
• Developmental and Physical Disabilities Social Work
• Direct Practice and Clinical Social Work
• Emergency Services
• Human Behaviour and the Social Environment
• International and Global Issues in Social Work
• Mental and Behavioural Health
• Social Justice and Human Rights
• Social Policy and Advocacy
• Social Work and Crime and Justice
• Social Work Macro Practice
• Social Work Practice Settings
• Social Work Research and Evidence-based Practice
• Welfare and Benefit Systems
• Browse content in Sociology
• Childhood Studies
• Community Development
• Comparative and Historical Sociology
• Economic Sociology
• Gender and Sexuality
• Gerontology and Ageing
• Health, Illness, and Medicine
• Marriage and the Family
• Migration Studies
• Occupations, Professions, and Work
• Organizations
• Population and Demography
• Race and Ethnicity
• Social Theory
• Social Movements and Social Change
• Social Research and Statistics
• Social Stratification, Inequality, and Mobility
• Sociology of Religion
• Sociology of Education
• Sport and Leisure
• Urban and Rural Studies
• Browse content in Warfare and Defence
• Defence Strategy, Planning, and Research
• Land Forces and Warfare
• Military Administration
• Military Life and Institutions
• Naval Forces and Warfare
• Other Warfare and Defence Issues
• Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution
• Weapons and Equipment

How the Laws of Physics Lie

Associate Professor of Philosophy

Author Webpage

• Cite Icon Cite
• Permissions Icon Permissions

Nancy Cartwright argues for a novel conception of the role of fundamental scientific laws in modern natural science. If we attend closely to the manner in which theoretical laws figure in the practice of science, we see that despite their great explanatory power these laws do not describe reality. Instead, fundamental laws describe highly idealized objects in models. Thus, the correct account of explanation in science is not the traditional covering law view, but the ‘simulacrum’ account. On this view, explanation is a matter of constructing a model that may employ, but need not be consistent with, a theoretical framework, in which phenomenological laws that are true of the empirical case in question can be derived. Anti‐realism about theoretical laws does not, however, commit one to anti‐realism about theoretical entities. Belief in theoretical entities can be grounded in well‐tested localized causal claims about concrete physical processes, sometimes now called ‘entity realism’. Such causal claims provide the basis for partial realism and they are ineliminable from the practice of explanation and intervention in nature.

Signed in as

Institutional accounts.

• GoogleCrawler [DO NOT DELETE]
• Google Scholar Indexing

Personal account

• Sign in with email/username & password
• Get email alerts
• Save searches
• Purchase content
• Activate your purchase/trial code
• Add your ORCID iD

Institutional access

Sign in with a library card.

• Sign in with username/password
• Recommend to your librarian
• Institutional account management
• Get help with access

Access to content on Oxford Academic is often provided through institutional subscriptions and purchases. If you are a member of an institution with an active account, you may be able to access content in one of the following ways:

IP based access

Typically, access is provided across an institutional network to a range of IP addresses. This authentication occurs automatically, and it is not possible to sign out of an IP authenticated account.

Sign in through your institution

Choose this option to get remote access when outside your institution. Shibboleth/Open Athens technology is used to provide single sign-on between your institution’s website and Oxford Academic.

• Click Sign in through your institution.
• Select your institution from the list provided, which will take you to your institution's website to sign in.
• When on the institution site, please use the credentials provided by your institution. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.
• Following successful sign in, you will be returned to Oxford Academic.

If your institution is not listed or you cannot sign in to your institution’s website, please contact your librarian or administrator.

Enter your library card number to sign in. If you cannot sign in, please contact your librarian.

Society Members

Society member access to a journal is achieved in one of the following ways:

Sign in through society site

Many societies offer single sign-on between the society website and Oxford Academic. If you see ‘Sign in through society site’ in the sign in pane within a journal:

• Click Sign in through society site.
• When on the society site, please use the credentials provided by that society. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.

If you do not have a society account or have forgotten your username or password, please contact your society.

Sign in using a personal account

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members. See below.

A personal account can be used to get email alerts, save searches, purchase content, and activate subscriptions.

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members.

Viewing your signed in accounts

Click the account icon in the top right to:

• View your signed in personal account and access account management features.
• View the institutional accounts that are providing access.

Signed in but can't access content

Oxford Academic is home to a wide variety of products. The institutional subscription may not cover the content that you are trying to access. If you believe you should have access to that content, please contact your librarian.

For librarians and administrators, your personal account also provides access to institutional account management. Here you will find options to view and activate subscriptions, manage institutional settings and access options, access usage statistics, and more.

Our books are available by subscription or purchase to libraries and institutions.

• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Rights and permissions
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Brill | Nijhoff

Brill | Wageningen Academic

Brill Germany / Austria

Böhlau

Brill | Fink

Brill | mentis

Brill | Schöningh

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht

V&R unipress

Open Access

Open Access for Authors

Open Access and Research Funding

Open Access for Librarians

Open Access for Academic Societies

Discover Brill’s Open Access Content

Organization

Stay updated

Corporate Social Responsiblity

Investor Relations

Policies, rights & permissions

Review a Brill Book

Author Portal

How to publish with Brill: Files & Guides

Fonts, Scripts and Unicode

Publication Ethics & COPE Compliance

Data Sharing Policy

Brill MyBook

Ordering from Brill

Author Newsletter

Piracy Reporting Form

Sales Managers and Sales Contacts

Ordering From Brill

Titles No Longer Published by Brill

Catalogs, Flyers and Price Lists

E-Book Collections Title Lists and MARC Records

How to Manage your Online Holdings

LibLynx Access Management

Discovery Services

KBART Files

MARC Records

Online User and Order Help

Rights and Permissions

Latest Key Figures

Latest Financial Press Releases and Reports

Annual General Meeting of Shareholders

Share Information

Specialty Products

Press and Reviews

Share link with colleague or librarian

Stay informed about this journal!

• Get New Issue Alerts
• Get Advance Article alerts
• Get Citation Alerts

The Nexus between International Law and Science

An analysis of scientific expert bodies in multilateral treaty-making.

Limited legal analysis exists of how scientific expert bodies participate in multilateral treaty-making. This impedes effective collaboration between treaty-making and scientific expert bodies. This article analyses how scientific expert bodies (1) participate in multilateral treaty-making and (2) how they interface with treaty-making bodies. Based on an updated conceptual framework of the general multilateral treaty-making process, the makings of two treaties are studied: the Paris Agreement and the International Legally Binding Instrument on marine biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction. In these case studies, scientific expert bodies had three integral roles: preparing evidence for treaty-making bodies, scientifically advising these bodies and directly exchanging with them. When scientific bodies directly exchanged with treaty-making bodies, they interfaced through intergovernmental body sessions or dialogical events. In conclusion, this study provides evidence of the nexus between international law and science for improved multilateral treaty-making.

1 Introduction

States have developed international law to address common, transboundary and global issues, such as climate change, human rights abuses, ozone depletion, poverty and war. Overtime, three general processes of international law have formalized and institutionalized: lawmaking, implementation and enforcement. These processes are largely overseen by international organizations and governed by global administrative law. 1 Legal and political actors often appear to spearhead these processes. However, scientific actors contribute scientific evidence bases to these processes that can strengthen international law and its objectives. 2 Studies of when and how scientific actors participate in international law processes are important, because they help develop a blueprint for constructive and effective collaboration between legal, political and scientific actors.

• 1.1 Definitions and Concepts

This article focuses on the process of lawmaking , defined as the ‘mechanisms and procedures whereby new rules of law are created or old rules are amended or abrogated’. 3 International lawmaking has several subprocesses: treaty-making, forming customary international law, judicial decision-making, identifying legal principles and making unilateral declarations. 4 Due to the proliferation of multilateral treaties (hereinafter treaties), this article studies multilateral treaty-making (hereinafter treaty-making) processes. 5 A treaty is a written agreement between international legal subjects that is governed by international law. 6 Debates on what constitutes treaties remain unresolved, but treaties take numerous forms (e.g., agreements, conventions and protocols). 7

Science is a system of knowledge about the structure and behaviour of the natural and physical world. 8 Scientific actors produce or assess scientific evidence that is commonly reviewed by academic peers to test its acceptability within the scientific community. 9 During treaty-making, scientific actors provide scientific evidence bases for decisions-making and the substance of treaties. Scientific actors are here defined as either: scientific experts , individual persons with specialized knowledge of an element of science; or scientific expert bodies , groups of scientific experts that systematically produce or assess evidence on topics. 10 Some scientific expert bodies are institutional, permanent bodies that make regular contributions sometimes channelled to treaty-making bodies; others are ad hoc, temporary bodies that exclusively support treaty-making bodies. Understanding scientific expert body participation in treaty-making processes will help streamline science in treaty-making, justify the use of evidence, create transparency for scientific actor participation and further legitimize treaty-making. 11

• 1.2 Analytical Approach and Case Studies

This article investigates scientific expert body participation in treaty-making. It seeks to answer the following three questions: How are treaties made? How do scientific expert bodies participate in treaty-making? And how do treaty-making bodies interface with scientific expert bodies during treaty-making processes? Scientific expert bodies may participate differently in other international law processes and other international lawmaking subprocesses, and the participation of other types of expert bodies in treaty-making may differ; these are thus beyond the scope of this article.

The above questions are answered through two case studies of the makings of the: Paris Agreement; and International Legally Binding Instrument ( ILBI ) under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea ( LOSC ) on the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction ( BBNJ ). 12 These recent and ongoing processes have involved scientific actors under different international law regimes (i.e., international climate change law and law of the sea), which entail different institutions, procedures and scientific expert bodies. Scholars have concluded that treaty-making under different regimes are part of general international law, rely on general legal principles and include similar types of actors and sources. 13 Analyses of the Paris Agreement and ILBI will therefore contribute knowledge to their respective regimes and general international law. The findings could inform current and future treaty-making, such as the World Health Assembly’s forthcoming pandemics treaty and the United Nations Environment Assembly’s forthcoming treaty to end plastic pollution. 14

This article aims to fill the current knowledge gap on scientific expert body participation in treaty-making. Most studies on international law processes centre on implementation and enforcement; only a handful focus on lawmaking and fewer on treaty-making. In their recent study, Carlos Iván Fuentes and Santiago Villalpando conceptualize treaty-making as a four-stage process: (1) drawing up; (2) adoption and authentication; (3) expression of consent to be bound; and (4) entry into force (Figure 1). 15 Similar to other United Nations (UN) officials and scholars, they note that despite the final products of treaty-making being widely researched and interpreted, treaty-making processes themselves are under-researched and poorly understood. 16 Legal analysis of scientific expert body participation in treaty-making is needed.

Some related studies do exist. First, some studies focus on scientific experts in other subprocesses of international lawmaking, namely judicial decision-making. 17 In the Case concerning Pulp Mills , the International Court of Justice ( ICJ ) relied on scientific evidence on water preservation and transboundary pollution submitted by both parties. 18 In the Whaling in Antarctica case, experts on mathematical biology and marine mammals were cross-examined during pleadings. 19 In the South China Sea Arbitration , the arbitral tribunal reviewed scientific evidence and retained independent experts on technical matters. 20 The controversies on scientific expert participation and the use of scientific evidence in these cases are beyond the scope of this article, but the cases demonstrate how science is used for judicial decision-making and treaty interpretation. 21

Second, the International Law Commission ( ILC ) and scholars have analysed the role of expert bodies that are established by treaties (i.e., ‘expert treaty bodies’) in treaty interpretation. The ILC ’s draft conclusions provide that expert treaty bodies’ pronouncements, which are subject to the rules of the respective treaty, may give rise to: a subsequent agreement between parties in the interpretation of a treaty; a subsequent practice in the application of a treaty, which would establish an agreement of the parties on its interpretation; or supplementary means for interpreting the treaty. 22 This growing body of research, albeit addressing the interpretation of existing treaties (rather than treaty-making), suggests the weight that scientific expert bodies involved in treaty-making and their background work may have in treaty-making processes and that these could become pertinent in interpreting treaties once adopted.

Finally, certain studies explore scientific expert bodies as actors in international policymaking and governance. 23 According to Cameron Jefferies, international governance structures must institutionalize and embed scientific expertise in decision-making processes to effectively inform state positions. 24 He emphasized the importance of balancing scientific expertise’s weight with decision-making bodies’ authority. Jefferies however focused on scientific experts in international policymaking – not lawmaking (as this article does). Other studies analyse the scientific and political drivers of international laws and policies. 25 In summary, previous scholarship has not addressed scientific expert bodies in treaty-making processes . This article contributes such legal analysis, expanding scholarship on the international law-science nexus.

• 1.3 Structure of the Article

Section 2 addresses treaty-making through a synthesis of legal evidence on the general treaty-making process, followed by comparative analysis of making the Paris Agreement and ILBI . Section 3 analyses scientific expert body participation in treaty-making, supported by comparative analysis of the cases. Section 4 analyses how scientific expert bodies interface with treaty-making bodies, again based on a cross-case comparison. Sections 2 to 4 apply different research methods with different analytical categories; therefore, methods are described in each section. Section 5 brings together the analytical findings to draw conclusions.

2 Treaty-Making

International law provides only a few rules on treaty-making. 26 In the 1980s, the General Assembly’s Sixth Committee established the Working Group on the Review of the Multilateral Treaty-Making Process. This group and subsequently UN officials and scholars have identified diversity in the processes and actors involved, but also common features across these. 27 Fuentes and Villalpando advanced scholarship on the general four-stage process of treaty-making. 28 This conceptual framework can be applied to analyse individual treaty-making processes and actors. The bodies overseeing these stages (usually intergovernmental bodies) are hereafter referred to as decision-making bodies . Existing rules and most scholarship on treaty-making and its decision-making bodies mainly pertain to stages 2 to 4.

This article studies stage 1 (drawing up) because it is the most formative stage and provides windows for scientific expert body participation. The other stages are more legalistic and political and generally do not involve scientific expert bodies. 29 This article proposes that stage 1 has three main components: (1) preparation, (2) drafting and (3) negotiation (Figure 1). Under decision-making bodies, other types of treaty-making bodies (e.g., ad hoc working groups, commissions, other intergovernmental bodies and preparatory committees (PrepComs)) execute these components. While existing theories on stage 1 mainly focus on or even frame stage 1 entirely by negotiations, this article proposes a broader conceptual framework encompassing all three components. 30

Conceptual framework of the general treaty-making process: four stages and three components of stage 1

Citation: International Community Law Review 25, 1 (2023) ; 10.1163/18719732-bja10068

• Download Figure
• Download figure as PowerPoint slide

In this section, stage 1 of treaty-making was analysed with the following method. Relevant UN databases were searched for primary sources containing rules on the general treaty-making process and on making the Paris Agreement and ILBI . Eligible documents identified included: decisions, guidelines, resolutions, statutes and treaties. Scholarly databases were also searched for secondary literature. The primary and secondary sources collected were then analysed against the following categories: decision-making bodies, preparations, drafting and negotiation.

• 2.1 Analytical Findings

2.1.1 General Treaty-Making Process

Decision-making bodies agree on treaty-making processes. Most prominently, the General Assembly is empowered to ‘initiate studies and make recommendations for the purpose of […] encouraging the progressive development of international law and its codification’. 31 It has facilitated numerous treaty-making processes. 32 Other UN bodies (e.g., UN Environment Programme ( UNEP )) and international organizations (e.g., World Trade Organization) also oversee treaty-making. Additionally, treaty bodies (e.g., Conferences of the Parties ( COP s)) facilitate the making of agreements or protocols under the conventions they govern. States choose decision-making bodies due to availability, political interests and the probability of successfully adopting the treaty. 33

Decision-making bodies facilitate the three components of stage 1. First, treaty preparation requires the identification of an underlying problem. Since problems develop over years and disparate resolutions and decisions, identifying when preparations begin is not always apparent. However, decision-making bodies eventually add the problem to their lawmaking agenda. 34 Campaigning, lobbying, fact-finding missions, reporting and submissions by international organizations, civil society and states often lead to identifying and adding problems to agendas. Then, a regime must be designed to address the problem. Decision-making bodies mandate permanent or establish ad hoc preparatory bodies to scope the problem and prepare guidance on the remainder of stage 1. 35 Preparatory bodies conclude their work when they agree on the substantive elements of a treaty and a plan to move forward, which they report and recommend to decision-making bodies.

Second, drafting involves transcribing tentative terms of treaties into text. Guided by preparatory work, drafting practices involve: elaborating on the main elements of treaties; reviewing and interpreting existing laws, policies and state practices; collecting stakeholders’ views and proposals; facilitating meetings and negotiations; developing provisions for parties to review; and preparing and revising full draft treaties. 36 The General Assembly adopted several of these practices in the Statute of the ILC , which most drafting bodies naturally align with. 37 The tentativeness of terms refers to the revisions made throughout stage 1.

Drafting bodies normally entail legal and policy experts working in permanent or ad hoc groups. Permanent ones (e.g., ILC ) are long-running, institutionalized and often draft general international law treaties. Decision-making bodies also establish temporary, ad hoc ones to draft specialized treaties. 38 All drafting bodies refer their drafts to other legal and negotiating bodies for reviewing, interpreting and reworking; sometimes they split into sub-bodies to internally complete this. Additionally, some decision-making bodies permit international organizations, states and civil society to submit draft text. 39 Once drafting bodies agree on a full draft treaty, they submit it to the respective decision-making bodies. Then, decision-making bodies, normally led by their president or chair with secretariat support, resolve outstanding issues and request technical committees to review the final text for accuracy and across translations. 40

Third, negotiation entails discussing and resolving issues within the preparatory and drafting work to make treaties agreeable for adoption. 41 Decision-making bodies, which are comprised of the states that eventually adopt and ratify treaties, decide on negotiation techniques (e.g., consensus-building, voting procedures). 42 A common strategy is the ‘package deal approach’, whereby parties agree on the main elements of treaties and later compromise on measures around them. 43 Common fora for negotiations are plenary, committee, drafting body and working group meetings, with each forum’s rules regulating participation. Negotiations are however not always transparent, particularly when entailing informal meetings or closed sessions. 44 Stage 1 concludes when decision-making bodies agree to adopt and authenticate treaty texts.

2.1.2 Making the Paris Agreement

In 1992, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change ( UNFCCC ) was adopted as the foundation of the international climate change law regime. It established a COP , Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice ( SBSTA ), Subsidiary Body for Implementation ( SBI ) and secretariat. In 1997 and 2015, parties adopted the Kyoto Protocol and Paris Agreement, respectively, to help achieve UNFCCC goals. The COP was the decision-making body in making these treaties. Lasting nearly two decades, making the Paris Agreement resulted in consensus to hold the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2.0°C above preindustrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit this to 1.5°C, which Parties recognized would significantly reduce the risks and impacts of climate change. 45

The Paris Agreement’s preparatory work spanned years. Key COP decisions indicate specific problems underlying this treaty. 46 The 2001 Marrakesh Accords and 2010 Cancún Agreements stated the need to enhance action in implementing UNFCCC through adaptation, finance and technology transfer measures. 47 On this basis, parties adopted the 2011 Durban Platform to launch the process of making a treaty with legal force under UNFCCC . 48 The platform included the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action ( ADP ) developing a treaty for adoption in 2015 and implementation in 2020. 49

The Paris Agreement’s main drafting body was the ADP. COP decisions guided the ADP to incrementally draft the treaty, including to: consider the main elements for COP -19 (2013); 50 elaborate on the elements of adaptation, capacity-building, finance, mitigation, technology development and transfer and transparency for COP -20 (2014); 51 and make an adoptable text for COP -21 (2015). 52 Over this period, the ADP collected parties’ views (e.g., from statements and interventions) and proposals, collated them into lists and revised them into provisions for negotiations. 53 The ADP agreed on a full draft treaty, including with alternative provisions where parties disagreed, and communicated it to parties for meetings preceding COP -21. The ADP concluded its work after drafting three more editions and a penultimate version for COP -21. 54 COP -21’s president established three minister-led informal consultative groups called le Comité de Paris to resolve the outstanding issues. 55 The president, ministers and secretariat then revised the draft into the final treaty text.

The ADP, COP , Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol, SBSTA and SBI facilitated Paris Agreement negotiations. ADP negotiations entailed round tables and workshops on specific provisions. At meetings of the COP, COP presidents played vital roles in building consensus. The COP -17 president hosted a series of informal meetings called indabas (i.e., traditional Xhosa meetings in South Africa) that resulted in establishing the ADP ; the COP -21 president established le Comité de Paris that delivered the final treaty text. 56 Many parties negotiated under blocs, such as Group 77 and China supporting elements of finance, technology and capacity-building. 57 The Paris Agreement was adopted at COP -21.

2.1.3 Making the ILBI

In 1982, LOSC was adopted as the foundation of the law of the sea regime. It established the Meeting of State Parties ( SPLOS ), International Seabed Authority ( ISA ) and a commission and tribunal. The UN Office of Legal Affairs Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea ( DOALOS ) is the LOSC secretariat. With SPLOS ’s limited powers, the General Assembly makes decisions on the law of the sea beyond SPLOS ’s purview. In 2015, the General Assembly adopted a resolution to initiate the making of the ILBI to have legal force under LOSC and establish itself as the decision-making body of that process. 58 The ILBI ’s main goal is to ‘ensure the [long-term] conservation and sustainable use of [ BBNJ ] through effective implementation of the relevant provisions of the [ LOSC ] and further international cooperation and coordination’. 59

The ILBI ’s preparatory work can be traced to 2004. The General Assembly established the Ad Hoc Open-ended Informal Working Group to study issues relating to the conservation and sustainable use of BBNJ ( BBNJ Working Group). 60 In 2011, the group agreed on a package of elements to be addressed: marine genetic resources; area-based management measures; environmental impact assessments; and capacity-building and the transfer of technology. 61 At its final meeting in 2015, the BBNJ Working Group recommended that the General Assembly develop the ILBI around this package. 62 The General Assembly then established the PrepCom to further develop the package and make recommendations. 63 In 2017, the General Assembly convened the Intergovernmental Conference of the ILBI ( IGC ) to prepare the treaty. 64

The ILBI ’s drafting has remained under the IGC . In 2017, the General Assembly called for an IGC organizational meeting to develop a process for preparing a zero draft. 65 The IGC has convened its four originally planned sessions, with the fourth having been postponed due to the COVID -19 pandemic and a fifth one to come. At the first, parties elected a president and vice presidents and started preparing a draft based on the package, PrepCom report and other materials. 66 The second session included discussions on the IGC president’s proposals to facilitate options for the package, negotiations and treaty language. 67 Between these sessions, participants reviewed treaties relating to BBNJ and drafted provisions. The president, with secretariat support from DOALOS , prepared a full draft treaty for the third session, to which parties requested the president to revise for the fourth. 68 At the fourth, Parties decided a fifth session was needed and agreed to work on submissions to contribute to another revised version in advance. It’s unclear whether the fifth session will result in states agreeing on the revised draft, but the General Assembly’s view is to adopt the ILBI as soon as possible. 69

The IGC , General Assembly and SPLOS have facilitated ILBI negotiations. Many parties negotiated around the package in blocs (e.g., Alliance of Small Island States). The General Assembly’s rules of procedure apply mutatis mutandis to IGC sessions with additional rules on consensus building. 70 During the second session, parties decided to facilitate ‘informal-informals’ at the third and fourth sessions. 71 This involved small groups with focused negotiations meeting in parallel. The IGC president has also facilitated negotiations between IGC sessions. For example, parties were asked to study the revised draft treaty (November 2019), decide whether agreement is reached and consider additional proposals. She encouraged delegations to consult each other prior to the fourth and fifth sessions, aiming for negotiations to streamline stage 1 to conclusion. 72

• 2.2 Cross-Case Analysis

Five main conclusions have been drawn in comparing the analytical findings from stage 1 of making the Paris Agreement and ILBI . First, intergovernmental bodies facilitated both processes. The UNFCCC COP oversaw the Paris Agreement; the General Assembly is overseeing the ILBI , since adopting such a treaty is beyond SPLOS ’s powers. Second, outstanding and growing issues under the framework conventions drove the preparatory work of both treaties. COP decisions led to the Paris Agreement’s main elements, which were based on difficulties in achieving UNFCCC goals; the BBNJ Working Group’s and PrepCom’s reports developed into the ILBI ’s package, which is based on gaps in the LOSC and other treaties. Third, drafting and negotiating did not begin until the treaties’ main elements were agreed upon. Fourth, the decision-making bodies of both treaties assigned temporary drafting bodies to incrementally develop texts. Intergovernmental body presidents, in cooperation with the respective secretariats, took on final drafting tasks for both treaties. Finally, intergovernmental sessions and drafting body meetings provided negotiating fora, but the most critical negotiations were more informal, focused meetings.

• 2.3 Discussion

Treaty-making processes are comprised of four stages. This section synthesized existing legal evidence on stage 1 (drawing up). This is the most formative stage but has the least number of rules. Indeed, general international law provides virtually no rules on stage 1. 73 This article proposes that stage 1 encompasses three components: preparation, drafting and negotiation. Decision-making bodies of treaty-making processes oversee these components and the distinct bodies that execute them. At times, this involves decision-making bodies and other treaty-making bodies interfacing with other actors, including scientific expert bodies. Stages 2 to 4 generally do not entail scientific actors.

The case studies demonstrated that parties have discretion in choosing how to prepare, draft and negotiate treaties. Nevertheless, stage 1 was similar across the cases, entailing similar treaty-making bodies, procedures and strategies. However, some identified differences were the conditions of treaty-making bodies (e.g., permanent versus ad hoc), political interests in negotiating the packages and best means for adopting treaties within the international law regimes and fora. Building on this section’s background analysis, sections 3 and 4 investigate scientific expert body participation in treaty-making and interfaces between treaty-making and scientific expert bodies.

3 Scientific Expert Body Participation

Scientific actors are integral to treaty-making. While innumerable scientific expert bodies provide evidence and advice relevant to the making of any given treaty, treaty-making bodies formally call on specific bodies to contribute to stage 1. This includes requesting permanent bodies and establishing temporary, ad hoc ones to deliver reports on the problems underlying the development of treaties and advice on the potential consequences of legal provisions. Types of scientific expert bodies include committees, panels, processes, subsidiary bodies and working groups. Treaty-making and/or scientific expert bodies themselves adopt rules that inform scientific expert body participation in treaty-making processes.

This section analyses the legal parameters of scientific expert body participation in treaty-making. The analysis is limited to the scientific expert bodies formally involved in stage 1 of making the Paris Agreement and ILBI , whereby the decision-making bodies of these processes adopted decisions or resolutions to involve them. The following research method was used. Relevant UN databases were searched for primary sources on the two cases. Eligible documents identified included: treaties, memoranda of understanding, resolutions, decisions, procedures, codes of conduct, conflict of interest ( COI ) policies and outputs of scientific expert bodies. Scholarly databases were also searched for relevant secondary literature. The primary and secondary sources were then analysed for evidence on the legal parameters of scientific expert body participation, including through their: establishment, mandate, governance structure, rules and outputs.

• 3.1 Analytical Findings

3.1.1 Scientific Expert Body Participation in Making the Paris Agreement

Stage 1 of the Paris Agreement primarily involved two scientific expert bodies: the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ( IPCC ) and SBSTA . These bodies were permanently established decades ago, as the international climate change law regime predates the Paris Agreement and greatly relies upon science. Their mandates have changed according to legal and policy developments and member states’ needs. These bodies generated evidence, estimations and projections on climate change and national actions and provided advice that informed the Paris Agreement.

In 1988, UNEP and the World Meteorological Organization ( WMO ) established the IPCC through a memorandum of understanding. 74 Its mandate is threefold: assess scientific information on climate change; assess environmental and socioeconomic impacts of climate change; and formulate strategies to meet climate change challenges. 75 The IPCC has a plenary, bureau and secretariat to oversee and coordinate three working groups in pursuing this mandate. Within assessment cycles, the working groups prepare reports and policy options for governments, UN agencies and the public. Also in 1988, the General Assembly endorsed the IPCC , noting ‘emerging evidence indicates that continued growth in atmospheric concentrations of “greenhouse” gases could produce global warming with […] effects of which could be disastrous for mankind if timely steps are not taken’. 76

The IPCC ’s governance structure is multifaceted. Its 195-member state plenary meets annually to vote on the work programme, bureau members, working group mandates and chairs and approval of reports and procedures. The bureau guides the plenary on scientific and technical work and advises it on management. 77 The working groups consist of independent authors, contributors and reviewers that the IPCC neither pays nor employs; they should reflect balanced gender and geographic representations. 78 Their six assessment reports and many synthesis, methodology and special reports have informed treaties. The UNFCCC secretariat said the second assessment report’s ‘statement that “the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate”, stimulated many governments into intensifying negotiations on what was to become the Kyoto Protocol’. 79

IPCC rules aim to ensure sound scientific work. In 1998, member states adopted the Principles Governing IPCC Work that require ‘comprehensive, objective, open and transparent’ work and neutrality through expert and government reviews. 80 The principles cover report preparation and publication, financial procedures and bureau elections. After a 2010 request from UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and IPCC Chair Rajendra Pachauri, the InterAcademy Council independently reviewed the IPCC rules, and member states adopted changes, including the 2011 COI Policy to protect the IPCC ’s legitimacy, integrity and credibility. 81 A committee oversees this policy and reviews working groups’ COI reports. The IPCC also follows WMO ’s ethics code and staff regulations.

Many IPCC outputs informed the Paris Agreement. In 2012, the Special Report on Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation provided key information on adaptation. The treaty advanced adaptation in the international climate change law regime. 82 Following a 2013 UNFCCC request, the IPCC prepared guidance on inland wetlands and expressed hope it would inform international action on wetlands. 83 The treaty features mitigation provisions on conserving and enhancing wetlands. 84 The UNFCCC secretariat also noted that the IPCC fifth assessment report ‘inform[ed] the negotiations and policy formulation towards the Paris Agreement’. 85 Additionally, the UNFCCC COP and SBSTA requested technical papers from the IPCC up to the treaty’s adoption.

The other major scientific expert body, the SBSTA , was established as a permanent UNFCCC COP subsidiary body ‘to provide the [ COP …] with timely information and advice on scientific and technological matters relating to the Convention’. 86 Its mandate is fivefold: assess scientific knowledge on climate change; assess UNFCCC ’s implementation; identify and advise on technology; advise on scientific programmes, international research, development cooperation and capacity-building; and respond to the COP ’s questions. 87 The COP described the SBSTA as ‘the link between the scientific, technical and technological assessments and the information provided by competent international bodies, and the [ COP ’s] policy-oriented needs’. 88 The SBSTA ’s work provided the COP with a scientific basis for interpreting difficulties in achieving UNFCCC ’s goals and how a new treaty could address them.

The SBSTA ’s governance structure includes a chair, vice chair and rapporteur. The COP elects the chair, approves the SBSTA ’s agenda and elaborates its terms and functions. The SBSTA is open to UNFCCC parties and elects its own vice chair and rapporteur. The COP and SBSTA must fill these seats with due regard to equitable geographic representation. 89 UNFCCC parties can participate in SBSTA sessions and nominate individuals for the Roster of Experts to assist the SBSTA . The SBSTA is thus made up of a more political membership with state representatives and state-nominated experts. SBSTA sessions are normally private.

The COP ’s decisions and draft rules contain rules for the SBSTA. UNFCCC obliged the COP to adopt rules of procedure at COP -1, but this has not eventuated due to disagreement on a voting provision. 90 The 1996 draft rules of procedure have however largely been followed. 91 These provide election procedures and representation requirements for the SBSTA and empower the COP to adjust its work programme. 92 Some parties proposed the development of a COI policy, but this also has not eventuated due to parties opposing. 93

Several SBSTA outputs informed the Paris Agreement. In 2014, the SBSTA reviewed the IPCC ’s fifth assessment report and submitted its conclusions to the COP . It also invited the IPCC to inform the COP about gaps in the report. 94 In 2015, the SBSTA and SBI prepared a joint report for the COP following their two-year review of the long-term temperature goal and related issue (e.g., adaptation, loss and damage and climate vulnerabilities). 95 The report’s content aligned with negotiation topics and treaty provisions. The SBSTA also promoted work on development and technology transfer, which feature in the treaty. Moreover, the ADP was mandated to be informed by the SBSTA ’s work. 96 In producing and relaying scientific knowledge between the COP and IPCC and informing the ADP , the SBSTA was integral to making the Paris Agreement.

3.1.2 Scientific Expert Body Participation in Making the ILBI

Stage 1 of making the ILBI primarily involved two scientific expert bodies: the Regular Process for Global Reporting and Assessment of the State of the Marine Environment (Regular Process) and BBNJ Working Group. The law of the sea regime does not have a permanent scientific expert body exclusively working on BBNJ . The General Assembly mandated the existing Regular Process and established the BBNJ Working Group to generate evidence on BBNJ issues and advise on legal decisions regarding the ILBI , which informed the IGC and PrepCom. This section analyses the legal parameters of these scientific expert bodies’ participation.

The Regular Process is a global mechanism that conducts reviews of environmental, economic and social aspects of the oceans. Established by the General Assembly in 2004, the Regular Process’s mandate is found in resolutions approving its assessment cycles. 97 The first cycle focused on establishing a baseline for measuring the state of the marine environment and resulted in the World Ocean Assessment ( WOA )- I . 98 The second cycle extended to assess trends and identify gaps, resulted in WOA-II and other assessments and supported ocean-related intergovernmental processes, including Agenda 2030 and the ILBI ’s development. 99 The third ongoing cycle has a similar mandate but also includes a capacity-building programme to strengthen science-policy interfaces. 100

The Regular Process has the following governance structure. The General Assembly sets its agenda and policies. It established the Ad Hoc Working Group of the Whole on the Regular Process (Working Group of the Whole) to oversee and guide the mechanism. 101 Under two co-chairs appointed by the General Assembly’s president and from developing and developed countries, the group comprises UN member states and a bureau of fifteen members from the UN’s five regions. The Working Group of the Whole supervises two groups. The group of experts, comprised of twenty-five members nominated by the UN’s regional groups to reflect balanced gender and geographic representations and different disciplines, conducts research during assessment cycles. 102 The pool of experts, comprised of UN member state nominees and respondents to calls, assists the group of experts. All these experts work in their personal capacity. 103 Experts from international organizations also contribute to the groups.

International law guides the Regular Process’ policies and procedures. 104 The Working Group of the Whole indicated several principles that apply to the mechanism: using sound science and promoting scientific excellence; linking with policymakers; recognising and utilising traditional and Indigenous knowledge; transparency and accountability; exchanging information at all levels; and adherence to equitable geographical representation. 105 No COI policy was found.

Several Regular Process outputs informed the ILBI . The 2016 WOA-I and 2021 WOA-II provide comprehensive oceanic assessments, including with information pertinent to the ILBI ’s package. In 2017, three technical abstracts covering BBNJ issues were published, with the Technical Abstract of the First Global Integrated Marine Assessment on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of BBNJ particularly supporting the ILBI . The Regular Process has also facilitated regional workshops and developed promotional materials. These deliverables satisfy the mechanism’s ILBI -related mandate.

In 2004, the General Assembly established the BBNJ Working Group to study BBNJ issues and make recommendations and recalled that applying marine scientific knowledge to decision-making ‘is important for eradicating poverty, contributing to food security, conserving the world’s marine environment and resources, helping to understand […] natural events, and promoting the sustainable development of the oceans and seas’. 106 The BBNJ Working Group’s mandate was fourfold: survey international organizations’ BBNJ activities; examine scientific, legal, environmental, socioeconomic and other aspects of BBNJ ; identify issues for more studies; and indicate approaches for international cooperation. 107 The UN secretary-general’s 2005 report on oceans and law of the sea addressed these points to guide the group and DOALOS ’s secretariat support. 108

The BBNJ Working Group was an ad hoc informal group and not as institutionalized as the Regular Process or IPCC . The General Assembly’s president, in consultation with member states, appointed two co-chairs from developed and developing countries. 109 The BBNJ Working Group did not have its own rules; rather, it was required to facilitate sessions in accordance with the General Assembly’s rules of procedure. 110 This entailed co-chairs coordinating its meetings and inviting scientific experts to present. Meetings were open to all UN member states and LOSC state parties, and delegations were encouraged to include experts. 111 The group invited observers, including NGO s holding consultative status with the Economic and Social Council and accreditation with the Commission on Sustainable Development. Meetings were conducted in closed sessions; however, the General Assembly recognized the importance of making the BBNJ Working Group’s outcomes widely available. 112 No COI policy was found.

Several BBNJ Working Group outputs informed the ILBI . The group submitted reports to the General Assembly and SPLOS . Based on evidence reviews, expert assessments and in-session communications, the reports provided information on key issues, including elements the General Assembly has since agreed on for the ILBI ’s package. 113 The co-chairs also submitted joint statements summarizing issues needing further assessment and proposals raised during meetings. These statements illustrated issues for the General Assembly to scrutinize and give legal attention to in treaty drafts and negotiations. The General Assembly established the PrepCom, albeit more legal and policy-oriented, to consider these outputs and conduct further preparatory work. 114 Therefore, the BBNJ Working Group has been central to the ILBI .

• 3.2 Cross-Case Analysis

This sub-section compares findings from the five categories used to analyse scientific expert body participation in stage 1 of making the Paris Agreement and IBLI . First, intergovernmental bodies or international organizations established the scientific expert bodies through memoranda of understanding, resolutions or other agreements. Permanent scientific expert bodies (e.g., SBSTA ) were longstanding with workstreams predating and continuing beyond the treaty-making process; decision-making bodies reviewed their regular reports and requested information from them. Ad hoc scientific expert bodies (e.g., BBNJ Working Group) were temporary and exclusively contributed to treaty-making; their work concluded upon submitting reports and recommendations to treaty-making bodies.

Second, the scientific expert bodies had similar mandates . Although their substantive work differed, all were requested or required to assess the problems and main elements underlying the treaties being developed, generate scientific knowledge and advise treaty-making bodies. Permanent scientific expert bodies operated on cycles to regularly prepare outputs; however, due to their comprehensive work, their reports often only partially pertained to treaty-making bodies, save the technical reports requested by treaty-making bodies. Ad hoc scientific expert bodies assessed specific issues pertaining to the treaties being developed. All the scientific expert bodies’ mandates transcended single-topic scientific issues to cover related issues (e.g., socioeconomic).

Third, the scientific expert bodies’ governance structures differed according to the institutional framework of their international law regime. They all ultimately reported to intergovernmental bodies. Bureaus, chairs or committees, comprised of appointees from intergovernmental bodies, managed the scientific expert bodies’ work programmes. Working groups of experts then executed the science. Independence of the experts was a core feature across most of the scientific expert bodies, except those with state representatives. Furthermore, political seats and working group membership always required balanced geographic representation and sometimes representation of developing and developed countries, gender and interdisciplinarity.

Fourth, rules informed how the scientific expert bodies operated. Most permanent bodies had specific rules, while ad hoc ones followed general or disparate rules from resolutions or decisions. Some scientific expert bodies had full-fledged COI policies, others followed disparate decisions on COI  s and others had no COI policy. For example, the IPCC had a well-established COI policy adopted after an external review of its policies and procedures. Actual, potential or perceived COI  s were never disclosed in the IPCC outputs reviewed, but certain bodies provided annual reports on COI compliance that almost always indicated full compliance. Moreover, the UN ’s standard ethics and policies apply to all UN bodies, but the relevant COI mechanisms only apply to staff members or service provisions. Overall, procedures and principles, including limited COI policies, could be improved to strengthen the objectivity and integrity of scientific expert body participation.

Fifth, key outputs of scientific expert bodies entailed: draft decisions, information, promotional materials, recommendations, reports and statements. While some scientific expert bodies produced comprehensive assessment reports for multi-year cycles, others delivered targeted reports. Regardless, the outputs allowed treaty-making bodies to understand the problems underlying treaties and gain clarification on scientific (un)certainties. Attempting to measure the extent that these outputs impacted treaty-making bodies would present challenges; however, decision-making bodies regularly referenced scientific expert body outputs in meetings and mandated drafting and negotiating bodies to consider the outputs. Scientific expert bodies thus played essential roles in the treaty-making processes analysed.

• 3.3 Discussion

Majority of the treaty-making bodies in stage 1 of the Paris Agreement and ILBI were required to consider work of scientific expert bodies. In analysing the establishment, mandates, governance structures, rules and outputs of scientific expert bodies in these treaty-making processes, this section ascertained the legal parameters of their participation. The scientific expert bodies were mandated to deliver outputs to treaty-making bodies and advise them. Each scientific expert body had a different governance structure and set of rules. Their outputs and advice were often reflected in negotiation topics, including the main elements of treaties, and provisions in treaty texts. Some were more politically-constituted and some had more established COI policies. These and other differences indicate that scientific expert bodies are regulated at varying levels in treaty-making, which could inform their outputs and/or dissemination of their outputs to treaty-making bodies. Building on this comparison, Section 4 provides analysis of how treaty-making and scientific expert bodies interface.

4 Interfaces: Treaty-Making and Scientific Expert Bodies

Treaty-making and scientific expert bodies directly interact and exchange views during stage 1 of making treaties. 115 In this article, these contact points are referred to as interfaces and are generally categorized as either: intergovernmental interfaces , where scientific expert bodies participate in high-level meetings through plenaries or side events; or dialogical interfaces , including consultations, floor discussions, working group sessions or workshops. Both types often complement scientific expert bodies’ outputs and enable treaty-making bodies to ask questions, determine their needs and gain clarification on scientific findings.

This section analyses how treaty-making and scientific expert bodies interfaced during stage 1 of making the Paris Agreement and ILBI . The UNFCCC COP, SBSTA , General Assembly, SPLOS, IGC, BBNJ Working Group, UN Open-ended Informal Consultative Process on Oceans and the Law of the Sea (Consultative Process) and Regular Process facilitated interfaces. Interfaces were eligible for analysis if representatives of both treaty-making and scientific expert bodies attended; thus, meeting agendas, presentations and lists of participants were reviewed for participants and their professional titles and affiliations. Events with individual scientific experts only (i.e., not representing scientific expert bodies) were also analysed due to the lack of confirmable scientific expert body representation in some key interfacial events.

The following method was used to analyse the interfaces. Relevant UN databases were searched for primary sources on the two cases. Eligible documents identified included: rules of procedure; resolutions; decisions; and event documentation (i.e., agendas, participant lists, presentations and reports). Scholarly databases were also searched for relevant secondary literature. The eligible primary and secondary sources were then analysed against the interfaces’: purpose, participation, facilitation, points of exchange and outcomes.

• 4.1 Analytical Findings

4.1.1 Interfaces within the Making of the Paris Agreement

Two predominate interfaces were identified in stage 1 of making the Paris Agreement: UNFCCC COP sessions and the Structured Expert Dialogue ( SED ). COP sessions included scientific expert body representatives addressing the plenary and facilitating side events. The SED , a SBSTA-SBI joint mechanism for reviewing international climate change law goals, provided a platform for scientific expert body representatives to respond to parties’ questions during the Paris Agreement’s formation. Overall, the pre-existing UNFCCC structures and practices enabled strong interfaces to emerge.

Stage 1 of making the Paris Agreement spanned COP -17 to 21. These meetings brought together: UNFCCC parties, observers and subsidiary bodies; UN bodies and specialized agencies; NGO  s; and media representatives. 116 The COP invited certain scientific expert bodies, and some party and NGO delegations included scientific experts. Two codes regulated these meetings: the draft rules of procedure and code of conduct for UNFCCC conferences, meetings and events. Each COP had a bureau with a president, seven vice presidents, the SBSTA and SBI chairs and a rapporteur. The draft rules provide procedures requiring COP presidents to grant permission to speakers, while giving the SBSTA and SBI chairs and rapporteur precedence to explain their body’s work. 117 Furthermore, the COP requested delegations to submit written inputs for Paris Agreement negotiations.

Scientific expert bodies participated in these COP sessions in two ways. COP presidents permitted some scientific experts to address the plenary. From COP -17 to 21, IPCC Chair Pachauri addressed the plenary, including to conclude COP -20’s opening statement with findings from the IPPC ’s fifth assessment. Delegations also had discretion to choose their scientific experts to make statements on their behalf. 118 Additionally, scientific expert bodies facilitated side events with presentations, workshops and floor discussions. The IPCC secretariat hosted side events with discussions on the fifth assessment report and special reports, including presentations from working group members. While lists of participants of IPCC side events were not found, members of the Paris Agreement’s treaty-making bodies were presumably present.

In 2012, the COP established another interface, the SED , to review scientific knowledge on climate change and policy. From 2013 to 2015, the Joint Contact Group between the SBSTA and SBI facilitated the SED to address two themes on the long-term global temperature goal: its adequacy in light of UNFCCC ’s objective; and progress made towards the goal. 119 The SED entailed four fact-finding sessions with scientific expert discussions, workshops and face-to-face exchanges between UNFCCC parties, observers and scientific experts. 120 Parties submitted about 330 questions before and during the sessions, to which scientific experts answered through sixty presentations and exchanges. 121 Following the sessions, the Joint Contact Group prepared a report and advisory statement on how the SED would inform the ADP ’s work. 122

The first SED session covered existing scientific knowledge on the themes with presentations from the IPCC , Hadley Centre and WMO . 123 The second and third sessions entailed IPCC working groups presenting on the fifth assessment report; these sessions enabled scientific experts to explain their findings and respond to parties’ inquiries. The fourth session addressed overall findings of the fifth assessment report, UN agency reports, UNFCCC work and emerging scientific information. Many scientific experts attended multiple sessions and many IPCC working group members attended all sessions. The Joint Contact Group described this attendance as generating consistency across sessions and linking scientific knowledge to law and policy. 124 After the sessions, the Joint Contact Group launched the SED report with a panel discussion.

The SED ’s main output was the Joint Contact Group’s report with ten messages. 125 Some messages on the temperature goal were: a long-term global goal of a temperature limit is suitable; assessing the goal’s adequacy requires global, regional and local assessments; the 2.0°C limit should be seen as a defence line; and, while science on the 1.5°C warming limit was weaker than that of 2.0°C, the defence line should be pushed as low as possible. 126 Parties inscribed these and other messages into the Paris Agreement. 127 Moreover, official submissions made for the report noted the SED ’s importance for stage 1 of the Paris Agreement. The Alliance of Small Island States said it ‘expects the results of the Review to become an integral component in setting the baseline for the level of mitigation ambition that will be applicable to all in the new 2015 agreement’. 128 The European Union found ‘the material provided by the experts, the record of exchanges between parties and the experts, as well as the written and oral reports from the co-facilitators are also relevant inputs to the ADP ’. 129 The SED was a robust interface between scientific experts and treaty-making bodies.

4.1.2 Interfaces within the Making of the ILBI

Stage 1 of making the ILBI has entailed six main interfaces at: General Assembly sessions; SPLOS meetings; IGC sessions; Consultative Process meetings; Regular Process workshops; and BBNJ Working Group workshops. The intergovernmental interfaces involved scientific expert bodies and/or individual scientific experts addressing plenaries and facilitating side events; whereas the dialogical interfaces were part of law of the sea mechanisms or bodies’ work programmes. The interfaces were analysed due to their relations to the ILBI ’s making, including through General Assembly mandates.

First, the ILBI or related BBNJ issues were discussed at the General Assembly’s 69th to 75th sessions, SPLOS ’s 25th to 29th meetings and IGC ’s first four sessions. Rules of procedure guided participation in these sessions. The General Assembly’s rules of procedure applied to the General Assembly and mutatis mutandis to IGC sessions. 130 Member state delegations could include five representatives, five alternatives and any number of advisers or experts. 131 UN agencies and international organizations participated as observers. 132 IGC sessions also included LOSC state parties and observers. SPLOS ’s rules of procedure are similar and SPLOS invited international organizations and NGO  s based on their expertise. 133

Scientific experts participated in delegations of certain member states, LOSC state parties and observers, UN specialized agencies and NGO  s. The rules of procedure for all three bodies gave delegations discretion to choose which delegates addressed the plenary on their behalf, providing a window for scientific expert participation. However, the General Assembly’s rules state the importance of heads of state, ministers and other high-ranking officials being representatives. 134 Only state officials and observers participated in the General Assembly plenary discussions on BBNJ and the ILBI during the above sessions. Therefore, during these sessions, interfaces between members of treaty-making bodies and scientific experts largely remained internal to those delegations with scientific experts.

IGC and SPLOS meetings entailed relevant side events and programmes. At the IGC , the NGO OceanCare’s side event ‘Perspectives on Integrating Management of Ocean Noise with the element of Marine Genetic Resources’ included the International Union for Conservation of Nature ( IUCN ) and academics presenting on marine protected areas and environment impact assessments addressing noise pollution for BBNJ . Member states and scientific experts also interfaced through the Nippon Foundation’s training programme that prepared state representatives from developing countries for the IGC ; DOALOS organised this programme to include scientific and policy experts presenting on BBNJ, LOSC provisions and the ILBI ’s package. SPLOS meetings included presentations on the UN secretary-general’s annual report on ocean affairs and the law of the sea and side events with scientific expert presentations. At the 28th meeting, the event ‘Shedding light on the deep sea: relevance of recent discoveries for deep ocean management’ included the IUCN and academics discussing life in the oceans’ depths, deep-sea implications for humanity and translating science into policy.

Second, dialogical interfaces have informed the ILBI . The Consultative Process, established by the General Assembly in 2000, facilitates annual reviews of ocean affairs, the UN secretary-general’s annual reports and interagency and intergovernmental coordination. 135 Meetings are open to member states of the UN and its specialized agencies, General Assembly observers, LOSC state parties and international organizations with competence in ocean affairs. 136 The Consultative Process has convened twenty meetings with panels of UN officials and scientific experts. In 2004, the 5th meeting covered elements that have become part of the ILBI ’s package. This meeting’s report synthesised discussions on fisheries impacting biodiversity and participants’ recognition of the importance of marine protected areas for biodiversity. 137 Some delegations agreed the international community should consider ‘the adoption of an international treaty that would provide a mechanism for the establishment and regulation on an integrated basis of marine protected areas on the high seas and the seabed beyond the limits of national jurisdiction’. 138 The 5th meeting report was submitted to the General Assembly one year before the BBNJ Working Group’s establishment.

The Regular Process has completed two rounds of regional workshops that aim to reinforce state capacity and science-policy interfaces and undertake assessments. 139 UN member states host and organize the workshops and designate a chair and co-chairs. Experts are appointed with consideration of geographic representation and interdisciplinarity. 140 Regular Process national focal points identify participants from member states of the UN and its specialized agencies. 141 NGO  s can participate if they hold consultative status with the Economic and Social Council, related Convention secretariats or meet other requirements. 142 In 2017, Round 1 aimed to raise awareness, inform the second assessment cycle’s scope and provide information on WOA-I . 143 In 2018, Round 2 supported the collection of regional level information and data for WOA-II . 144 The ILBI was not the main agenda item of these events; however, participants discussed the ILBI in relation to the Regular Process. 145 Both rounds included scientific experts, DOALOS staff and state representatives involved in ILBI negotiations.

The BBNJ Working Group facilitated intersessional workshops to improve understandings of BBNJ . 146 The General Assembly approved the workshops and encouraged states to involve relevant experts. 147 The group’s co-chairs facilitated the workshops amongst: UN member states, observers, bodies and agencies; the BBNJ Working Group’s group of experts; other international organizations; and select NGO  s. Participants submitted background information and the co-chairs, in consultation with member states, organised scientific expert panels and discussions on BBNJ issues now in the ILBI ’s package. For example, the 2013 workshops addressed marine genetic resources and conservation and management tools (e.g., area-based management and environmental impact assessments). Legal presentations often followed the panels. The BBNJ Working Group said the workshops offered ‘valuable scientific and technical expert information as an input’ to its work. 148 The above events brought together members of treaty-making bodies and scientific experts.

• 4.2 Cross-Case Analysis

This sub-section compares the interfaces between treaty-making and scientific expert bodies in stage 1 of making the Paris Agreement and ILBI . In both cases, intergovernmental sessions provided environments for interfacing. Each intergovernmental body followed rules of procedure that determined if and how scientific experts were permitted to participate. Many state/party delegations included scientific experts. While no such delegation was found to have chosen scientific experts as representatives in session, they had discretion to do so. Most sessions allowed UN bodies, international organizations and select NGO  s to attend as observers and include scientific experts. A few observer organizations were scientific expert bodies themselves. Some observers chose scientific experts to address the plenary; however, with the exception of the IPCC Chair, their speaking times were quite limited. Majority of interfacing was thus internal to delegations. These findings demonstrate the complexity of legal procedures governing intergovernmental interfaces.

Furthermore, scientific expert bodies and individual scientific experts facilitated and participated in side events. The side events featured presentations and panels, including with floor discussions and exchanges between members of treaty-making bodies and scientific experts. However, these events had limited documentation, so concrete conclusions based on attendance of these interfaces cannot be drawn.

In both case studies, dialogical events also entailed interfaces. Some scientific expert bodies’ work programmes included such events and some intergovernmental bodies established events specifically for treaty-making processes. For example, the UNFCCC COP established the SED to cover themes pertinent to the Paris Agreement. Discussions led to key messages that informed the ADP and COP . Similarly, the General Assembly approved BBNJ Working Group workshops, where scientific experts presented and responded to member states’ inquiries. The form of interaction and exchange at such events depended on the organizing bodies, institutional contexts and relations between the treaty-making and scientific expert bodies, but the informal nature appeared fruitful for advancing stage 1.

• 4.3 Discussion

The interfaces analysed from stage 1 of making the Paris Agreement and ILBI show that treaty-making processes include many points of interaction and exchange between treaty-making and scientific expert bodies. The interfaces ultimately depended on the willingness of treaty-making bodies to consider, understand and apply science. The most successful interfaces involved decision-making bodies mandating their subsidiary bodies to initiate events between decision-making and scientific expert bodies. These mandates had defined scopes to guide exchanges on the treaties’ main elements, encouraged wide participation and required conclusive reports for drafting and negotiating bodies to review. Thus, the importance and potential of interfaces are not only their immediate contact between drafters or negotiators and scientific experts, but also the process of those engagements and how other treaty-making bodies can access and/or are mandated to build on the interfacial outcomes.

• 5 Conclusion

This article has contributed legal analysis on scientific expert body participation in treaty-making processes. Stage 1 (drawing up) of the general treaty-making process is the most formative stage and provides windows for scientific expert body participation. The lack of rules for stage 1 gives parties discretion in preparing, drafting and negotiating treaties, including when and to what extent scientific expert bodies can participate. 149 The cases suggest that stage 1 was similar across two treaties from different international law regimes. Making the Paris Agreement (international climate change law regime) and ILBI (law of the sea regime) comprised some similar treaty-making bodies, procedures and strategies. The main differences were the conditions of the treaty-making bodies, political interests in negotiations and best means for adopting the treaties within the regimes.

During stage 1, scientific expert bodies participate in three predominate ways. First, they generate evidence and information for treaty-making bodies and transmit these to them. Decision-making bodies mandate scientific expert bodies to deliver outputs on the problems underlying treaties. Then, preparatory, drafting or negotiating bodies are often required to be informed by such outputs. This process supports the development and refinement of the main elements of treaties, aligns discussions across negotiating bodies and informs provisions in treaty texts. Quantifying the extent that scientific expert bodies’ deliverables impact treaty-making is difficult given the diversity of processes, governance structures, policies and rules, but intergovernmental bodies continue to establish new and mandate existing scientific expert bodies to deliver outputs.

Second, scientific expert bodies advise treaty-making bodies. On one hand, scientific expert bodies publish regular outputs indicating legal and policy implications. Such outputs broadly advise intergovernmental bodies and governments, rather than addressing specific treaty-making bodies. On the other hand, intergovernmental bodies request scientific expert body advice (e.g., guidance on the substance of draft provisions). Scientific expert bodies can therefore tailor their work to the expressed needs of treaty-making bodies. The advisory role of scientific expert bodies allows treaty-making bodies to better understand the impacts of their decisions and to measure the potential effects of legal provisions against science.

Third, scientific expert bodies directly interface with treaty-making bodies. Interfaces occur at intergovernmental sessions and dialogical events. The conditions and extent of each interface depend on how open decision-making bodies are to consider, understand and use science, as well as the relations between the treaty-making and scientific expert bodies. Many dialogical interfaces clarified and synthesized scientific evidence for members of treaty-making bodies. In the cases, the Paris Agreement’s and ILBI ’s decision-making bodies mandated a subsidiary body and approved an ad hoc body, respectively, to initiate dialogical events for international law-science exchange between members of treaty-making bodies and scientific experts. These interfaces (i.e., SED sessions and BBNJ Working Group workshops) encouraged wide participation, had defined scopes and required conclusive reports for drafting and negotiating bodies to consider later. This third role informs members of treaty-making bodies and, by reporting on the interfaces, treaty-making processes at large.

Scientific expert body participation in treaty-making has implications for international law. The first implication concerns this article’s finding that scientific expert body participation is not always formalized or institutionalized. Several scientific expert bodies are devoid of defined rules and procedures for their participation in treaty-making. Two recommendations can be given to address this uncertainty in the international community. A general protocol could be developed under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and apply to scientific expert bodies across the UN system; however, this would be difficult as UN bodies overseeing treaty-making, scientific expert bodies across fields and scientific expert body participation across treaty-making processes are not harmonized. A more pragmatic approach is for the General Assembly to adopt a resolution urging intergovernmental bodies and international organizations to create rules and procedures for scientific expert body participation, according to the respective international law regime and scientific field. This option supports needed specificity in the formalization and institutionalization of scientific expert bodies and increased transparency. Defining the legal parameters of scientific actor participation could further legitimize treaty-making and the scientific evidence bases of international law.

The second implication is that scientific expert bodies involved in treaty-making may become relevant in the implementation and enforcement of treaties following their adoption. Governing bodies that oversee the implementation of many existing treaties have established subsidiary bodies and/or working groups comprised of scientific experts; they provide guidance or information on the interpretation of and obligations within treaties. While such groups are common, the link between scientific expert bodies involved in treaty-making and implementation could be further examined. For enforcement, international courts and tribunals have increasingly reviewed scientific evidence and cross-examined scientific experts during proceedings. Background studies conducted by preparatory bodies during treaty-making processes and the scientific experts involved in those may become relevant for courts, tribunals or compliance mechanisms when making decisions and interpreting treaties.

The third implication is that the increased participation of actors, including scientific actors, in treaty-making may lead to increased risks of actual, potential or perceived COI  s. The lack of comprehensive COI policies for scientific expert bodies could compromise their work. Only some scientific expert bodies have safeguards in place. Although all scientific expert bodies under the aegis of the UN should follow UN standard ethics, relevant COI documents under the UN Ethics Office only apply to UN staff or service provisions; they do not extend to the independent experts of scientific expert bodies who are routinely unpaid and unemployed by the UN bodies facilitating them. Therefore, a solution would be to develop a central COI policy to apply to all scientific expert bodies and independent scientific experts across the UN system and their work in treaty-making. Such a policy could be overseen by the UN Ethics Office and/or Joint Inspection Unit.

The findings of this article suggest additional research is warranted. Research on treaty-making within and beyond the international climate change law and law of the sea regimes could be conducted. Applying the methods of this article to other treaty-making processes would expand the pool of evidence presented, identify patterns across a larger set of cases and substantiate the normative findings. Further research on how the outputs, advice and interfaces of scientific expert bodies impact treaty texts could reveal more on the substantive links between treaties and scientific evidence and the authority of scientific evidence. For example, this could include quantitative analysis of the number of times scientific reports are discussed in negotiations and reflected in treaty texts. Further research on the continued roles of scientific expert bodies beyond treaty-making processes, namely in treaty interpretation during implementation and enforcement (e.g., through expert treaty bodies), could also be useful. Finally, further research on how COI policies pertain to scientific expert bodies in treaty-making processes could support the development and adaptation of COI policies.

Treaty-making is an international lawmaking process that has been used to address common, transboundary and global issues. This article has shown that treaty-making involves scientific expert bodies and the ways in which those bodies participate. For treaties to be evidence-based and thus more measured in their application, scientific expert body participation in treaty-making must be clear and interfaces between treaty-making and scientific expert bodies must be optimally facilitated. It is hoped that the legal analysis in this article can inform and foster the international law-science nexus and the further integration of science into stage 1 of treaty-making. As scientific expert bodies inform the IGC ’s upcoming session and final revisions of the ILBI text and as processes continue to develop for the new treaties on pandemics and plastic pollution, the conceptual framework, conclusions and recommendations provided in this article could be of use for making more legally and scientifically sound treaties.

• Acknowledgments

The author thanks Dr Seline Trevisanut, Dr Lucas Roorda and Dr Frank Pega for their valuable comments on earlier drafts of this article. This article was written in honour of Patricia Marie Sosnowski-Lepkowski (1931–2019).

Benedict Kingsbury, ‘The Concept of “Law” in Global Administrative Law’, 20(1) European Journal of International Law (2009) p. 23.

Dionysia-Theodora Avgerinopoulou, Science-Based Lawmaking: How to Effectively Integrate Science in International Environmental Law (2019) p. 319.

Antonio Cassese and Joseph Weiler, Change and Stability in International Law-Making (1988) p. 38; Alan Boyle and Christine Chinkin, The Making of International Law (2007) p. 1; Catherine Brölmann and Yannick Radi (eds.), Research Handbook on the Theory and Practice of International Lawmaking (2016) p. 2.

Anthony Aust, Handbook of International Law (2nd ed., 2010) p. 5.

David Bewley-Taylor and Malgosia Fitzmaurice, ‘The Evolution and Modernisation of Treaty Regimes’, 20(5) International Community Law Review (2018) pp. 403, 404.

Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (23 May 1969), 1155 UNTS 331 ( VCLT ), Article 2(2).

Malgosia Fitzmaurice and Panos Merkouris, Treaties in Motion: The Evolution of Treaties from Formation to Termination (2020) p. 23.

Joseph Dellapenna, ‘Law in a Shrinking World: The Interaction of Science and Technology with International Law’, 88(4) Kentucky Law Journal (2000) pp. 809, 821.

Avgerinopoulou (n 2), p. 2.

Holly Cullen, Joanna Harrington and Catherine Renshaw, Experts, Networks and International Law (2017) p. 1.

Fitzmaurice and Merkouris (n 7), p. 84; Daniel Bodansky, ‘Legitimacy’, in D. Bodansky, J. Brunnie and E. Hey (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of International Environmental Law (2008), pp. 706, 707.

Paris Agreement (12 December 2015), UNTS 54113; Revised draft text of an agreement under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction (2019), A/CONF.232/2020/3 (draft ILBI ).

Boyle and Chinkin (n 3), p. 10; Pierre-Marie Dupuy and Jorge Viñuales, International Environmental Law (2nd ed., 2019), p. 51.

Special session of the World Health Assembly, The World Together: Establishment of an intergovernmental negotiating body to strengthen pandemic prevention, preparedness and response (Fifth Plenary Meeting, 1 December 2021) SSA2(5); Fifth Session of the United Nations Environment Assembly, Draft resolution: End plastic pollution: Towards an international legally binding instrument (2022), UNEP/EA.5/L.23/Rev.1.

Carlos Iván Fuentes and Santiago Villalpando, ‘Making the Treaty’, in D. Hollis (ed.), The Oxford Guide to Treaties (2nd ed., 2020) p. 201. Some scholars theorise treaty-making as continuing beyond stage 4 through amendments, modifications and revisions.

Boyle and Chinkin (n 3), p. 19; Jean d’Aspremont, ‘Current Theorizations about the Treaty’, in Hollis (ed.) (n 15), p. 46; Simon Chesterman, David Malone and Santiago Villalpando, The Oxford Handbook of United Nations Treaties (2019) p. 2.

Caroline Foster, Science and the Precautionary Principle in International Courts and Tribunals (2011), p. 136.

Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v Uruguay) , Judgment, ICJ Reports 2010, p. 14.

Whaling in the Antarctic (Australia v Japan: New Zealand intervening) , Judgment, ICJ Reports 2014, p. 226.

The Republic of the Philippines v The People’s Republic of China , PCA Case No. 2013–19, Award, 12 July 2016.

Foster (n 17), p. 77.

Fifth report on subsequent agreements and subsequent practice in relation to the interpretation of treaties by Georg Nolte, Special Rapporteur (28 February 2018), A/CN.4/715, p. 36; Danae Azaria, ‘The Legal Significance of Expert Treaty Bodies Pronouncements for the Purpose of the Interpretation of Treaties’, 22 International Community Law Review (2020) p. 34.

Cullen et al. (n 10); Peter Haas, ‘Introduction: Epistemic Communities and International Policy Coordination’, 46 International Organization (1992) pp. 1, 8.

Cameron Jefferies, ‘Institutional Expertise: Reconsidering the Role of Scientific Experts in the International Conservation and Management of Cetaceans’, in Cullen et al. (n 10), pp. 124, 132.

Avgerinopoulou (n 2); Andreas Fischlin, ‘Scientific and Political Drivers for the Paris Agreement’, in D. Klein, M.P. Carazo, M. Doelle, J. Bulmer and A. Higham (eds.), The Paris Agreement on Climate Change (2017) p. 3.

Fuentes and Villalpando (n 15), p. 201; ‘Public International Law: Treaties and International Organizations’, in Stanford Law School Introduction to the Laws of Kurdistan and Iraq Working Paper Series (2016), p. 11.

Report of the Working Group of the Multilateral Treaty-Making Process (27 November 1984), A/C.6/39/L.12; Stephen Mathias, ‘Treaty-Making at the United Nations: The View from the Secretariat’, in Chesterman et al. (n 16), p. 51.

Fuentes and Villalpando (n 15), p. 202.

Daniel Costelloe and Malgosia Fitzmaurice, ‘Lawmaking by treaty: Conclusion of treaties and evolution of treaty regimes in practice’, in Brölmann and Radi (eds.) (n 3), p. 111.

Fuentes and Villalpando (n 15), p. 201–215; Boyle and Chinkin (n 3), p. 98; Kirsten Schmalenbach, ‘Lawmaking by treaty: Negotiation of agreements and adoption of treaty texts’, in Brölmann and Radi (eds.) (n 3), p. 87.

Charter of the United Nations (26 June 1945), Article 13(1)(a).

Hersch Lauterpacht, ‘Codification and Development of International Law’, 49 American Journal of International Law (1955), pp. 16, 30.

Fuentes and Villalpando (n 15), p. 205.

Boyle and Chinkin (n 3), p. 104.

Ibid ., p. 180.

Statute of the International Law Commission (21 November 1947), UNGA Res. 174( II ), as amended by resolutions 485( V ) (12 December 1950), 984( X ) (3 December 1955), 985( X ) (3 December 1955) and 36/39 (18 November 1981) ( ILC Statute), Articles 15–23; Fuentes and Villalpando (n 15), p. 206.

ILC Statute (n 36), Articles 15–23.

Boyle and Chinkin (n 3), p. 168.

Fuentes and Villalpando (n 15), p. 210.

Ibid ., p. 215.

Schmalenbach (n 30), p. 89.

Edward Goodwin, ‘Delegate Preparation and Participation in Conferences of the Parties to Environmental Treaties’, 15 International Community Law Review (2013) pp. 45, 73.

Boyle and Chinkin (n 3), p. 146; Fuentes and Villalpando (n 15), p. 216.

Christiana Figueres, ‘Foreword’, in Klein et al. (n 25), p. v; Paris Agreement (n 12), Article 2(1)(a).

Joanna Depledge, ‘Foundations for the Paris Agreement’, in Klein et al. (n 25), pp. 27, 35.

COP -7 Report Addendum (21 January 2002), FCCC/CP/2001/13/Add.1; COP -15 Report Addendum (20 March 2010), FCCC/CP/2009/11/Add.1.

Fuentes and Villalpando (n 15), p. 204.

Dec. 1/CP.17, ‘Establishment of an Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action’ (adopted 11 December 2011), in COP -17 Report Addendum (15 March 2012), FCCC/CP/2011/9/Add.1.

Dec. 2/CP.18, ‘Advancing the Durban Platform’ (adopted 8 December 2012), in COP -18 Report Addendum (28 February 2013), FCCC/CP/2012/8/Add.1.

Dec. 1/CP.19, ‘Further advancing the Durban Platform’ (adopted 23 November 2013), in COP -19 Report Addendum (31 January 2014), FCCC/CP/2013/10/Add.1.

Dec. 1/CP.20, ‘Lima Call for Climate Action’ (adopted 14 December 2014), in COP -20 Report Addendum (2 February 2015), FCCC/CP/2014/10/Add.1.

Parties’ views and proposals on the elements for a draft negotiating text (7 July 2014), ADP .2014.6.NonPaper.

Jane Bulmer, Meinhard Doelle and Daniel Klein, ‘Negotiating History of the Paris Agreement’, in Klein et al. (n 25), p. 71.

Ibid ., p. 69; Fuentes and Villalpando (n 15), p. 215.

Ibid ., pp. 61–67; Fuentes and Villalpando (n 15), p. 217.

Bulmer et al. (n 54), p. 53.

UNGA Res. 69/292 (19 June 2015), para. 1.

Draft ILBI (n 12), Article 2.

UNGA Res. 59/24 (17 November 2004), para. 73.

Letter from the Co-Chairs of the Ad Hoc Open-ended Informal Working Group to the President of the General Assembly (30 June 2011), A/66/119, Annex para. 1(b); Cymie R. Payne, ‘Negotiation and Dispute Prevention in Global Cooperative Institutions’, 22 International Community Law Review (2020), pp. 428, 430.

Letter from the Co-Chairs of the Ad Hoc Open-ended Informal Working Group to the President of the General Assembly (13 February 2015), A/69/780*, Annex para. 1(e).

UNGA Res. 69/292 (n 58), para. 1(a).

UNGA Res. 72/249 (adopted 24 December 2017), paras. 1, 21–22.

Ibid ., para. 4.

Statement by the President at the closing of the first session (20 September 2018), A/CONF.232/2018/7.

Statement by the President at the closing of the second session (18 April 2019), A/CONF.232/2019/5.

Statement by the President at the closing of the third session (13 September 2019), A/CONF.232/2019/10*.

UNGA Res. 72/249 (n 64), para. 1.

Ibid .; Fuentes and Villalpando (n 15), p. 208.

President Statement from the second session (n 67).

Draft ILBI (n 12), Introduction para. 9.

Certain VCLT rules apply to stages 2 to 4 (e.g., Article 7 defines the full powers of state representatives to ‘adopt and authenticate’ and ‘express consent to be bound’). Also, rules of procedure of decision-making bodies inform treaty-making, but they apply generally (i.e., not specifically to treaty-making).

Memorandum of Understanding between UNEP and WMO on the IPCC (1989).

Ibid ., para. 1.

UNGA Res. 43/53 (6 December 1988), Preamble, para. 7.

‘Terms of Reference of the IPCC Bureau’, in Decisions Taken with Respect to the Review of IPCC Processes and Procedures: Governance and Management ( IPCC 33rd Session, 2011), Annex A para. 5.

IPCC , Structure (2020), available at: https://archive.ipcc.ch/organization/organization_structure.shtml . Accessed on 11 March 2022.

UNFCCC , Background – Cooperation with the IPCC (2020), para. 5, available at https://unfccc.int/topics/science/workstreams/cooperation-with-the-ipcc/background-cooperation-with-the-ipcc . Accessed on 11 March 2022.

Principles Governing IPCC Work ( IPCC 14th Session, 1 October 1998), as amended up to the 37th Session, paras. 2–3.

Review of IPCC Processes and Procedures ( IPCC , 2020), https://archive.ipcc.ch/organization/organization_review.shtml ; ‘Conflict of Interest Policy’, in Decisions Taken with Respect to the Review of IPCC Processes and Procedures ( IPCC 33rd Session, 2011) and ‘Conflict of Interest Policy*’ ( IPCC 34th Session, 2011).

Paris Agreement (n 12), Articles 2(b), 7.

SBSTA session thirty-three Report (4 December 2010), FCCC/SBSTA/2010/13, paras. 72–73.

Paris Agreement (n 12), Preamble, Articles 4(1), 5(1), 13(7)(a).

Background – Cooperation with the IPCC (n 79), para. 5.

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (8 May 1992), 1771 UNTS 107 ( UNFCCC ), Article 9(1).

Ibid. , Article 9(2).

Dec. 6/CP.1, ‘The subsidiary bodies established by the Convention’ (adopted 7 April 1995), in COP -1 Report Addendum (6 June 1995), FCCC/CP/1995/7/Add.1, Preamble para. 3(a) and Annex I .

Draft Rules of Procedure of the COP and its Subsidiary Bodies (22 May 1996), FCCC/CP/1996/2 (Draft Rules of Procedure), Rule 27(5).

UNFCCC (n 86), Article 7(3); Fuentes and Villalpando (n 15), p. 209.

Joanna Depledge, Pocket Guide to the UNFCCC (2019), p. 38.

COP -9 Report Addendum (12 December 2003), FCCC/CP/2003/6/Add.1, Annex I .

Attempts To Block Issue Of ‘Conflict Of Interest’ Policy In UNFCCC (Corporate Accountability International 2018).

IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (5 December 2014), FCCC/SBSTA/2014/L.27, paras. 3, 5.

Report on the structured expert dialogue on the 2013–2015 review (4 May 2015), FCCC/SB/2015/INF.1 ( SED Report).

Durban Platform (n 49), para. 6.

UNGA Res. 57/141 (12 December 2002).

First Cycle of the Regular Process (2021), available at https://www.un.org/regularprocess/content/first-cycle . Accessed on 11 March 2022.

Second Cycle of the Regular Process (2021), available at https://www.un.org/regularprocess/content/second-cycle-regular-process . Accessed on 11 March 2022.

Third cycle of the Regular Process (2021), available at https://www.un.org/regularprocess/cycle3 . Accessed on 11 March 2022.

UNGA Res. 65/37 (7 December 2010), para. 203.

Working Group of the Whole Report (15 March 2012), A/67/87, Annex III para. 6.

Ibid. , Annex III para. 5(g).

Working Group of the Whole Report (14 March 2013), A/68/82, para. 7.

Report on the Working Group of the Whole to recommend a course of action to the General Assembly on the regular process (11 September 2009), A/64/347, Annex para. 21.

UNGA Res. 59/24 (n 60), Preamble and para. 73.

Ibid ., para. 74; Addendum to the Report of the Secretary-General: Oceans and the law of the sea (15 July 2005), A/60/63/Add.1.

UNGA Res. 60/30 (29 November 2005), para. 80.

Rules of Procedure of the General Assembly (with amendments and additions up to September 2016) (reissued 21 February 2017), A/520/Rev.18* (Rules of Procedure).

UNGA Res. 60/30 (n 109), para. 79.

UNGA Res. 59/24 (n 60), para. 76.

Letter dated 13 February 2015 (n 62), Annex para. 1(f).

Boyle and Chinkin (n 3), p. 20.

Draft Rules of Procedure (n 89), Rule 6.

Ibid ., Rules 32 and 33.

Ibid. , Rule 6(2).

Dec. 1/CP.18, ‘Agreed outcome pursuant to the Bali Action Plan’ (adopted Dec. 8, 2012), in COP -18 Report Addendum (28 February 2013), FCCC/CP/2012/8/Add.1, para. 79.

Ibid. , para. 85; Fischlin (n 25), p. 12.

SED Report (n 95), paras. 2, 10 and Annexes V (para. 10), VI (para. 9).

Views on how the outcomes of the 2013–2015 review will inform the ADP work (9 April 2014), FCCC/SB/2014/MISC.2, with addendum (30 May 2014), FCCC/SB/2014/MISC.2/Add.1 ( SED outcomes).

SED Report (n 95), p. 4.

Bali Action Plan (n 119), para. 86(b).

SED Report (n 95), pp. 8–33.

Paris Agreement (n 12), Article 2(1)(a).

SED outcomes (n 122), para. 8.

Ibid ., p. 7.

UNGA Res. 72/249 (n 64), para. 18.

Rules of Procedure (n 110), Rules 25 and 100.

Rules of Procedure for Meetings of States Parties (adopted 24 June 2005), SPLOS/2/Rev.4; Participation of intergovernmental organizations and other entities in SPLOS (1 April 2019), SPLOS/320/Rev.1.

Rules of Procedure (n 110), Annex VI , para. 44.

UNGA Res. 54/33 (24 November 1999), at para. 2.

Ibid. , para. 3(a).

Report on the work of the Consultative Process at its fifth meeting (19 June 2004), A/59/122, para. 89.

Regular Process, Workshops (2020), https://www.un.org/regularprocess/content/workshops .

Guidelines for the second round of Workshops in 2018 to Assist the Regular Process for Global Reporting and Assessment (2020), paras. 15–16.

Ibid ., para. 11.

Ibid ., para. 12.

See https://www.un.org/regularprocess/content/first-round-regional-workshops . Accessed on 11 March 2022.

See https://www.un.org/regularprocess/content/second-round-regional-workshops . Accessed on 11 March 2022.

Report on the Working Group of the Whole (7 September 2018), A/73/373, para. 20(y), and (19 May 2017), A/72/89, paras. 10, 17(b).

Summary of proceedings prepared by the Working Group Co-Chairs (10 June 2013), A/AC.276/6*.

UNGA Res. 59/24 (n 60), para. 75.

Letter from the Co-Chairs of the Working Group to the President of the General Assembly (23 September 2013), A/68/399, Annex para. 1(a).

Fuentes and Villalpando (n 15), p. 201.

• View raw image
• Download Powerpoint Slide

Content Metrics

Reference Works

Primary source collections

COVID-19 Collection

How to publish with Brill

Open Access Content

Contact & Info

Sales contacts

Publishing contacts

Stay Updated

Newsletters

Social Media Overview

Terms and Conditions  

Privacy Statement  

Cookie Settings  

Accessibility

Legal Notice

Terms and Conditions   |   Privacy Statement   |  Cookie Settings   |   Accessibility   |  Legal Notice   |  Copyright © 2016-2024

Copyright © 2016-2024

• [66.249.64.20|195.158.225.230]
• 195.158.225.230

Character limit 500 /500

Home — Essay Samples — Philosophy — Natural Law — Natural Law And Scientific Law In Everyday Life

Natural Law and Scientific Law in Everyday Life

• Categories: Natural Law

About this sample

Words: 1198 |

Published: Jun 9, 2021

Words: 1198 | Pages: 3 | 6 min read

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Dr. Karlyna PhD

Verified writer

• Expert in: Philosophy

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

4 pages / 1598 words

2 pages / 838 words

4 pages / 1684 words

1 pages / 386 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Natural Law

In the 1800s the industrial revolution caused many people to reconsider the laws that were introduced to society. One of the people who wanted change was an English Philosopher named Jeremy Bentham. His views on the law came [...]

Bridges, T. J. (2014). Aquinas on natural law. Routledge.Cessario, R. J. (2001). The moral philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas. Catholic University of America Press.Garcia, J. L. A. (1996). Natural law and practical rationality. [...]

Who could forget the famous words of the unforgettable Martin Luther King Jr., “Injustice everywhere is a threat to justice everywhere”. This theme is expressed throughout King’s Letter from a Birmingham Jail conveying his legal [...]

Sociology, by definition, is the study of social behavior or society, including its origins, development, organization, networks, and institutions. This means it's social science which uses a variety of different methods to [...]

Developing a personal teaching philosophy is essential to defining the way an educator shapes the minds of their students. My teaching philosophy essay reflects my belief that the role of education extends far beyond the [...]

Fear. Defined in the dictionary as “a feeling of agitation and anxiety caused by the presence or imminence of danger,” it is a feeling recognizable to almost everyone. Extreme levels of fear and the other emotions it may give [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

Are scientific laws, theories, and terms capitalized?

The MLA follows The Chicago Manual of Style in recommending that scientific laws, theories, and terms be lowercased except when preceded by a proper adjective (ch. 8, sec. 148). We also consult Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary for spelling, which generally adheres to Chicago’s principle. The following provides examples:

Laws, Theories, and Terms with Proper Adjectives

Pythagorean theorem

Einstein’s general theory of relativity

Schrödinger’s equation

Fermat’s last theorem

Bayesisan statistics

Cartesian coordinate

Newton’s first law of motion

Mendel’s law

Avogadro’s number

Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle

Euclidean algorithm 1

Laws, Theories, and Terms without Proper Adjectives

general theory of relativity

big bang theory

string theory

field theory

quantum theory

law of definite proportions

conservation of mass

binomial theorem

uncertainty principle

See also our related post on citing mathematical theories .

1 Merriam-Webster lowercases “euclidean” in “euclidean geometry” but also notes that the e in “euclidean” is “often capitalized” (“Euclidean Geometry”). Either form would be acceptable in MLA style.

Works Cited

The Chicago Manual of Style . U of Chicago P, 2021, www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/home.html .

“Euclidean Geometry, N .”  Merriam-Webster , 2021, www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/euclidean%20geometry .

Population Health

News | Video

Voids in Scientific Evidence Slow Efforts to Curb Firearm Violence

A penn ldi virtual seminar parses what works and what doesn’t in gun control.

• Hoag Levins
• Share this page on Twitter
• Share this page on Facebook
• Share this page on LinkedIn

Efforts to address the rising public health crisis of firearm violence are being stymied by the lack of scientific evidence about which current laws and proposed policies are–or are not–effective interventions. That’s according to a May 3 virtual seminar of top experts convened by the University of Pennsylvania’s Leonard David Institute of Health Economics (LDI) and co-sponsored by the Penn Injury Science Center.

As she opened the session, Therese Richmond , PhD, RN , moderator, LDI Senior Fellow, Penn School of Nursing Professor, and Research Core Director at the Penn Injury Science Center cited the latest annual count of U.S. firearm carnage: more than 26,000 suicides by gun, 20,000 homicides, 549 unintentional shootings, and 995 other firearm deaths. That’s roughly 1 person killed by gun every 11 minutes around the clock, every day.

Primary Cause of Children’s Death

And there are some particularly tragic inequities within these statistics. Rates of firearm homicides are 11-fold greater for Black males than white males. And more children and adolescents aged 1-19 years die annually from firearm injuries than from any other single cause.

Scientists have been investigating gun violence as a public health hazard for a long time but that suddenly stopped in 1996 as the gun lobby partnered with its supporters in Congress to pass the Dickey Amendment that blocked the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) from funding any research “to advocate or promote gun control.”

Twenty-three years later, in 2019, Congress lifted those prohibitions and from 2020 to 2022, the CDC and National Institutes of Health (NIH) awarded more than $149 million in research grants related to firearm injury prevention research. And while this new infusion of money and research effort is moving forward, there are still very large evidence voids in the scientific understanding of how any given law or potential intervention actually works to decrease or not decrease gun violence.

Richmond, a board member of the Research Society for the Prevention of Firearm-Related Harms, discussed current research evidentiary needs with three seminar panelists who are also board members in that same Society. They are Andrew Morral , PhD , Senior Behavioral Scientist and Director of the National Collaborative on Gun Violence Research at the RAND Corporation; Joseph Richardson, Jr. , PhD , who leads the Prevent Gun Violence: Research, Empowerment, Strategies & Solutions (PROGRESS) initiative and is Executive Director of the Transformative Research and Applied Violence Intervention Lab at the University of Maryland; and Ali Rowhani-Rahbar , MD, PhD , Director of the Firearm Injury & Policy Research Program at the University of Washington.

Convoluted Gun Laws

The world of state guns laws is convoluted. The number of laws is so extensive and varied that no one appears able to estimate it. There are around 20 major classes of state firearm laws, with numerous subcategories within each class. Examples of these classes include background check laws, child-access prevention laws, concealed-carry laws, and laws regulating the storage and use of firearms. Regulations vary significantly by state as they cover aspects such as permits for purchase and possession, firearm registration, concealed and open carry regulations, restrictions on certain types of firearms and magazines, and various self-defense laws like the “castle doctrine” or “stand-your-ground” laws.

Richmond noted that the news media and public debate about gun violence tend to focus on federal policy even though few of the individual states’ gun laws have been evaluated. She asked Morral to provide a synopsis of RAND’s extensive reviews of state laws as well as the academic literature about them.

“There’s a lot of correlational evidence of some association between the laws states pass and the outcomes they achieve in terms of firearm homicide, suicides, and injuries,” said Morral. “You can say, ‘Hawaii, California, New York, and New Jersey have particularly low firearm suicides and homicide rates and they also happen to be the states that have particularly restrictive gun laws.’ But that’s not good enough to make a claim about what is driving those outcomes. They’re different from other states in a lot of ways. They’re blue states and they’re wealthy states. How do you know it’s not just the wealth that’s leading to this difference? My group at RAND’s Gun Policy in America project has been working for eight years to tease apart what can be attributed to the law versus what might be attributable to other aspects of a state.”

Latest Analysis

“For the most part,” Morral continued, “state laws haven’t been studied carefully but that has been changing, and we have been updating our systematic review, going through thousands of articles to identify those that use more rigorous methods of identifying the effects of gun laws. We have sorted the policies that have been studied into these different categories of levels of evidence, our highest level being what we call ‘supportive evidence’ that is comprised of multiple studies demonstrating a particular effect.”

He indicated that RAND rates three types of state gun laws as having supportive evidence for various kinds of results in the scientific literature:

• Child-Access Prevention (CAP) Laws that seem to be associated with future reductions in firearm injuries, suicides, assaults, and homicides among young people. A lesser level of evidence suggests they are also associated with reductions in adult suicides.
• More Restrictive Concealed-Carry Laws that provide the police and state with some discretion over who gets a concealed carry permit. The more restrictive versions of these laws are associated with reductions in total firearm homicides. But this legal approach was disrupted a year and a half ago as the U.S. Supreme Court made more restrictive concealed carry laws illegal across the country.
• Stand-Your-Ground Laws that remove the duty to retreat from a conflict if safe retreat is possible. These laws appear to be clearly associated with increases in firearm homicides and are a concern, given that nearly half the states have adopted them.

RAND’s second, lower-quality level of evidentiary ratings indicate that background checks, minimum age purchase laws, and firearms surrender laws help to reduce firearm homicides–this last particularly so in domestic violence cases.

However, Morral emphasized that states that have laws like firearm surrender statutes often don’t enforce them. Technically, judges may be required by law to ask whether a domestic offender has firearms but fail to do so. He pointed to a recent study in North Carolina suggesting that in a large proportion of cases, that despite being required by law to do it, judges there simply don’t inquire about an offender’s firearms.

“So,” Morral said, “you wouldn’t expect a firearms surrender law to have as much effect in North Carolina as it does in another state where the judges are doing what they’re supposed to do. And this is hard to study because getting data on implementation fidelity is really hard. That is an information collection effort where you send people out into the field to collect that data, and that’s expensive.”

Social Determinants and Firearm Violence

Looking beyond just the legal language and politics of gun control laws, Richmond asked if firearm violence was looked at as one of the social determinants of health, how could other kinds of public policies affect firearm violence rates?

Rowhani-Rahbar said there was a recent scoping review of the literature that found very few studies that have empirically looked at the relationship between societal and structural level determinants of these firearm violence outcomes. A couple of studies of redlining showed how those historic racist policies are associated with those very same neighborhoods that are now experiencing higher levels of gun violence.

He noted that several studies have focused on state social policies’ impact on total crime or total violence and suicide but not explicitly with firearm-related outcomes.

“I think that’s really important because while different forms of violence are interconnected and have shared risk and protective factors, the pathways for firearm-related violence are not necessarily identical to those for non-firearm-related violence. There is obviously a need to examine the impact of state social policies on firearm-related outcomes,” Rowhani-Rahbar said.

“We did a scoping review of income support policies on firearm-related death, and we found four studies globally on that, one from Brazil and three from the United States,” Rowhani-Rahbar said. “Most of these are cash transfer programs. Some of the evidence is that there seems to be an association between those policies and reduction in firearm-related death and injury. A recent study looked at state minimum wage policies and firearm-related homicide that showed an association between minimum wage and reduction in firearm homicide. Another looked at state social spending and food insecurity in relation to firearm related suicide. They showed significant reductions in firearm-related suicide.”

Hospital-Based Violence Intervention

Panelist Richardson is heavily involved in a related area of research focused on how community-based violence intervention (CVI) programs and hospital-based violence intervention programs (HVIPs) can be used in ways that reduce firearm-related harms in a community.

Richardson explained, “My mentor, Carnell Cooper , MD FACS , who started one of the first HVIPs programs at the University of Maryland, conducted one of the first studies to test the effectiveness of the concept and found that among the treatment group, the reinjury rate was 5% compared to the non-treatment group, which was 36%. So at least in his study, he was able to show that these programs are effective in terms of providing behavioral health and social services primarily for young Black men who are disproportionately impacted by gun violence. The program provided the patients with behavioral health and social services, including cognitive behavioral therapy, to not only reduce their rate of trauma recidivism, but also criminal recidivism as well, and get them back into employment and educational opportunities.”

“My colleague and I, Daniel Webster , ScD , have conducted a systematic review of HVIPs,” Richardson continued. “And what we found is that there were really no conclusive results. There are pieces of programs that are effective, but in total, we did not find conclusively that there were enough studies to say that these programs are totally effective in reducing trauma, recidivism, and other metrics that we use to gauge success.”

“I think part of that involves the lack of experimental designs for HVIPs,” said Richardson. “Also, there are challenges with increasing the sample size. For example, in the study conducted by Dr. Cooper at the University of Maryland, there were 100 participants in that study, but it took 33 months to get those 100 participants. So, we often find challenges with recruitment and retention. Then there’s also the challenge of determining what aspects of the programs actually work because not all HVIPs are the same. For my program—we were the first fully operational program in the Washington, D.C. metro area—we had 116 participants over a three-year period. And over that period, we had one person come back to the hospital for a violent injury. So, numerically, we were successful, but we still cannot prove what aspects of the program contributed to that significant reduction in trauma recidivism. We need more research to understand what that looks like, and also the ways that HVIPs programs connect with street outreach programs.”

Looking Ahead

As the session ended, Richmond asked the panelists for a final comment identifying one promising policy area that they want to see move forward, or see new evidence emerge in that reduces firearm violence? These are their answers:

• Morral : “The low hanging fruit politically and possibly empirically, is removing firearms from people who are prohibited possessors . There’s a huge number of people in the country who are prohibited possessors and have firearms but there’s no general mechanisms for identifying them or having them give up their firearms. We know that most firearm crime is committed by people who are prohibited possessors. Many gun owners say we don’t need more gun laws, we just need to enforce the laws, and this would, I think, fit into that enforcement framework.”

• Rowhani-Rahbar : “I propose policies that strengthen our communities in terms of overcoming economic stress and hardship that could, in the long term, have some sizable impact in those communities.”

• Richardson : “Change the policies related to felony disenfranchisement and the collateral consequences. We’ve seen the impact a felony has on the outcomes of people who are coming back from prison and trying to penetrate the legal labor market. Their felony record punishes them for a lifetime. Often, these are young men who are disadvantaged by that record and revert back to crimes of economic survival, which probably contributed to their engaging in firearm violence from the outset.”

Editor, Digital Publications

More ldi news.

Health Equity

Language of Depression Among Black Americans is Not the Same as That for White Americans, Revealing a Limitation to AI

LDI Experts Show Shortcomings of Depression Screening and Chatbot Tools

• Miles Meline, MBE

Caregivers Share Views About How to Design Food Assistance Programs in Pediatric Clinics

Caregivers Prefer Food Delivery and Wraparound Supports, LDI Experts Find

• Mackenzie Bolas

Health Care Access & Coverage

FDA Needs to Reboot Rules for Less Harmful Tobacco Alternatives After Biden’s Delay of the Menthol Ban

Modified Risk Tobacco Products Need a Faster Approval System to Help More Smokers Quit

• Andy Tan, PhD, MPH

In Their Own Words

What Nurses Really Need is Better Staffing

The Common Strategies to Raise Nurse Morale Need an Update 

• Karen Lasater, PhD, RN
• Jane Muir, PhD, APRN

Bipartisan Support Grows To Solve One of Health Care’s Biggest Problems

Dually Eligible Americans on Medicare and Medicaid Are Getting the Attention They Deserve

• Rachel M. Werner, MD, PhD

Improving Care for Older Adults

Photo Report from the Population Aging Research Center 2024 Retreat

Defining the Health and Health Care Problems and Prospects of Aging Americans

First Deputy Minister --- RYABEV, Lev Dmitriyevich (Izvestiya, 23 May 02). Deputy Minister (Nuclear Weapons Complex) --- KAMENSKIKH, Ivan (Izvestiya, 19 Mar 03). Deputy Minister --- NIGMATULIN, Bulat, ( Interfax 8 Dec 01). Deputy Minister --- VINOGRADOV, V. (Rossiyskaya Gazeta, 4 Apr 00) Deputy Minister --- ANTIPOV, Sergey Viktorovich, appointed (Nuclear.ru, 15 Nov 02).

• ["Antipov was born in 1948, graduated from the Moscow Physical Engineering Institute (1972), and is a physicist and engineer (experimental and theoretical physics, plasma physics).  In 1996 he graduated from the Moscow State Law Academy as a lawyer specializing in jurisprudence. Prior to being appointed to the post of deputy minister he headed the Center for Organizational and Legal Issues at the Kurchatovskiy Institut Russian Scientific Center.  As director and coordinator of the project on nonproliferation and nuclear weapons control in the sphere of the record keeping and control of nuclear materials, and of systems for the physical protection of nuclear installations, he participated in regular Russian-American working conferences. . . .the main areas of his activity . . . will be the recycling of nuclear submarines, the decommissioning of nuclear reactors, the management of radioactive wastes, and the restoration of land" (Nuclear.ru, 15 Nov 02).]

Deputy Minister (States Secretary) --- LEBEDEV, Valeriy Aleksandrovich.  (Atompressa, No 32 Sep 99; Appointed "States Secretary," Rossiyskaya Gazeta, 12 Sep 01).

• Formerly: General Director of the Mining and Chemical Combine, Zheleznogorsk.  (Atompressa, No 32 Sep 99)

Accounting and Control of Nuclear Materials and the Provision of Guarantees for their Non-proliferation and Physical Protection, Directorate for the Supervision of

Chief --- Volodin, Yuriy Georgiyevich.  Telephone: (095) 9116081.

Central Apparatus

Crisis situation center.

• (Izvestiya 22 May 01).

Department for Liaison with State Power Bodies and Information Policy

• Head -- Nikolay Shingarev (ITAR-TASS, 22 Jan 03).

Environment and Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities, Administration for

• ["The responsibility for the recycling of nuclear submarines was delegated from the Defense Ministry to the Atomic Energy Ministry only in 1998, and the technical bases of the Northern and Pacific Fleets are currently being handed over to the Atomic Energy Ministry's special enterprises SevRao and DalRao.   Notably, the military are quite reluctantly parting with their property because those bases are financed from the state budget.   So, Admiral Popov will now be supposed to settle down relations between his former and present co-workers" (Kommersant 05 Dec 01 P2).]

Chief --- POPOV, Vyacheslav, Adm appointed (Kommersant 05 Dec 01 P2). Popov was CINC NORFLT.  

Experimental Physics, RF Nuclear Center All-Russian Scientific-Research Institute for (RFYaTs VNIIEF) (Sarov)

• Previously known as Arzamas-16, Nizhegorod Oblast

Director --- Ilkayev, Radiy (Finmarket, 21 Apr 01).

Federal Inspectorate for Nuclear and Radiation Security

• Address: 109147 Moscow, Taganskaya Street, 34.

Director --- Vishnevskiy, Yuriy Georgiyevich , (Chief of Directorate). Telephone: (095) 9116005. Fax: (095) 9124041

Fuel Production Cycle, Directorate for the Supervision of Nuclear and Radiation Security of the Enterprises of the

Chief --- Kislov, Andrey Ivanovich  Telephone: (095) 9116061.

Nuclear and Radiation Security for Atomic Stations, Directorate for the Supervision of

Chief --- Adamchik, Sergey Anatolyevich  Telephone: (095) 9116061.

Nuclear and Radiation Security in the Economy, Directorate for the Supervision of

Chief --- Mikhaylov, Mikhail Vladimirovich.  Telephone: (095) 9116071.

Nuclear and Radiation Security of Research Reactors and Nuclear Power Facilities on Ships, Directorate for the Supervision of

Chief of Directorate --- Nikolskiy, Rostislav Viktorovich Telephone: (095) 9116011

Scientific and Technological Council

 Security Section

Chair --- Litvinov, Boris, Academician (ITAR-TASS 1404 GMT 18 Sep 00).

• Litvinov, who chairs the security section under the Atomic Energy Ministry's Scientific and Technological Council, works as deputy head of the Russian Federal Nuclear Centre and was the chief designer of Russian nuclear warheads for many years. (ITAR-TASS 1404 GMT 18 Sep 00).

Structural Directory of Russia's Nuclear Sector

(<Nuclear.ru>, 1 Dec 00, [Source date uncertain. Date given is the date of download from the internet])

[FBIS Translated Text]

 The Ministry of Atomic Energy of the Russian Federation. Structure of the Ministry of Atomic Energy.

1. Nuclear Fuel Cycle, Department of the

2. nuclear munitions, department for the development and testing of, 3. nuclear munitions industry, department of the, 4. atomic power engineering, department for, 5. branch economics and planning, department of,, 6. social policy, production relations, and personnel, department of, 7. security and emergency situations, department for, 8. international economic cooperation, department for, 9. atomic science and technology, department for, 10. finance, analysis, and computation department for, 11. information, nuclear materials, and facilities, department for the protection of, 12. atomic facilities construction, department for, 13. normative-legal security and regulation of forms of property, department for, 14. department for the conversion of atomic industry., 15. directorate of bookkeeping and accounts., 16. social-productive directorate., 17. directorate for business and protocol of the ministry., 18. directorate for the optimization of productive-economic relations., 19. directorate for the security of the activities of the scientific and scientific-technological councils., 20. directorate for ecology and the removal of nuclear facilities from operation., 21. directorate for atomic machine-building and instrument-making., scientific-technical directorate. aleksandr anatolyevich.

Chief --- Matveyev, ??  Telephone: (095) 9116411. Office: Telephone (095) 9123911. Fax: (095) 9124041.

Professional emergency-rescue units of the Ministry of Atomic Energy of Russia:

 "Eprom", the center for emergency-rescue underwater-technical operations.

 Address: 143392 Moscow oblast., Naro-Fominskiy rayon, Selyatino. Director: Mikhail Nikolayevich Gumenok, Chief of Center. Telephone: (812) 2475669. Fax: (812) 2475798. Web: http:

www.atom.nw.ru

 The Emergency-Technical Center (Novovoronezh).

 Address: 396072 Voronenezh oblast., Novovoronezh. Director: Ivan Ivanovich Burdin, Director of Center. Telephone: (07364) 20268. Fax: (07464) 20268.

 Emergency-Technical Center (Sarov).

 Address: 607200 Nizhegorodod oblast, Sarov. Director: Vladislav Viktorovich Kuznetsov, Director of Center. Telephone: (83130) 45708. Fax: (83130) 45979.

 Emergency-Technical Center (Snezhinsk)

 Address: 456770 Chelyabinsk oblast., Snezhinsk. Director: Lev Vladimirovich Borisov, Director of Center. Telephone: (35172) 32424.

 Emergency-Technical Center (Seversk).

 Address: 636070 Tomsk oblast, Seversk Director[Sic. No director listed].

 Telephone: (38242) 62693. Fax: (38242) 21146.

 Gas-Rescue Station of the Joint-Stock Company, "Kirovo-Chepetsk Chemical Combine".

 Address: 631020 Kirov oblast., Kirovo-Chepetsk, Pozharnyy Lane., 7. Director: Nikolay Ivanovich Aprin. Telephone: (83361) 94204. Fax: (30245) 25121.

 Separate Militarized Mine-Rescue Detachment of the Priargunskiy Mining-Chemical Production Association.

 Director: Vladimir Georgiyevich Bondarev, Chief of Detachment. Telephone: (30245) 25781. Fax: (30245) 25121.

 Engineering-Technical and Training Center for Robotics.

 Address: 127410 Moscow, Altufyev Highway, 43. Director: Nikolay Aleksandrovich Sidorkin, Director of Center. Telephone: (095) 4899032. Fax: (095) 4899032. [Sic: Telephone and fax numbers are the same.]

3. Closed Administrative-Territorial Formations.

 Zhelznogorsk (Krasnoyarsk-26).

 Address: 660026 Krasnoyarsk kray. Zhelznogorsk, XXII Partsyezd Street, 21. Director: Andrey Vasilyevich Katargin, Head of Administration. Telephone: (39197) 26048. Web: http:

www.adm26.krasnoyarsk.su Population: About 105,000.

 The Mining-Chemical Combine.

 Address: 660033 Krasnoyarsk kray, Zheleznogorsk, Lenin Street, 53. Director: Vasiliy Vasilyevich Zhitkov, General Director. Telephone: (39197) 32001, 32290. Fax: (39197) 320374

 Science and Production Association of Applied Mechanics.

 Address: 660033 Krasnoyarsk kray, Zheleznogorsk, Lenin Street, 52. Director: Mikhail Fedorovich Reshetnev. Telephone: (39197) 21759, 32032 Fax: (39197) 22635

 Construction-Industrial Joint-Stock Company, "Sibkhimstroy".

 Address: 660033 Krasnoyarsk kray, Zheleznogorsk, Shtefan Street, 1. Director: Vladimir Mikaylovich Kiyayev. Telephone: (39197) 22076. Fax: (39197) 29839.

 "Sibkhimmontazh" Trust.

 Address: 660033 Krasnoyarsk kray, Zheleznogorsk, Severnaya Street, 9. Director: Viktor Chukhno Mikhaylovich. Telephone: (39197) 26802.

 Krasnoyarskiy State Design and Research Institute. Address: 660026 Krasnoyarsk kray. Zheleznogorsk, Lenin Street, 39. Director: Yuriy Nikolayevich Baskakov. Telephone: (39197) 25625. Fax: (39197) 25625.

 Krasnoyarsk Industrial College. Address: 662990 Krasnoyarsk kray, Zheleznogorsk, Sverdlov Street, 5. Director: Yevgeniy Borisovich Vasilyev. Telephone: (39197) 23944.

 Zarechnyy (Penza-16). Address: 440901 Penza oblast, Zarechnyy, 30-th Anniversary of Pobeda [Victory] Street, 27. Director: Vyacheslav Vasilyevich Sergeyev, Head of Administration. Telephone: (8412) 664988. Fax: (8412) 664979. Web: http:

zarechnyy.penza.ru Population: About 65,000.

 Production Association, "Start", a State enterprise. Address: 440901 Penza oblast, Zarechnyy, Mir Avenue, 1. Director: Anatoliy Andreyevich Yesin, General Director. Telephone: (8412) 550907. Fax: (8412) 665 887.

 Open-Type Joint-Stock Company, "Penza Directorate of Construction". Address: 440019 Penza oblast, Zarechnyy, Komsomol Street, 41. Director: Nikolay Semenovich Konolenko. Telephone: (8412) 550907. Fax: (8412) 550973.

 State Unitary Branch SNPO [Special Science and Production Association], "Yeleron". (Scientific- Research and Design Institute of Radio- Electronic Engineering.) Address: 440901 Penza oblast, Zarechnyy, Mir Avenue, 1. Director: Yuriy Aleksandrovich Olenin. Telephone: (8412) 692474. Fax: (8412) 552528.

 Central Scientific Research Laboratory. Address: 440901 Penza oblast, Zarechnyy, Mir Avenue, 1. Director: Vladimir Mikhaylovich Sorokin. Telephone: (8412) 692706.

 Zarechnyy Industrial College (a municipal educational establishment). Address: 440901 Penza oblast, Zarechnyy, Lenin Street, 10. Director: Vasiliy Georgiyevich Zelenskiy. Telephone: (8412) 692182.

 Zelenogorsk (Krasnoyarsk-45). Address: 663690 Krasnoyarsk kray, Zelenogorsk, Mir street, 15. Director: Valentin Grigoryevich Kazachenko, Head of Administration. Telephone: (39169) 35532. Fax: (39169) 35640, 35993. Population: About 65,000.

 Electro-Chemical Plant. Address: 663690 Krasnoyarsk kray, Zelenogorsk. Director: Anatoliy Nikolayevich Shubin, General Director. Telephone: (39169) 33350, 33321. Fax: (39169) 24225, 21262. Teletype: 288 845 "Tayfun".

 Joint-Stock Company, "Sibvolonko". Address: 663960 Krasnoyarsk kray, Zelenogorsk, Joint-Stock Company, "Sibvolonko". Director: Petr Pavlovich Kostyushko. Telephone: (39169) 23020, 24405. Fax: (39169) 28122, 24087. Telex: 288 145 SV SU.

 Contruction-Industrial Joint-Stock Company, "Directorate of Construction No. 604". Address: 663960 Krasnoyarsk kray, Zelenogorsk, Kalinin Street, 25. Director: Anatoliy Yakovlevich Kurdyukov. Telephone: (39169) 35722. Fax: (39169) 24940.

 Krasnoyarsk Electro-Mechanical Engineering College. Address: 663690 Krasnoyarsk kray, Zelenogorsk, Bortnikov Street, 13. Director: Grigoriy Antipyevich Porsyev. Telephone: (39169) 34433.

 Lesnoy (Sverdlovsk-45). Address: 624200 Sverdlovsk oblast, city of Lesnoy, Karl Marks [Marx] Street, 8. Director: Aleksandr Ivanovich Ivannikov, Head of Administration. Telephone: (34342) 57509. Fax: (34342) 24402. Population: 55,000.

 Fiftieth Anniversary of the USSR Combine, "Elektrokhimpribor". Director: Leonid Aleksyevich Polyakov, General Director. Telephone: (34342) 24373. Teletype: 721 549 "Kedr".

 Construction-Industrial Joint-Stock Company, "Severouralskoye Directorate of Construction". Address: 620045 Sverdslovsk oblast, city of Lesnoy, Lenin Street, 76. Director: Vladimir Timofeyevich Nesterenko. Telephone: (34342) 69271. Fax: (34342) 24054, 24681.

 Polytechnic Institute of Moscow State Engineering-Physical Institute. Address: 620045 Sverdlovsk oblast, city of Lesnoy, Kommunist Avenue, 36. Director: Vyacheslav Mikhaylovich Krapal, Rector. Telephone: (34342) 60693. Fax: (34342) 55621.

 Novouralsk (Sverdlovsk-44). Address: 624130 Sverdlovsk oblast, city of Novouralsk, Michurin Street, 33. Director: Valentin Yegorovich Feldman, Head of Administration. Telephone: (34370) 23260. Web: http:

www.novouralsk.ru Population: 95,000.

 Ural Electro-Chemical Combine. Address: 624130 Sverdlovsk oblast, city of Novouralsk, Dzerzhinskiy Street, 2. Director: Anatoliy Petrovich Knutarev, General Director. Telephone: (34370) 92424. Fax: (34370) 94141. Telex: 721 742 RIKON SU. Web: http:

www.ricon.e-burg.ru Teletype: 348823, 348813 "Tiris".

 Construction-Industrial Joint-Stock Company, "Sredneural Directorate of Construction". Address: 620114 Sverdlovsk oblast, city of Novouralsk, Dzerzhinskiy Street, 13. Director: Petr Ivanovich Bokov. Telephone: (34370) 24961. Fax: (34370) 40977.

 Novouralsk Polytechnic Institute of Moscow State Engineering-Physics Institute. Address: 624130 Sverdlovsk oblast, city of Novouralsk-3, Lenin Street, 85. Director: Aleksey Petrovich Dyagilev, Rector. Telephone: (34370) 23580.

 Ural Institute for the Advancement of Qualification, "Progress". Address: 624133 Sverdlovsk oblast, city of Novouralsk, Pervomayskaya Street, 107. Director: Valeriy Ivanovich Makarov. Telephone: (34370) 91601. Fax: (34370) 91354. Web: http:

www.aib.ru/~uipk

/ Ural Polytechnic College. Address: 624130 Severdlovsk oblast, Novouralsk-3, Lenin Street, 85. Director: Leonid Nikolayevich Mochalov. Telephone: (34370) 22497.

 Sarov (Arzamas-16). Address: 607200 Nizhegorod oblast, Sarov. Director: Gennadiy Zakirovich Karatayev. Telephone: (83130) 11303. Fax: (83130) 58789. Population: 85,000.

 The All-Russian Scientific-Research Institute of Experimental Physics of the Russian Federal Nuclear Center. Address: 607190 Nizhegorod oblast, Sarov, Mir Avenue, 37. Director: Radiy Ivanovich Ilkayev. Telephone: (83130) 56951, 11264, 11803. Fax: (83130) 53808, 54565. Telex: 151 109 APCA Web: http:

www.vniief.ru

 Electro-Mechanical Plant, "Avangard". Address: 607200 Nizhegorod oblast, City of Sarov, Yuzhnoye, area 6. Director: Yuriy Kuzmich Zavlishin. Telephone: (83130) 11077.

 Sarov Construction-Industrial Joint-Stock Company. Address: 607200 Nizhegorod oblast, Sarov, Silkin Street, 13. Director: Georgiy Georgiyevich Bulgakov. Telephone: (83130) 45994.

 State Unitary Scientific-Technical Enterprise, "Efkon". Address: 601190 Nizhegorod oblast, Sarov, Yunost Street, 22. Director: Anatoliy Petrovich Inozemtsev. Telephone: (83130) 45705. Fax: (83130) 45994..

 Central Laboratory for the Protection of the Environment. Address: 607190 Nizhegorod oblast, Sarov, P. O. Box [Russian: a/ya--abonenenitnyy yashchik] 423. Director: Vasiliy Dmitriyevich Davidyuk. Telephone: (83130) 45288. Fax: (83130) 45288. [Sic. Fax no. is same as tel. no.].

 Sarov Physics-Technical Institute of Moscow State Engineering Physics Institute. Address: 607200 Nizhegorod oblast, Sarov, Dukhov Street, 6. Director: Yuriy Petrovich Shcherbak, Rector. Telephone: (83130) 59809.

 Seversk (Tomsk-7). Address: 636070 Tomsk oblast, city of Seversk, Kommunist Street, 51. Director: Nikolay Ivanovich Kuzmenko, Head of Administration. Telephone: (3822) 222159, 774760. Fax: (3822) 776728. Web: http:

www.seversk.ru Population: About 110,000.

 Siberian Chemical Combine. Address: 636070 Tomsk oblast, city of Seversk, Kurchatov Street, 1. Director: Valeriy Konstantinovich Larin, General Director. Telephone: (3822) 771798. Fax: (3822) 772528. Web: http:

www.shk.tsk.ru

 Construction-Industrial Joint-Stock Company, "Khimstroy". Address: 636070 Tomsk oblast, city of Seversk, Transport Street, 32. Director: Gennadiy Sergeyevich Molokanov, General Director. Telephone: (3822) 776460. Fax: (3822) 241520.

 Open-Type Joint-Stock Company, "Promekhanomontazh". Address: 636070 Tomsk oblast, city of Seversk, P. O. Box 494. Director: Anatoliy Vladimirovich Maksimenko, General Director. Telephone: (3822) 784900. Fax: (3822) 241520.

 Joint-Stock Company, "Spetskhimmontazh". Address: 636070 Tomsk oblast, city of Seversk, P. O. Box 563. Director: Boris Alekseyevich Kormashov. Telephone: (3822) 777932. Fax: (3822) 776939.

 Tomsk State Design-Research Institute, VNIPIET [All-Russian Design and Scientific-Research Institute of Power Technology] Address: 634039 Tomsk oblast, Seversk, Kurchatov Street, 2. Director: Mishin Vitaliy Alekseyevich. Telephone: (3822) 760913. Fax: (3822) 760913 [Sic. Fax no. is same as tel. no.].

 Siberian Branch of "GNTs RF VNIINM" [State Science Center of the Russian federation, All- Russian Scientific-Research Institute of Inorganic Materials]. Address: 634018 Tomsk oblast, Seversk, Lermontov Street, 13. Director: Aleksandr Yakovlevich Svarovskiy. Telephone: (38242) 61880. Fax: (3822) 776739.

 Seversk Technological Institute of Tomsk Polytechnic University. Address: 634036 Tomsk-36, Kommunist Avenue, 65. Director: Aleksandr Nikolayevich Zhiganov, Rector/ Telephone: (3822) 779529.

 Seversk Industrial College (a municipal educational establishment). Address: 636070 Tomsk oblast, Seversk, Kommunist Avenue, 65. Director: Aleksandr Nikolayevich Zhiganov. Telephone: (3822) 779529.

 Snezhinsk (Chelyabinsk-70). Address: 454070 Chelyabinsk oblast, city of Snezhinsk, Sverdlov Street, 24. Director: Anatoliy Vladimirovich Oplanchuk, Head of Administration. Telephone: (35172) 32573. Fax: (35172) 32385. Population: 50,000.

 The All-Union Scientific Research Institute of Technical Physics--the Russian Federal Nuclear Center. Address: 456770 Chelyabinsk oblast, city of Snezhinsk, P. O. Box 245. Director: Georgiy Nikolayevich Rykovanov. Telephone: (35172) 32028. Fax: (35172) 32351. Telex: 124 846 SNOW SU. Web: http:

www.vniitf.ru

 Snezhinsk Physics-Technical Institute--a branch of Moscow State Engineering-Physics Institute. Address: 456776 Chelyabinsk oblast, city of Snezhinsk, Mir Street, 6/8. Director: Vladimir Makarovich Skovpen, Rector. Telephone: (35172) 32422. Fax: (35172) 32526.

 Trekhgornyy (Zlatoust-36). Address: 456080 Chelyabinsk oblast, city of Trekhgornyy, Mir Street, 6. Director: Nikolay Andreyevich Lubenets. Telephone: (351112) 7001. Fax: (351112) 7042. Population: About 40,000.

 Instrument-Making Plant. Address: 456080 Chelyabinsk oblast, city of Trekhgornyy, Instrument-Making Plant. Director: Aleksandr Vasilyevich Dolinin, General Director. Telephone: (351112) 5121, 5123, 5210. Fax: (351112) 1622.

 Design-Construction-Industrial Joint-Stock Company, "Ural". Address: 456080 Chelyabinsk oblast, city of Trekhgornyy, Street Stroiteley [Street of the Builders], 6. Director: Galina Ivanovna Morozova. Telephone (35111) 67061. Fax: (35111) 651120.

 Trekhgornyy Polytechnic Institute of Moscow State Engineering-Physics Institute. Address: 456080 Chelyabinsk oblast, city of Trekhgornyy, Mir Street, 17. Director: Fedor Ivanovich Dolinin. Telephone: (35111) 67067.

 Ozersk (Chelyabinsk-65). Address: 456784 Chelyabinsk oblast, city of Ozersk, Lenin Avenue, 30a. Director: Sergey Georgiyevich Chernyshev. Head of Administration. Telephone: (35171) 78959. Population: About 100,000.

 Production Association, "Mayak". Address: 456065 Chelyabinsk oblast, city of Ozersk, Lenin Avenue, 31. Director: Vitaliy Ivanovich Sadovnikov, General Director. Telephone: (35151) 31659. Fax: (35171) 73911. Telex: 124 864 ATOM SU.

 Closed-Type Joint-Stock Company, "Yuzhno-Ural Directorate of Construction". Address: 456064 Chelyabinsk oblast, city of Ozersk, Oktyabr Street, 7. Director: Aleksey Georgiyevich Belotnitskiy. Telephone: (35171) 45253. Fax: (35171) 73911.

 Open-Type Joint-Stock Company, "Uralprommontazh", an installation-industrial company. Address: 456065 Chelyabinsk oblast, city of Ozersk, Semenov Street, 22. Director: Sergey Vladimirovich Voloshin. Telephone: (35171) 79250. Fax: (35171) 22214.

 Joint-Stock Company, "Uralgidromontazh" Address: 456065 Chelyabinsk oblast, city of Ozersk, Semenov street, 22. Director: Anatoliy Ivanovich Loboda. Telephone: (35171) 79303. Fax: (35171) 73041.

 Ural State Design-Research Institute, "VNIPIET" [see expansion of acronym above]. Address: 454065 Chelyabinsk oblast, Ozersk, Oktyabr Street, 11. Director: Leonid Vladimirovich Vaganov. Telephone: (35171) 79550. Fax: (35171) 73822.

 Ozersk Technological Institute of Moscow State Engineering-Physics Institute. Address: 456783 Chelyabinsk oblast, city of Ozersk, Pobeda Avenue, 48. Director: Yuriy Nikolayevich Stepanov. Telephone: (35171) 446646

 Yuzhnoural Polytechnic College. Address: 456783 Chelyabinsk oblast, Ozersk, Pobeda Avenue, 48. Director: Angelina Valentinovna Tomanovna. Telephone: (35171) 44623.

4. The "Rosenergoatom" Concern, the atomic electrical power stations and "Rosenergoatom" Concern enterprises.

 State Concern, "Rosenergoatom". Address: 101000 Moscow, P. O. Box 912. Director: Erik Nikolayevich Pozdyshev. Telephone: Chancellery: (095) 239740. Fax: Chancellery: (095) 2392724. Web: http:

www.rosatom.ru

 Structure of "Rosenergoatom" Concern. Department for the Utilization of Atomic Power Stations and Water-Cooled Reactors. Department for the Utilization of Atomic Power Stations with Fuel-Channel-Type and Fast Reactors. Department for Technical Servicing and Repair of Atomic Power Stations. Department for Technical Inspection and Control and Monitoring of Security. Department for the Licensing of the Utilization of Atomic power Stations. Management for Protection of Nuclear Facilities and Materials. Department for Emergency Control and Prevention of Accidents. Department for Scientific-Technical Support. Structural Design Department. Management for Expertise and Prospective Technologies. Management for Major Construction. Management for Provision of Utilization and Repair. Management for Provision of Nuclear Fuel. Management for Investment Resources. Department of Economics. Department of Finances. Management for Property and Capital. Department for Book-Keeping and Accounting. Department for Auditing Activities. Management for Inspection Work. Legal Department. Department for International Activities. Management of Export. Management of FOREM [Federal Wholesale Market for Electricity and Generating Capacity].. Department for Sales. Directorate of Business Affairs.

 Atomic power stations:

 Balakov Atomic Power Station. Beloyarsk Atomic Power Station. Bilibin Atomic Power Station. Kalinin Atomic Power Station. Kolsk Atomic Power Station. Kursk Atomic Power Station. Leningrad Atomic Power Station. Novovoronezh Atomic Power Station. Smolensk Atomic Power Station.

 Enterprises included in the structure of the "Rosenergoatom" Concern. Branch State Unitary Enterprise, "Energoatomfinans". Address: 123298 Moscow, Narodnoye Opolcheniye Street, 40, building 2. Director: Mikhail Vasilyevich Komissarov. Telephone: (095) 1926174. Fax: (095) 1926174. [Sic: Fax no. is same as tel. no.].

 Branch State Unitary Enterprise, "Atomstroyinvest". Address: 123298 Moscow, Narodnoye Opolcheniye Street, 40, building 2. Director: Vitaliy Vladimirovich Veselov. Telephone: (095) 1926029. Fax: (095) 1926029.[Sic: Fax no. is same as tel. no.].

 Branch State Unitary Enterprise "Kontrolno-Priemochnaya Inspektsiya". Address: 101000 Moscow, P. O. Box 912. Director: Vladimir Ilich Nikitenko. Telephone: (095) 2392436. Fax: (095) 2392436. [Sic. Fax no. is same as tel. no.].

 Branch State Unitary Enterprise, "Press-Tsentr Kontserna". Address: 109507 Moscow, Ferganskaya Street, 25. Director: Andrey Grigoryevich Polous. Telephone: (095) 2384894. Fax: (095) 2392016.

 Branch State Unitary Enterprise, "Atom-Servis". Address: 123298 Moscow, Narodnoye Opolcheniye Street, building 2. Director: Grigoriy Alekseyevich Serafimov. Telephone: (095) 1927674.

 Branch State Unitary Enterprise, "Kursk Specialized Installment Directorate".". Address: 307239 Kursk oblast, Kurchatov. Director: Nikolay Maksimovich Kovalev. Telephone: (07131) 46395. Fax: (07131) 46395. [Sic: Fax no. is same as tel. no.].

 (5). "TVEL" [Fuel Element] Concern. Open Joint-Stock Company, "TVEL".. Address: 101000 Moscow, B. Ordynka Street, 24/26. Director: Vitaliy Fedorovich Konovalov, President. Petr Ivanovich Lavrenyuk, Vice President. Leonid Dmitriyevich Proskuryakov, Vice President. Vladimir Alekseyevich Zubakov, Vice President. Vyacheslav Mikhaylovich Kozhin, Vice President. Telephone: (095) 2394440. Fax: (095) 2394404. Web: http:

www.tvel.ru

/ Structure:

 Management for Commerce. Management for Productive-Technical Issues and Security. Management for Scientific-Technical Development. Management for Economics and Corporative Planning. Management for Economic Strategy and Control of Property. Management for International and External Economic Activities. Management for Financial Accounts and Analysis. Management for General Issues and Social Development. Legal Section.

 Open Joint-Stock Company, "TVEL Concern". Address: 101000 Moscow, B. Ordynka Street, 24/26. Director: Vladimir Vladimirovich Karetnikov, General Director. Telephone: (095) 2394788.

 Trans-Baykal Mining-Concentrating Combine (ZabGOK).

 Address: 673382 Chitin oblast, Pervomayskiy Square, Mir Street,18. Director: Gennadiy Mikhaylovich Adosik. Telephone: (302) 42302. Fax: (30262) 41010.

 Krasnoyarsk Chemical-Metallurgical Plant (KKhMZ). Address: 660079 Krasnoyarsk, Matrosov Street, 30. Director: Dmitriy Mikhaylovich Kovyadin. Telephone: (3912) 660185. Fax: (3912) 340939.

 Chepetsk Mechanical plant (ChMZ). Address: 427000 Respublika Udmurtiya, city of Glazov, Belov Street, 7. Telephone: (34141) 72415. Fax: (34141) 72994. Web: http:

www.chmz.udm.net

/ Moscow Plant of Polymetals (MZP).

 Address: 115409 Moscow, Kashirskoye Highway, 49. Director: Valeriy Viktorovich Kryukov, General Director. Telephone: (095) 3247234. Fax: (095) 7428298.

 Novosibirsk Plant of Chemical Concentrates (NZKhK). Address: 638038 Novosibirsk, B. Khmelnitskiy Street, 94. Director: Vladimir Leonidovich Afanasyev. Telephone: (3832) 748454. Fax: (3832) 743071.

 Machine-Building Plant (MSZ). Address: 144001 Moscow oblast, city of Elektrostal, K. Marks [Marx] Street, 12. Director: Valeriy Alekseyevich Mezhuyev, General Director. Telephone: (095) 7029901. Fax: (095) 7029221.

 Production Association, "Ulbinskiy Metallurgical Plant". Address: 492026 Respublika Kazakhstan, city of Ust-Kamenogorsk, Shkolnoye Highway, 102. Director: Vitaliy Grogoryevich Khadeyev, General Director. Telephone: (3232) 475043. Fax: (3232) 640683.

 Joint-Stock Company "Commercial Center, 100". Address: 127253 Moscow, Dmitrovskoye Highway, 116, building 3. Director: Aleksey Vasilyevich Goncharov. Telephone: (095) 4007474. Fax: (095) 4007277.

 (6). Joint-Stock Company "Atomredmetzoloto" (enterprise). Address: 109017 Moscow, B. Ordynka Street, building 24/26. Director: Vyacheslav Vladimirovich Krotkov, General Director. Telephone: 2394668 (reception room). Fax: 2394679. Director Vitaliy Vasilyevich Shatalov--2392174. Director Yuriy Vasilyevich Nesterov--2394775. Director: Boris Fedorovich Shevchenko--2392430.

 Open-Type Joint-Stock Company, "Priargunskoye Proizvodstvennoye Gorno-Khimicheskoye Obyedineniye" [Priargunskiy Mining-Chemical Production association] (AOOT "PPGKhO"). Address: 674665 Chitin oblast, city of Krasnokamensk. Director: Valeriy Konstantinovich Larin, General Director. Telephone: (30245) 46911. Fax: (86535) 50131.

 Lermontov State Enterprise, "Almaz" Address: 357340 Stavropol kray, city of Lermontov, Promyshlennaya Street, building 7. Director: Nikolay Nikolayevich Gridin, General Director. Telephone: (86535) 50131. Fax: (86535) 52313.

 State Unitary Enterprise, "Gidrometallurgical Zavod" [Hydro-Metallurgical Plant] (GUP "GMZ"). Address: 357340 Stavropol kray, city of Lermontov, Promyshlennaya Street, building 7. Director: Sergey Vasilyevich Pashkov, General Director. Telephone: (86535) 52313. Fax: (86535) 52313 [Sic. Fax no. is same as telephone number].

 State Unitary Enterprise, "Electromekhanicheskiy Zavod" [Electro-Mechanical Plant]. Address: 357340 Stavropol kray, city of Lermontov, Promyshlennaya Street, building 7. Director: Valeriy Ivanovich Minenkov. Telephone: (86535) 50350. Fax: (34365) 52077.

 Rodniki Directorate of Enterprises. Address: 155240 Ivanov oblast, city of Rodniki. Director: Nikolay Petrovich Vorobyev. Telephone: (09336) 23464. Fax: (09336) 23464 [Sic. Fax no. is same as telephone no.].

 Yekaterinburg Plant, "Kauchuk". Address: 620023 city of Yekaterinburg, Garshin Street, building 7. Director: Aleksandr Vasilyevich Svytko. Telephone: (3432) 254905. Fax: (3432) 250262.

 Joint-Stock company "Nauchno-Issledovatelskoye Eksperimentalnoye Predpriyatiye" [Scientific- Research Experimental Enterprise] (AO "NIEP"). Address: 143392 Moscow oblast, Narofominskiy rayon, settlement of Selyatino. Director: Vladimir Nikolayevich Kuznetsov. Telephone: (095) 4365697. Fax: (095) 4365697 [Sic. Fax no. and tel. no. are the same].

 Federal State Enterprise, "Ekspeditsiya No. 2" [Expedition No. 2]. Address: 163056 Arkhangelsk-56. Director: Anatoliy Andreyevich Gerasimov.

 Joint-Stock Company, "Severalmaz". Address: 163061 city of Arkhangelsk, Sadovaya Street, building 2 Director: Vitaliy Sergeyevich Fertygin, General Director. Telephone: (8182) 496112. Fax: (8182) 496112. [Sic. Fax no. is same as tel. No.].

 Production Association, "Vostokredmet". Address: 735730 Respublika Tadzhikistan, Leninabad oblast, city of Chkalovsk, Oplanchuk Street, 10. Director: Zafar Abdukkakhorovich Razykov, General Director. Telephone: (37771) 54434. Fax: (37771) 50945.

 Navon Mining-Metallurgical Combine. Address: 706800 Respublika Uzbekistan, city of Navon, Navon street, building 27. Director: Nikolay Ivanovich Kucherskiy, General Director. Telephone: (43622) 32928. Fax: (31745) 91456.

 Holding Company, "Tselinnoye Proizvodstvennoye Gorno-Khimicheskoye Obedineniye" [Virgin Land Mining-Chemical Production Association]. Address: 474456 Respublika Kazakhstan, Akhmalin oblast, city of Stepnogorsk. Director: Yuriy Nikolayevich Filtsev, General Director. Telephone: (31745) 92464. Fax: (31745) 91456.

 Kara-Balta Mining Combine. Address: 720398 Respublika Kirgizstan, city of Kara-Balta, Trud Street, building 1. Director: Zhaman Iymanbekovich Kazakbayev. Telephone: (33133) 23018. Fax: (33133) 23018. [Sic. Fax no. is same as tel. no.].

 Science and Production Association, "Vostochnyy Gorno-Obogatelnyy Kombinat" [Eastern Mining Concentrating Combine]. Address: 322530 Respublika Ukraina, Dnepropetrov oblast, city of Zheltyye Vody, Gorkiy street, building 2. Director: Mikhail Ivanovich Babak, General Director. Telephone: (05652) 55309. Fax: (05652) 33005.

 (7). Machine-Building and Instrument-Making Plants of the Ministry of Atomic Energy of the Russian Federation.

 Angarsk Electrolysis Chemical Combine (AEKhK). Address: 665804 Irkutsk oblast, city of Angarsk. Director: Viktor Panteleymonovich Shopen, General Director. Telephone: (39518) 40710. Fax: (39518) 66715.

 B. P. Konstantinov Kirovo-Chepeteskiy Chemical Combine. Address: 613020 Kirov oblast, city of Kirovo-Chepetsk, Pozharnyy Lane., 7. Director: Boris Ivanovich Drozhdin, General director. Telephone: (8332) 624829, 624205. Fax: (8332) 627921.

 Experimental Chemical-Technological Plant. Address: 125239 Moscow, Likhoborskaya Embankment, 11. Director: Anatoliy Aleksandrovich Matveyev. Telephone: (095) 9132289.

 Scientific Design-Technological Firm of Non-traditional Methods for the Processing of Different Materials ("Netram" firm). Address: 123060 Moscow, P. O. Box 155. Director: Boris Vladimirovich Safronov. Telephone: (095) 1908089. Fax: (095) 1960038.

 Joint-Stock Company, "Mashinostroitelnyy Zavod Invis" (Machine-Building Plant "Invis"]. Address: 427600, Respublika Udmurtiya, city of Glazov Director: Vladimir Anatolyevich Yekhlakov. Telephone: (34141) 73784. Fax: (34141) 36440.

 Production Association, "Mashinostroyitelnyy Zavod, Molniya" [Machine-Building Plant, "Lightning"] (PO MSZ "Molniya"). Address: 109391 Moscow, Ryazanskiy Avenue, 6a. Director: Vladimir Ivanovich Nikolaichev. Telephone: (095) 1713460. Fax: (095) 1716761.

 Electro-Mechanical Plant, "Avangard" (EMZ "Avangard"). Address: Nizhegorod oblast, city of Sarov, Nizhnyeye Highway, 6. Director: Yuriy Kuzmich Zavalishin. Telephone: (83130) 45881. Fax: (83130) 45090.

 Nizhnyaya Tura Machine-Building plant, "Venta". Address: 624350 Sverdlovsk oblast, city of Nizhnyaya Tura, Malyshev Street, 2a. Director: Sergey Vladimirovich Nastin. Telephone: (34342) 23020. Fax: (34342) 20733.

 Ural Electro-Mechanical plant (UMZ). Address: 620151 Yekaterinburg, Studentskaya Street, 9. Director: Leonid Mikhaylovich Kuznetsov. Telephone: (3432) 741281. Fax: (3432) 413370.

 "Elvaks" Plant. Address: 141420 Moscow oblast, Skhodnya, Pervomayskaya Street, 54. Director: Yuriy Georgiyevich Kolmogorov. Telephone: (095) 5742400. Fax: (095) 5740162.

 State Enterprise, "Krasnaya Zvezda" [Red Star]. Address: 115230 Moscow, Electrolytic Avenue, 1a. Director: Vladimir Sergeyevich Vasilkovskiy. Telephone: (095) 1132309. Fax: (095) 1133488.

 Production Association, "Sever" [North]. Address: 630075 Novosibirsk, Obyedineniye Street, 3. Director: Aleksey Nikolayevich Gorb. Telephone (3832) 255573. Fax: (3832) 741465.

 Instrument Plant, "Kristall" [Crystal]. Address: 613020 Kirov oblast, city of Kirovo-Chepetsk, Kirov Avenue, 16. Director: Aleksandr Mikhaylovich Fadeichev. Telephone: (83361) 14913. Fax: (83361) 12150.

 Joint-Stock Company, "Priborstroitelnyy Zavod, Signal" [Instrument-Making Plant, "Signal"]. Address: 249020 Kaluga oblast, city of Obninsk, Lenin Street, 121. Director: Vyacheslav Aleksandrovich Anisimov. Telephone: (08439) 79195. Fax: (08439) 40314.

 Joint-Stock Company, "Pribornyy Zavod, Tenzor" [Instrument Plant, "Tensor"]. Address: 141980 Moscow oblast, city of Dubna, Street Priborstroiltelney [Street of the Instrument- Makers], 2. Director: Igor Borisovich Barsukov. Telephone: (221) 45524. Fax: (221) 46124.

 Joint-Stock Company, "Pyatigorsk Zavod, Impuls" [Pyatigorsk Plant, Impulse]. Address: 357500, Stavropol kray, city of Pyatigorsk, Malgyn street, 5. Director: Sergey Ivanovich Kuzmenko. Telephone: (87933) 54554. Fax: (87933) 78936.

 TOO [Limited Partnership], "Konsit-A". Address: 109180 Moscow, P. O. Box 29. Director: Yuriy Arkadyevich Brodskiy. Telephone: (095) 2360416. Fax: (095) 2394054.

 Joint-Stock Company, "Gorkiy Kimry Fabrika" [Kimry Factory in the name Gorky]. Address: 171510 Tver oblast, Kimry, Pushkin Street, 72a. Director: Lev Nikolayevich Bocharov. Telephone: (08236) 32156. Fax: (08326) 31027.

 Joint-Stock Company, "Energomashinostroitelnaya Korporatsiya, Atommash" [Power-Machine Building Corporation, "Atommash"]. Address: 347340 Rostov-on-the-Don, Volgodonsk-13. Director: Aleksey Ivanovich Golovin, General Director. Telephone: (86392) 20745. Fax: (86392) 21358.

 Joint-Stock Company, "Karimos", affiliated to the Ministry of Atomic Energy of Russia. Address: 101000 Moscow, B. Ordynka Street, 24/26. Director: Aleksandra Nikolayevna Strepikheyevna, Director for Development. Telephone: (095) 2392440. Fax: (095) 2316860.

 Production-Technical Center, "Komito". Address: 107113 Moscow, Verkhne-Krasnoselskaya Street, 16. Director: Vasiliy Matveyevich Monakov. Telephone: (095) 2642995. Fax: (095) 264258.

 Kanash Plant for Technological Equipping. Address: 429300 Respublika Chuvashiya, city of Kanash, Svoboda Street, 36. Director: Vyacheslav Aleksandrovich Kuznetsov. Telephone: (83533) 31994. Fax: (83533) 31994. [Sic. Fax no. is same as tel. no.].

 Joint-Stock Company, "Moskovskiy Tekhnicheskiy Tsentr, TESMO" [Moscow Technical Center, "TESMO"]. Address: 144001 Moscow oblast, city of Elektrostal, avenue 48. Director: Vyacheslav Mikhaylovich Pukhov. Telephone: (257) 59218. Fax: (095) 7029122.

 Joint-Stock Company, "Zavod Start" ["Start" Plant]. Address: 641730 Kurgan oblast, city of Dolmatovo, Rukmanis Street, 31. Director: Aleksandr Ivanovich Kolmogortsev. Telephone: (35252) 92163. Fax: (35252) 92175.

 Astrakhan Experimental Machine-Building Plant, "Sirius". Address: 414000 Astrakhan, Gilyanskaya Street, 94. Director: Aleksandr Vasilyevich Rogov. Telephone: (8512) 220416. Fax: (8512) 254220.

 Joint-Stock Company, "Vologoda Mashinostroitelnyy Zavod" [Vologda Machine-Building Plant]. Address: 160604 Vologda, Klubov Street, 5. Director: Leonid Borisovich Fedonov. Telephone: (8172) 257072. Fax: (8172) 257783.

 Makhachkala Machine-Building Plant of Separators. Address: 367014 Respublika Dagestan, city of Makhachkala, K. Marks [Marx] Avenue, 9. Director: Igor Gafurovich Gafurov. Telephone: (8722) 643193.

 Joint-Stock Company "Plavsk Mashinostroitelnyy Zavod" [Plavsk Machine-Building Plant]. Address: 301050 Tula oblast, city of Plavsk, Kommunarov Street, 25. Director: Viktor Georgiyevich Lifanov. Telephone: (08752) 21065. Fax: (08752) 22132.

 Joint-Stock Company, "Opytnyy Zavod, Luch" [Experimental Plant, "Light"]. Address: 142100 Moscow oblast, Podolsk, Zheleznodorozhnaya Street, 22. Director: Viktor Arsenyevich Petrov. Telephone: (095) 9564867. Fax: (095) 9561057.

 SKTB [Special Design and Technology Bureau] "UPMASH". Address: 144001 Moscow oblast, Elektrostal, P. O. Box 48. Director: Aleksandr Sergeyevich Igolkin. Telephone: (095) 7029150. Fax: (095) 7029150. [Sic. Fax no. is same as tel. no.].

 Production Organizations in the Complement of the Ministry of Atomic Energy of the Russian Federation:

 State Joint-Stock Company, "Oboronpromkompleks". Address: 109180 Moscow, Staromonetnyy Lane, 26. Director: Vladimir Mikhaylovich Bednyakov, General Director. Telephone: (095) 2392102. Fax: (095) 9533051.

 Joint-Stock Company, "Volgo-Vyatka Proizvodstvenno-Komplektovochnoye Predpriyatiye, Oboronpromkompleks" [Volgo-Vyatka Production Enterprise Unit of "Oboronpromkompleks"]. Address: 603124 Nizhniy Novgorod, Ayvazoskiy Street, 10a. Director: Yevgeniy Vasilyevich Selikhov, General Director. Telephone: (8312) 244398. Fax: (8312) 465470.

 Joint-Stock Company, "Yuzhno-Uralskoye Proizvodstvenno-Komplektochnoye Predpriyatiye, Oboronpromkompleks" [South Ural Production Enterprise Unit of "Oboronpromkompleks"]. Address: 454087 Chelyabinsk, 2-nd Potrebitelskaya Street, 2. Director: Viktor Grigoryevich Braslavskiy, General Director. Telephone: (3512) 621198. Fax: (3512) 621196.

 Western Siberia Joint-Stock Company, "Oboronpromkompleks". Address: 630075 Novosibirsk, B. Khmelnitskiy Street, 84a. Director: Mikhail Ivanovich Kulagin, General Director. Telephone: (3832) 763973. Fax: (3832) 763551.

 Joint-Stock Company, "Vostochno-Sibirskoye Proizvodstvennoye-Komplektovochnoye Predpriyatiye Oboronpromkompleks" [Eastern Siberia Production Enterprise Unit of "Oboronpromkompleks"]. Address: 664053 Irkutsk, P. O. Box 2497. Director: Georgiy Ivanovich Tarusin, General Director. Telephone: (3952) 453625. Fax: (3952) 456341.

 Northern Production Enterprise Unit of "Oboronpromkompleks". Address: 150000 Yaroslavl, General Post Office, P. O. Box 76. Director: Oleg Georgiyevich Pozdnyakov, General Director. Telephone: (0852) 231557. Fax: (0852) 558524.

 Joint-Stock Company, North-Western Production Enterprise Unit of "Oboronpromkompleks". Address: 196143 St. Petersburg, Predportovaya Street, 7-th Thoroughfare, 1. Director: Anatoliy Artemovich Kurlyandchik. Telephone: (812) 1223715. Fax: (812) 1226790.

 Joint-Stock Company, Tver Production Enterprise Unit of "Oboronpromkompleks". Address: 117000 Tver, General Post Office, P. O. Box 379. Director: Vladimir Genrikhovich Moryev, General Director. Telephone: (0822) 332697. Fax: (0822) 426388.

 Joint-Stock Company, North Caucasus Production Enterprise Unit of "Oboronpromkompleks". Address: 344104 Rostov-on-the-Don, Dovator Street, 154/1. Director: Anatoliy Ivanovich Pravdyuk, General Director. Telephone: (8632) 240322. Fax: (8632) 220914.

 Joint-Stock Company, Production Firm Unit of "Atompromresursy". Address: 101000 Moscow, B. Ordynka Street, 24/26. Director: Ivan Petrovich Guzhov. Telephone: (095) 2362325. Fax: (095) 9556068.

 Joint-Stock Company, "Atomprom". Address: 101000 Moscow, B. Ordynok Street, 24/26. Director: Roman Konstantinovich Rusalkin, General Director. Telephone: (095) 1119512. Fax: (095) 1119512. [Sic. Fax no. is same as tel. no.].

 Joint-Stock Company, "Kontrakt". Address: 101000 Moscow, Meshchanskaya Street, 7/21. Director: Andrey Grigoryevich Andrukh. Telephone: (095) 2841935. Fax: (095) 9710845.

 Joint-Stock Company, "Atomenergozapchast". Address: 396072 Voronezh oblast, Novovoronezh. Director: Vladimir Grigoryevich Churin. Telephone: (073674) 25567. Fax: (073674) 21898.

 Joint-Stock Company, Kursk Plant, "Atomremmash". Address: 307720 Kursk oblast, Kurchatov rayon, sub-division [Russian: p/o] Lukashovka. Director: Viktor Semenovich Kurilenko. Telephone: (07131) 21433. Fax: (07131) 61261.

 State Enterprise for Repair and Servicing of Atomic Power Stations, Production Association "Atomenergoremont". Address: 141011 Moscow oblast, Mytishci, Kommunist Street, 23. Director: Stanislav Stepanovich Chertov. Telephone: (095) 5821603. Fax: (095) 5819034.

 State Enterprise, "Kurskturboatomenergoremont". Address: 307239 Kursk oblast, Kurchatov. Director: Vladimir Prokopyevich Fedorenko. Telephone: (07131) 46258. Fax: (07131) 46258 [Sic. Fax no. is same as tel .no.].

 Joint-Stock Company, Perlov Plant of Power Equipment. Address: 141011 Moscow oblast, Mytishchi, Kommunist Street, 23. Director: Valeriy Ivanovich Zabrodin. Telephone: (095) 5813144 Fax: (095) 5813144 [Sic. Fax no. is same as tel. no.].

 State Production Enterprise, "Sevatomremont". Address: 184151 Murmanks oblast, Polyarnyye Zori. Director: Inarik Gayazovich Mukhametshin. Telephone: (81532) 65667. Fax: (095) 5813144

 "Atomtekhenergo", a firm for the setting up and improvement of the operation and organization of the management of atomic power stations. Address: 141011 Moscow oblast, Mytishchi, Kommunist Street, 23. Director: Anatoliy Grigoryevich Ivannikov. Telephone: (095) 5820454. Fax: (095) 5818011.

 Joint-Stock Company, Machine-Building Corporation, "SPLAV". Address: 173021 Velikiy Novgorod, Nezhinskaya Street, 61. Director: Yevgeniy Izyaslavovich Shulman, General Director. Telephone: (8162) 113003. Fax: (8162) 113002.

 Construction-Industrial Joint-Stock Companies and Plants for Construction Materials of the Ministry of Atomic Energy of the Russian Federation:

 Holding Company, Joint-Stock company "Progress", affiliated to the Ministry of Atomic Energy of Russia. Address: 101000 Moscow, B. Ordynka street, 24/26. Director: Ivan Yegorovich Deryabin. Telephone: (095) 9534553, 2394308. Fax: (095) 2394800.

 Construction-Industrial Joint-Stock Company, "Kirovo-Chepetsk Directorate of Construction". Address: 613020 Kirov oblast, Kirovo-Chepets, Shkolnaya Street, 2. Director: Aleksandr Romanovich Verba. Telephone: (83361) 10314. Fax: (83361) 19118.

 Construction-Industrial Joint-Stock Company, "Chepetsk Directorate of Construction". Address: 427600 Respublika Udmurtiya, city of Glazov, Belova Street, 7. Director: Vladimir Yuryevich Pereshein. Telephone: (34141) 72206. Fax: (34141) 34304.

 Construction-Industrial Joint-Stock Company, "North Ural Directorate of Construction". Address: 620045 Sverdlovsk oblast, city of Lesnoy, Lenin Street, 76. Director: Vladimir Timofeyevich Nesterenko. Telephone: (34342) 69271. Fax: (34342) 24054, 24681.

 Design-Construction-Industrial Joint-Stock company, "Ural". Address: 456236 Chelyabinsk oblast, Trekhgornyy, Street Stroiteley [Street of the Builders], 6. Director: Galina Ivanovna Morozova. Telephone: (35111) 67061. Fax: (35111) 65120.

 Construction-Industrial Joint-Stock Company, "Sibakademstroy". Address: 630055 Novosibirsk, M. Dzhalil Street, 11. Director: Gennadiy Dmitriyevich Lykov. Telephone: (3832) 322050. Fax: (3832) 322032.

 Construction-Industrial Joint-Stock Company, "Khimstroy". Address: 636070 Tomsk oblast, city of Seversk, Transport Street, 32. Director: Gennadiy Sergeyevich Molokanov. Telephone: (3822) 776460. Fax: (3822) 776463, 764754.

 Construction-Industrial Joint-Stock Company, "Sibkhimstroy". Address: 660033 Krasnoyarsk kray, city of Zheleznogorsk, Shtefan Street, 1. Director: Vladimir Mikaylovich Kiyayev. Telephone: (39197) 22076, 29812. Fax: (39197) 29839.

 Construction-Industrial Joint-Stock Compnay, "Directorate of Construction No. 604". Address: 663960 Krasnoyarsk kray, city of Zelenogorsk, Kalinin Street, 25. Director: Anatoliy Yakovlevich Kurdyukov. Telephone: (39169) 35722. Fax: (39169) 24940, 44094.

 Construction-Industrial Joint-Stock Company, "Vostok" [East]. Address: 665358 Irkutsk oblast, city of Sayansk-3, P. O. Box 238. Director: Aleksandr Petrovich Sigal. Telephone: (39513) 32449. Fax: (39513) 32916.

 Construction-Industrial Joint-Stock Company, Priargunskiy Directorate of Construction". Address: 674665 Chitin oblast, city of Krasnokamensk, Avenue Stroiteley [Avenue of the Builders], 7. Director: Aleksandr Ivanovich Filonich. Telephone: (30245) 25784. Fax: (30245) 46246.

 Construction-Industrial Joint-Stock Company, "Angarsk Directorate of Construction". Address: 665835 Irkutsk oblast, Angarsk, P. O. Box 2060. Director: Viktor Leonidovich Seredkin. Telephone: (39518) 95062. Fax: (39518) 66856.

 AOZT {Closed-Type Joint-Stock Company], "South Ural Directorate of Construction".

 Construction-Industrial Joint-Stock Company, "Mid-Ural Directorate of Construction". Address: 620114 Sverdlovsk oblast, city of Novouralsk, Dzerzhinskiy Street, 13. Director: Petr Ivanovich Bokov. Telephone: (34370) 24961. Fax: (34370) 40977.

 Joint-Stock Construction Firm, "Aviastroy". Address: 432010 city of Ulyanovsk, Engineer Avenue, 24. Director: Yuriy Porfiryevich Grokhotov. Telephone: (8422) 200228. Fax: (8422) 200289.

 SPAO [Special Production Joint-Stock Company], "Elektrostal Directorate of Construction". Address: 144000 Moscow oblast, city of Electrostal, Karl Marks [Marx] Street, 18. Director: Sergey Alekseyevich Novgorodov. Telephone: (095) 7024794. Fax: (095) 7024794.

 Construction-Industrial Joint-Stock Company, "Atomstroy", affiliated to the Ministry of Atomic Energy of Russia. Address: 1011000 Moscow, B. Ordynka street, 24/26. Director: Konstantin Nikolayevich Moskvin. Telephone: (095) 2394369. Fax: (095) 9535361.

 Joint-Stock Company Construction-Industrial Company, "Dimitrovgradstroy". Address: 433510 Ulayanovsk oblast, Dimitrovgrad, Dachnaya Street, 2. Director: Vladimir Sergeyevich Pisarchuk. Telephone: (84235) 32128. Fax: (84235) 54083.

 Open-Type Joint-stock company, "Donatostroy". Address: 396072 Voronezh oblast, city of Novo-Voronezh. Director: Ivan Pavlovich Mikhalev. Telephone: (07364) 29646. Fax: (07364) 21802.

 Open-Type Joint-Stock Company, "Northern Directorate of Construction". Address: 188537 Leningrad oblast, city of Sosnovyy Bor-537, Leningrad Street, 7. Director: Igor Vladislavovich Ustinov. Telephone: (81269) 62774. Fax: (81269) 62415.

 Obninsk Construction-Industrial Joint-Stock Company. Address: 249020 Kaluga oblast, city of Obninsk, Kurchatov Street, 41. Director: Valeriy Ivanovich Chekmazov. Telephone: (08439) 49250. Fax: (08439) 49248.

 Open-Type Joint-Stock Company, "Penza Directorate of Construction". Address: 440019 Penza oblast, city of Zarechnyy, Komsomol Street, 41. Director: Nikolay Semenovich Kononenko. Telephone: (8412) 550907. Fax: (8412) 5500973.

 Sarov Construction-Industrial Joint-Stock Company. Address: 607200 Nizhegorod oblast, city of Sarov, Silkin street, 13. Director: Georgiy Georgiyevich Bulgakov. Telephone: (83130) 11077.

 Directorate of Construction No. 620. Address: 142284 Moscow oblast, Protvino. Director: Aleksandr Ivanovich Syatotskiy. Telephone: (277) 46991.

 First Construction-Installation Trust. Address: 113191 Moscow, First Lyusinovskiy Lane., 36. Director: Yuriy Aleksandrovich Shilobreyev. Telephone: (095) 2376660. Fax: (0950 2374726.

 Kaluga Construction-Installation Trust of Obninsk Directorate of Construction. Address: 248024 Kaluga oblast, city of Obninsk, K. Libknekht Street, 18. Director: Valeriy Fedorovich Desyatnikov. Telephone: (08422) 27162. Fax: (08422) 27878.

 Open-Type Joint-Stock Company, "Directorate of Industrial Enterprises". Address: 188537 Leningrad oblast, city of Sosnovyy Bor, Leningrad Highway, P. O. Box 32. Director: Vladimir Aleksandrovich Shegalo. Telephone: (81269) 62457.

 Open-Type Joint-Stock Company, "SMU-15". Address: 142234 Moscow oblast, city of Protvino, Obolensk Highway, 5. Director: Aley Safrovich Nekhay. Telephone: (277) 42517. Fax: (277) 42886.

 Joint-Stock Company, "Spetsatommontazh", affiliated to the Ministry of Atomic Energy of Russia. Address: 101000 Moscow, B. Ordynka Street, 24/26. Director: Valeriy Nikolayevich Karmachev, President. Telephone: (095) 2394500. Fax: (095) 2394567.

 Joint-Stock Company PMSP "Elektron". Address: 630065 Novosibirsk-65, Tank Street, 72. Director: Valeriy Nikolayevich Karmachev. Telephone: (3832) 761331. Fax: (3832) 760712, 762076.

 Joint-Stock Company, "Gidromontazh". Address: 143392 Moscow oblast, Naro-Fominskiy rayon, settlement of Selyatino. Director: Gennadiy Pavlovich Kryuchkov. Telephone: (095) 4365510. Fax: (095) 7204960.

 Joint-Stock Company, Energospetsmontazh". Address: 107150 Moscow, Boytsovaya Street, 27. Director: Anatoliy Vasilyevich Shevchenko. Telephone: (0950 1608903. Fax: (095) 1694225.

 Joint-Stock Company, "Promelektromontazh". Address: 107150 Moscow, Boytsovaya Street, 27. Director: Vladimir Grigoryevich Dedlovskiy. Telephone: (0950 1602710, 1695275. Fax: (095) 1601313.

 Joint-Stock Company, "Mospromtekhmontazh". Address: 103473 Moscow, Third Samotechnyy Lane, 11. Director: Yuriy Leonyevich Ilin. Telephone: (095) 2889221, 2844200. Fax: (095) 2844348.

 Joint-Stock Company, "Angarskteplokhimmontazh". Address: 665801 Irkutsk oblast, Angarsk. Director: Vladimir Mikhaylovich Varga. Telephone: (39515) 42658. Fax: (39515) 42678. [Sic. Fax no. is same as tel. no.].

 Open-Type Joint-Stock Company "Promekhanomontazh". Address: 636070 Tomsk oblast, city of Seversk, P. O. Box 494. Director: Anatoliy Vladimirovich Maksimenko. Telephone: (3822) 784900. Fax: (3822) 241520.

 Open-Type Joint-Stock Company MPK "Uralpromontazh". Address: 454065 Chelyabinsk oblast, city of Ozersk, Semenov Street, 22. Director: Sergey Vladimirovich Voloshin. Telephone: (35171) 79250. Fax: (35117) 122214.

 OAO "Spetsmontazhmekhanizatsiya". Address: 115230 Moscow, Nagitinskaya Street, 2 building 1. Director: Aleksandr Mikhaylovich Tarasov. Telephone: (095) 1168791. Fax: (095) 1168863.

 OAO "Spetskhimmontazh". Address: 121069 Moscow, Khlebnyy Lane, 2/3. Director: Vladimir Mikhaylovich Tsitlenko. Telephone: (095) 2917136. Fax: (095) 2900830.

 Joint-Stock Company, "Atomspetskonstruktsiya" Experimental Plant. Address: 144001 Moscow oblast, Elektrostal, Stroitelnyy Lane, 10. Director: Vladimir Alekseyevich Gurov. Telephone: (095) 7029784. Fax: (095) 7029738.

 Open-Type Joint-Stock Company, "Installation-Construction Trust No. 3". Address: 396072 Voronezh oblast, city of Novovoronezh. Director: Anatoliy Nikiforovich Myshko. Telephone: (07364) 20631. Fax: (07364) 20082.

 Joint-Stock Company, "Spetsteplokhimmontazh". Address: 636070 Tomsk oblast, city of Seversk, Semenov Street, 22. Director: Boris Alekseyevich Kormashov. Telephone: (3822) 777932. Fax: (3822) 776939.

 Joint-Stock Company, "Uralgidromontazh". Address: 456780 Chelyabinsk oblast, city of Ozersk, Semenov Street, 22. Director: Anatoliy Ivanovich Loboda. Telephone: (35171) 79303. Fax: (35171) 73041.

 Joint-Stock Company, "Spetskhimmontazh". Address: 188537 Leningrad oblast, city of Sosnovyy Bor, P. O. Box 47. Director: Nikolay Nikolayevich Kiselev. Telephone: (81269) 64310. Fax: (81269) 64846.

 Joint-Stock Company, "Orgmontazhproyekt". Address: 119146 Moscow, First Frunze Street, 3a. Director: Igor Sergeyevich Ivashkin. Telephone: (095) 2428692. Fax: (095) 2460191.

 Joint-Stock Company, "KONATEM Concern". Address: 144001 Moscow oblast, city of Electrostal, Stroitelnyy Lane, 8. Director: Aleksandr Nikolayevich. Telephone: (095) 70207725. Fax: (095) 7029070.

 Novosibirsk Plant, "Promstalkonstruktsia". Address: 630075 city of Novosibirsk, Tayginskaya Street, 11. Director: Vladimir Ivanovich Berezikov. Telephone: (3832) 765797. Fax: (3832) 743221.

 Open Joint-Stock Company (Holding), "Spetsstroymaterialy". Address: 113191 Moscow, Kholodilnyy Lane, 3a. Director: Vladimir Aleksandrovich Barkov. Telephone: (095) 2353165. Fax. (095) 2353809.

 Open Joint-Stock Company, "Kamishlov Plant of Building Materials". Address: 623530 Sverdlovsk oblast, City of Kamyshlov, Street Stroiteley [Street of the Bulders], 1. Director: Oleg Timofeyevich Boyarnikov. Telephone: (34375) 93205. Fax: (34375) 24547.

 Open Joint-Stock Company, "Vikhorevka Timber-Cutting Combine". Address: 665737 Irkutsk oblast, city of Vikhorevka. Director: Vladimir Grigoryevich Serov. Telephone: (39531) 53548.

 Open Joint-Stock Company, "Gisopolimer". Address: 614043 Perm, Vasilyev Street, 1. Director: Maksim Veniaminovich Kirichenko, General Director. Telephone: (3422) 257315. Fax: (3422) 250743.

 Open Joint-Stock Company, "NIKBOOR". Address: 144001 Moscow oblast, city of Electrostal, Stroitelnyy Lane, 5. Director: Vasiliy Nikolayevich Gulko. Telephone: (095) 7029713. Fax: (095) 7029713. [Sic. Fax no. is same as tel. no.].

 Open Joint-Stock Company, "Stroyplastpolimer". Address: 620024 Yekaterinburg-24, Bisertskaya Street, 1. Director: Aleksandr Ivanovich Melnik, General Director. Telephone: (3432) 258811. Fax: (3432) 255233.

 Open Joint-Stock Company, "Udmurtiya Plant of Building Materials". Address: 427600 Respublika Udmurtiya, Glazov, Sovetskaya Street, 49. Director: Anatoliy Aleksandrovich Fedorovskiy. Telephone: (34141) 72564. Fax: (34141) 76482.

 Open Joint-Stock Company, "Lesstrom". Address: 618500 Perm oblast, city of Solikamsk, Kommunist Street, 44. Director: Aleksandr Nikolayevich Zinovyev. Telephone: (34253) 30107. Fax: (34253) 30100.

 Open Joint-Stock Company, "Iskitimramorgranit". Address: 633210 Novosibirsk oblast, Iskitim-5, Tsentralnaya Street, 24. Director: Aleksandr Semenovich Chirkov. Telephone: (38343) 42753, 44745.

 Open Joint-Stock Company, "Chuna Timber-Cutting Combine". Address: 665540 Irkutsk oblast, Chuna post office. Director: Vladimir Serafimovich Ilinskiy, General Director. Telephone: (39567) 91930. Fax: (39567) 91162.

 Open Joint-Stock Company, "Polistrom". Address: 456616 Chelyabinsk oblast, city of Kopeyk, Tomsk Street, 2. Director: Vladimir Gustavovich Adayev, General Director. Telephone: (35126) 10373. Fax: (35126) 10373. [Sic. Fax no. is same as tel. no.].

 Open Joint-Stock Company, "Krasnoyarskpolimerkeramika". Address: 663010 Krasnoyarsk kray, Berezovskiy rayon, Zykovo, Lineynaya Street, 31. Director: Aleksandr Vladimirovich Bevza, General Director. Telephone: (39175) 92510. Fax: (39175) 564089.

 Open Joint-Stock Company, "Tomsk Plant of Construction Materials and Products". Address: 634049 Tomsk, Irkutsk Road, 65. Director: Anatoliy Vasilyevich Valov, General Director. Telephone: (3822) 561793. Fax: (3822) 564089.

 Open Joint-Stock Company, Stroypolimerkeramika". Address: 249200 Kaluga oblast, Babinskiy rayon, settlement of Vorotynsk. Director: Said Vaitovich Mambetshayev, General Director. Telephone: (08425) 81401. Fax: (08425) 82271.

 Open Joint-Stock Company, "Stromashpolimer". Address: 249855 Kaluga oblast, Dzerzhinskiy rayon, settlement of Tovarkovo. Director: Sergey Vasilyevich Kondratyev. Telephone: (08434) 23315. Fax: (08434) 26419.

 Open Joint-Stock Company, "Tizol". Address: 624350 Sverdlovsk oblast, city of Nizhnyaya Tura-7. Director: Mikhail Grigoryevich Mansurov, General Director. Telephone: (34342) 23442. Fax: (34342) 211034.

 Open Joint-Stock Company, "Silikatstroymaterialy". Address: 636137 Tomsk oblast, settlement of Kopylovo. Director: Aleksey Alekseyevich Shachnev, General Director. Telephone: (38229) 82440. Fax: (38229) 82440.

 Open Joint-Stock Company, "Sortavala Crushing-Grading Plant". Address: 186750 Respublika Kareliya, city of Sortavala, Lesnaya Street, 2. Director: Yuriy Borisovich Yudin, General Director. Telephone: (81430) 42969.

 Closed Joint-Stock Company, "Filter". Address: 249855 Kaluga oblast, Dzerzhinskiy rayon, settlement of Tovarkovo. Director: Gennadiy Mikhaylovich Kadomtsev, General Director. Telephone: (08434) 23985.

 GUP [State Unitary Enterprise], "Volga Testing and Experimental Combine". Address: 171510 Tver oblast, Kimry rayon, settlement of Savelovo. Director: Yuriy Aleksandrovich Matlakhov. Telephone: (095) 2760272. Fax: (095) 5877770.

 Scientific-Research and Design Institutes; Scientific and Scientific-Technical Centers and Organizations of the Ministry of Atomic Energy of the Russian Federation; Physical Profile on Research and Servicing of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle and the Servicing of the Atomic Power Plants.

 All-Russian Scientific-Research Institute of Experimental Physics of the Russian Federal Nuclear Center (VNIIEF-RFYaTs). Address: 607190 Sarov, Nizhegorodsk oblast, Mir Avenue, 37. Director: Radiy Ivanovich Ilkayev. Telephone: (83130) 56951, 11264, 11803. Fax: (83130) 53808, 54565. Telex: 151 109 APCA. Web: http:

www.vniief.ru.

 All-Russian Scientific-Research Institute of Technical Physics--Russian Federal Nuclear Center (VNIITF-RFYaTs). Address: 456770 Snezhinsk, Chelyabinsk oblast, P. O. Box 245. Director: Georgiy Nikolayevich Rykovanov. Telephone: (35172) 32028. Fax: (35172) 32351. Telex: 124 846 SNOW SU. Web: http:

/ Russian Scientific Center, "Kurchatov Institute". Address: 123182 Moscow, Kurchatov Square, 1. Director: Yevgeniy Pavlovich Velikhov, President. Telephone: (095) 9430074. Web: http:

www.kiae.ru

 State Scientific Center of the Russian Federation, Troitsk Institute of Innovative and Thermo- Nuclear Research (GNTs RF TRINITI). Address: 142092 Moscow oblast, Troitsk. Director: Vyacheslav Dmitriyevich Pismennyy. Telephone: (095) 3345041. Fax: (095) 3345776. Web: http:

www.triniti.troitsk.ru.

 State Scientific Center of the Russian federation, " A. I. Leypunskiy Physics-Energy Institute" (GNTs RF FEI). Address: 249020 Kaluga oblast, city of Obninsk, Bondarenko Square, 1. Director: Anatoliy Vasilyevich Zrodnikov. Telephone: (095) 9530017, extension 8231. Fax: (09439) 48225. Web: http:

www.ippe.obninsk.ru.

 State Unitary Enterprise, "Scientific-Research and Design Institute of Power Engineering" (NIKIET). Address: 101000 Moscow, General Post Office, P. O. Box 788. Director: Boris Arsentyevich Gabarayev. Telephone: (095) 9752017. Fax: (095) 9752019. Web: http:

www.entek.ru

 Sverdlovsk Branch of the Scientific-Research and Design Institute of Power Engineering (NIKIET). Address: 624051 Yekaterinburg oblast, Beloyarsk rayon, Zarechnyy. Director: Viktor Ivanovich Perekhozhev. Telephone: (34377) 35162. Fax: (34377) 33396.

 State Scientific Center, Scientific-Research Institute of Atomic Reactors (GNTs RF NIIAR). Address: 433510 Ulyanovsk oblast, Dimitrovgrad-10. Director: Aleksey Frolovich Grachev. Telephone: (84235) 35648. Web: http:

www.niiar.simbirsk.su

 State Scientific Center of the Russian Federation, "Institute of Theoretical and Experimental Physics" (GNTs RF ITEF). Address: 117259 Moscow, Bolshaya Cheremushkinskaya Street, 25. Director: Mikhail Vladimirovich Danilov. Telephone: (095) 1250292. Fax: (095) 1270833. Web: http:

www.itep.ru

 State Scientific Center of the Russian Federation, "Institute of High Energy Physics" (GNTs RF IFVE). Address: 142284 Moscow oblast, Serpukhov rayon, Protvino, Pobeda street, 1. Director: Anatoliy Alekseyevich Logunov. Telephone: (095) 2175857. Fax: (095) 9246752. Web: http:

www.ihep.su.

 Joint Institute of Nuclear Research (OIYaI). Address: 141980 Moscow oblast, Dubna. Director: Vladimir Georgyevich Kadyshevskiy. Telephone: (095) 2002283. Fax: (095) 9752381. Web: http:

www.jinr.ru

 Scientific-Research Institute of Pulse Engineering (NIIIT). Address: 115304 Moscow, Luganskaya Street, 9. Director: Konstantin Nikolayevich Danilenko. Telephone: (095) 3213501. Fax: (095) 3214855.

 Yu. S. Sedkov Scientific-Research Institute of Measuring Systems (NIIIS). Address: 603600 N. Novgorod, GSP. Director: Valentin Yefimovich Kostyukov. Telephone: (8312) 654990. Fax: (8312) 668752.

 State Unitary Scientific-Technical Enterprise, "EFKON" (GNTP "EFKON"). Address: 601190 Nizhegorod oblast, Sarov, Yunost Street, 22. Director: Anatoliy Petrovich Inozemtsev. Telephone: (83130) 45705. Fax: (83130) 45994.

 Design Bureau of Auto-Transport Equipment (KB ATO). Address: 141007 Moscow oblast, city of Mytishchi, Khlebozavodskaya Street, 2. Director: Ernest Pavlovich Kornilovich. Telephone: (095) 5832303. Fax: (095) 5839334.

 State Unitary Enterprise, "A. P. Aleksandrov Scientific-Research and Technological Institute" (NITI). Address: 188537 Leningrad oblast, Sosnovyy Bor. Director: Vyacheslav Andreyevich Vasilenko. Telephone: (81269) 62667. Fax: (81269) 63672.

 All-Russian Scientific-research Institute of Technical Physics and Automation (VNIITFA). Address: 115230 Moscow, Varshavskoye Highway, 46. Director: Nikolay Revokatovich. Telephone: (095) 1119496. Fax: (095) 1115434. Web: http:

www.vniitfa.ru

/ Saransk Branch of the All-Russian Scientific-Research Institute of Technical Physics And Automation (VNIITFA). Address: 430003 Respublika Mordoviya, city of Saransk, Rabochaya Street, 82. Director: Vladimir Ivanovich Piskunov. Telephone: (8342) 171155. Fax: (8342) 171019.

 State Unitary Enterprise, "Special Science and Production Association 'Eleron' (SNPO "Eleron"). Address: 115563 Moscow, General Belov Street, 14. Director: Yevgeniy Trofimovich Mishin. Telephone: (095) 3939072. Fax: (095) 3939163.

 Branch State Unitary Enterprise, Special Science and Production Association "Eleron" Scientific-Research and Design Institute of Radio-Electronic Engineering (NIKIRET). Address: 440901 Penza oblast, Zarechnyy, Mir Avenue, 1. Director: Yuriy Aleksandrovich Olenin. Telephone: (8412) 629474. Fax: (8412) 552528.

 Branch Enterprise, Special Science and Production Association "Eleron" State Unitary Enterprise "Dedal". Address: 141930 Moscow oblast, Dubna, P.O. Box 89. Director: Sergey Leonidovich Fedyayev. Telephone: (221) 62120. Fax: (221) 40469.

 Branch Special Science and Production Association Eleron" "Lepton". Address: 353340 Stavropol kray, Lermontov, Komsomol Street, 24. Director: Anatoliy Vladimirovich Podshibyakin. Telephone: (86535) 22530.

 N. L. Dukhov All-Russian Scientific Research Institute of Automation (VNIIA). Address: 101000 Moscow, P. O. Box 918. Director: Yuriy Nikolayevich Barmakov. Telephone: (095) 9787803. Fax: (095) 9780903.

 State Unitary Enterprise, "Scientific-Research Institute of Instruments" (NIIP). Address: 140061 Moscow oblast, Lytkarino, settlement of Turayevo. Director: Vladimir Ivanovich Rogov. Telephone: (095) 5523939. Fax: (095) 5523911.

 State Enterprise, "D. V. Yeremov Scientific-Research Institute of Electro-Physics Equipment" (NIIEFA). Address: 189631 St. Petersburg, Metallostroy, Sovetskiy Avenue, 1. Director: Vasiliy Andreyevich. Telephone: (812) 4648963 Fax: (812) 4647979.

 Institute of Physics-Technical Problems (IFTP). Address: 141980 Moscow oblast, Dubna, GUS, P. O. Box 39. Director: Vladimir Pavlovich Plotnikov. Telephone: (095) 9262209. Fax: (221) 65523.

 Research Center of Applied Nuclear Physics (ITsPYaF). Address: 141980 Moscow oblast, Dubna, Zh. Kyuri Street, 6. Director: Vladimir Dmitriyevich Shestakov. Telephone: (221) 40665. Fax: (221) 65523.

 Moscow Radio-Engineering Institute (MRTI). Address: 113519 Moscow, Varshavskoye Highway, 132. Director: Gennadyy Ivanovich Batskikh. Telephone: (095) 3153111. Fax: (095) 3141053.

 State Center, "Physics of Concentrated Media" Address: 123060 Moscow, VNIINM [All-Russian Scientific-Research Institute of Inorganic Materials]. Director: Aleksandr Zinovyevich Solontsov. Telephone: (095) 1966389. Fax: (095) 1966389. [Sic. Fax no. is same as tel. no.]

 Joint-Stock Company, "Scientific-Production Center, "Rosna". Address: 620151 Yekaterinburg, General Post Office, P. O. Box 74. Director: Grigoriy Yemelyanovich Vedernikov. Telephone: (3432) 413228. Fax: (3432) 413370.

 Scientific-Engineering Center, "SNIIP" (NITs "SNIIP"). Address: 123060 Moscow, Raspletin street, 5. Director: Sergey Borisovich Chebyshov. Telephone: (095) 1987947. Fax: (095) 9430063. Web: http:

www.sniip.ntl.ru

 Specialized Design-Structure Bureau, "Automation" (SPKB "Avtomatika"). Address: 153428 Ivanovo, 11-th Sosnevskaya, 72. Director: Yevgeniy Borisovich Butnikov. Telephone: (0932) 304275. Fax: (0932) 350548.

 State Scientific-Research and Design Enterprise, "Vibrotekhnika". (GNIKP "Vibrotekhnika"). Address: 109017 Moscow, B. Ordynka Street, 29. Director: Vladimir Petrovich Savchenko. Telephone: (095) 9516750. Fax: (095) 2394609.

 All-Russian Design-Research and Scientific-Research Institute of Industrial Technology (VNIPI Promtekhnolgii). Address: 115409 Moscow, Kashirskoye Highway, 33. Director: Vladimir Viktorovich Lopatin. Telephone: (095) 3247945. Fax: (095) 3245025.

 Siberian Branch of the All-Russian Design-Research and Scientific-Research Institute of Industrial Technology (SibNIIPromtekhnologii). Address: 674665 Chitin oblast, Krasnokamensk, P. O. Box 3. Director: Nikolay Matveyevich Zemskov. Telephone: (30245) 26147. Fax: (30245) 43670.

 All-Russian Scientific-Research Institute of Chemical Technology (VNIIKhT). Address: 115230 Moscow, Kashirskoye Highway, 3. Director: Viktor Vasilyevich Shatalov. Telephone: (095) 3247584. Fax: (095) 3245441.

 State Scientific Center of the Russian Federation, "A. A. Bochvar All-Russian Scientific-Research Institute of Inorganic Materials" (VNIINM). Address: 123060 Moscow, Rogov Street, 5. Director: Mikhail Ivanovich Solonin. Telephone: (095) 1904993. Fax: (095) 1964168. Web: http:

www.bochvar.ru

 Siberian Branch of State scientific Center of the Russian Federation, "A. A. Bochvar All- Russian Scientific Research Institute of Inorganic Materials". Address: 634018 Tomsk oblast, Seversk, Lermontov Street, 13. Director: Aleksandr Yakovlevich Svarovskiy. Telephone: (38242) 61880. Fax: (3822) 776739.

 State Unitary Enterprise, Scientific-Research Institute, "Luch" (NII "Luch"). Address: 142100 Moscow oblast, city of Podolsk, Zheleznodorozhnaya Street, 24.

 Science and Production Association, "V. G. Khlopin Radium Institute". Address: 194021 St. Petersburg, 2-nd Murinskiy Thoroughfare, 28. Director: Aleksandr Andreyevich Rimskiy-Korsakov. Telephone: (812) 2475641. Fax: (812) 2475781. Web: http:

 Scientific-Research Institutes and Design Institutes, Scientific Centers, and Scientific- Technical Centers of the Ministry of Atomic Energy of the Russian Federation for Research and Servicing of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle:

 Moscow Science and Production Association, "Radon" (NPO "Radon"). Address: 141335 Moscow oblast, Sergiyevo-Posadskiy rayon, sub-division Shemetovo. Director: Igor Andreyevich Sobolev. Telephone: (095) 9289069. Fax: (095) 9289916. Web: http:

www.radon.ru

 Central Laboratory for the Protection of the Environment. Address: 607190 Nizhegorod oblast, Sarov, P. O. Box 423. Director: Vasiliy Dmitriyevich Davydok. Telephone: (83130) 45288. Fax: (86130) 45288.

 Central Scientific-Research Laboratory. Address: 440901 Penza oblast, Zarechnyy, Mir Avenue, 1. Director: Vladimir Mikhaylovich Sorokin. Telephone: (8412) 692706.

 Scientific-Production Center for Conversion. Address: 101000 Moscow, B. Ordynka Street, 24/26. Director: Aleksandr Dmitriyevich Tsisarskiy. Telephone: (095) 2392205. Fax: (095) 2392711.

 All-Russian Scientific-Research Institute for Utilization of Atomic Power Stations (VNII AES). Address: 105507 Moscow, Ferganskaya Street, 25. Director: Armen Artvazdovich Abagyan. Telephone: (095) 3761550. Fax: (095) 3768333. Web: http:

www.vniiaes.ru.

 Scientific-Technical Center for Emergency-Technical Work at Atomic Power Stations (NTTs ATR). Address: 109507 Moscow, Ferganskaya Street, 25. Director: Eduard Saakovich Saakov. Telephone: (095) 5819223. Fax: (095) 5818011.

 Technological Branch of the Scientific-Technical Center for Emergency Work at Atomic Power Stations. Address: 142530 Moscow oblast, Pavlo-Posadskiy rayon, Elektrogorsk, Bezymyannaya Street, 6. Director: Anatoliy Yuryevich Likhachev. Telephone: (095) 3760069. Fax: (095) 3760069 [Sic. Fax no. is same as tel. no.].

 Structural Design Branch of the Scientific-Technical Center for Emergency Work at Atomic Power Stations. Address: 107818 Moscow, Bakunin Street, 7, building 1. Director: Mikhail Falevich Rogov. Telephone: (095) 3891355. Fax: (095) 3891355. [Sic. Fax no. is same as tel. no.].

 Dimitrovgrad Branch of the Scientific-Technical Center for Emergency Work at Atomic Power Stations. Address: 433510 Ulyanovsk oblast, Dimitrovgrad. Director: Vasiliy Ivanovich Shepilov. Telephone: (84235) 34063. Fax: (84235) 35648.

 Elektrogorsk Scientific-Research Center for Security of Atomic Power Stations. Address: 142530 Moscow oblast, Pavlo-Posadskiy rayon, Elektrogorsk, Bezymyannaya Street, 6. Director: Vladimir Nikolayevich Blinkov. Telephone: (243) 33074. Fax: (243) 31235.

 Joint-Stock Company, "Small Power Engineering" [Malaya Energetika]". Address: 105318 Moscow, Tkatskaya Street, Building 1, P. O. Box No. 75. Director: Yevgeniy Alekseyevich Kuzin, General Director. Telephone: (095) 9629269. Fax: (095) 9641900. Web: http:

www.glasnet.ru/~merev Design [Institutes]:

 State Specialized Design Institute (GSPI). Address: 107014 Moscow, Novoryazan Street, building 8a. Director: Vladimir Lvovich Rozhkov. Telephone: (095) 2611259. Fax: (095) 2617264.

 State Unitary Enterprise, Leading Institute "All-Russian Design and Scientific- Research Institute of Integrated Power Engineering technology (GI VNIPIET). Address: 197228 St. Petersburg, Savushkin Street, 82. Director: Valeriy Dmitriyevich Safutin. Telephone: (812) 4301491. Fax: (812) 4300393.

 Krasnoyarsk State Design-Research Institute of VNIPIET [see acronym expansion above]. Address: 660026 Krasnoyarsk kray, Zheleznogorsk, Lenin Street, 39. Director: Yuriy Nikolayevich Baskakov. Telephone: (39197) 22087. Fax: (39197) 25625.

 Tomsk State Design-Research Institute of VNIPIET. Address: 634039 Tomsk oblast, Seversk, Kurchatov Street, 2. Director: Vitaliy Alekseyevich Mishin. Telephone: (35171) 79550. Fax: (35171) 73822.

 Novosibirsk State Design-Research Institute of VNIPIET. Address: 630075 Novosibirsk-75, B. Khmelnitskiy Street, 2. Director: Anatoliy Vladimirovich Volushchuk. Telephone: (3832) 761315. Fax: (3832) 769613.

 Sosnovyy Bor State Design-Research Institute of VNIPIET. Address: 188537 Leningrad oblast, Sosnovyy Bor, 50-th October Anniversary Street, 1, P. O. Box 115.

 Sosnovyy Bor State Scientific-Research Institute of VNIPIET. Address: 188537 Leningrad oblast, Sosnovyy Bor, P. O. Box 49. Telephone: (81269) 79452. Fax: (81269) 63480.

 Sosnovyy Bor State Scientific-Research Institute of VNIPIET. Address: 188537 Leningrad oblast, Sosnovyy Bor, P. O. Box 49. Director: Leonid Vasilyevich Kizhnerov. Telephone: (81269) 64373. Fax: (81269) 61932.

 State Unitary Enterprise, Scientific-Research and Structural Design Institute, "Atomenergoproekt". Address: 107815 Moscow, Bakunin Street, block 7, building. 1. Director: Andrey Borisovich Malyshev. Telephone: (095) 2614187. Fax: (095) 2650974.

 State Unitary Enterprise, St. Petersburg Scientific-Research and Structural Design Institute, "Atomenergoproekt". Address: 19306 St. Petersburg, Suvorov Avenue, 2a. Director: Vladislav Nikolayevich Korkunov. Telephone: (812) 2772196. Fax: (812) 2770703.

 State Unitary Enterprise, Nizhegorod Scientific-Research and Structural Design Institute, "Atomenergoproekt". Address: 603006 N. Novgorod, GSP-54, Svoboda Square, 3. Director: Yevgeniy Mikhaylovich Koroloev. Telephone: (8312) 333424. Fax: (8312) 358490.

 Joint-Stock Company, "Sverdlovsk Scientific-Research Institute of Chemical Machine-Building (SverdNIIkhimmash). Address: 620010 Yekaterinburg, Groboyedov Street, 32. Director: Boris Pimanovich Shevelin. Telephone: (3432) 274310. Fax: (3432) 275505.

 State Unitary Enterprise, Experimental Design Bureau, "Gidropress" (OKB "GIDROPRESS"). Address: 142103 Moscow oblast, city of Podolsk, Ordzhonikidze Street, 21. Director: Yuriy Grigoryevich Dragunov. Telephone: (275) 42576. Fax: (275) 42516.

 State Unitary Enterprise, "I. I. Afrikantov Experimental Design Bureau of Machine- Building". Address: 603074 N. Novgorod, Burnakov Avenue, 15. Director: Aleksandr Ivanovich Kiryushin. Telephone: (8312) 418772. Fax: (8312) 418772. [Sic. Fax no. is same as tel. no.]

 State Unitary Enterprise, Central Design Bureau of Machine-Building" (TsKBM). Address: 195272 St. Petersburg, Krasnoyarsk Square, 3. Director: Yevgeniy Nikolayevich Sokolov. Telephone: (812) 2242075. Fax: (812) 2243257.

 Science and Production Association, "Scientific-Research and Design Institute of Installation Technology" (NPO NIKIMT). Address: 127410 Moscow Altufyevskoye Highway, 43. Director: Leonid Nikolayevich Shchavelev. Telephone: (095) 4899095. Fax: (095) 903100.

 Joint-Stock company, Design-Research and Scientific-Research Institute, "OrgstroyNIIproekt". Address: 113191 Moscow, Kholodilnyy Lane, 3a. Director: Nikolay Nikolayevich Yegorov. Telephone: (095) 2353841. Fax: (095) 2351941.

 Joint-Stock Company, Lermontov Design-Research Institute, "OrgstroyNIIproekt". Address: 357340 Stavropol kray, city of Lermontov, Lermontov Avenue, 1. Director: Vladimir Stepenovich Sorokin. Telephone: (86535) 31604. Fax: (86535) 22191.

 State Unitary Enterprise, Siberian Design Research Institute, "OrgstroyNIIproekt". Address: 665830 Irkutsk oblast, city of Angarsk, Vostochnaya Street, 14. Director: Viktor Ivanovich Shkaptsov. Telephone: (39518) 95945. Fax: (39518) 526745.

 Joint-Stock Company, "Siberian Structural-Design Technological Institute". Address: 630055 Novosibirsk, M. Dzhalil Street, 21. Director: Aleksandr Vladimirovich Glinskiy. Telephone: (3832) 321330. Fax: (3832) 323245.

 State Enterprise, Design-Technological Trust, "Orgstroy-11". Address: 113191 Moscow, Danilov Bank, 10/12. Director: Yuriy Aleksandrovich Pokrovskiy. Telephone: (095) 2376400. Fax: (095) 2376407.

 Informational and analytical [facilities].

 The Situation-Crisis Center. Address: 101100 Moscow, B. Ordynka Street, 24/26. Director: Venedikt Petrovich Berchik. Telephone: (095) 2392875. Fax: (095) 2382890.

 Central Scientific-Research Institute of Control, Economics, and Information of The Ministry of Atomic Energy of Russia (TsNIIatominform). Address: 127434 Moscow, Dmirovskoye Highway, 2. Director: Nikolay Yegorovich Yakovlev. Telephone: (095) 9767272. Fax: (095) 9767203.

 Novosibirsk Branch of TsNIIATOMINFORM (see acronym expansion above)--Branch Scientific-Technical Center of Information Science in Construction (ONTTs "Informstroy"). Address: 630055 Novosibirsk, M. Dzhalil Street, 23. Director: Anatoliy Nikolayevich Tseba. Telephone: (3832) 321747. Fax: (3832) 325853.

 Angarsk Scientific-Research Center of Control, Economics, and Information Science (ATOMINFORM-A). Address: 665816 Irkutsk oblast, Angarsk, P. O. Box 289. Director: Vitaliy Valentinovich Denisenko. Telephone: (39518) 43621. Fax: (39518) 40262.

 State Enterprise, "Chernobyl Archive". Address: 109017 Moscow, B. Ordynka Street, 24/26. Director: Yevgeniy Viktorovich Postnikov. Telephone: (095) 2394687. Fax: (095) 2392237.

 Firm for Commercial Advertisement and Scientific-Technical Propagation. Address: 113105 Moscow, Varshavskoye Highway, 3. Director: Stanislav Mikhaylovich Tsvetayev. Telephone: (095) 9541082. Fax: (095) 9525963.

 Inter-Branch Coordination Center, "Nuklid" Address: 194100 St. Petersburg, Lesnoy Avenue, 64. Director: Nina Simonovna Yanovskaya. Telephone: (812) 5429342. Fax: (812) 5426228.    

 Informational and Analytical Scientific-Research Institutes, Science Centers, and Scientific-Technical Centers of the Ministry of Atomic Energy of the Russian Federation:

 State Unitary Enterprise, "Exhibition and Marketing Center." Address: 109017 Moscow, B. Ordynka Street, 24/26. Director: Galina Viktorovna Gorshteyn. Telephone: (095) 2392853. Fax: (095) 2392690.

 Press-Service of the Ministry of Atomic Energy of the Russian Federation. Address: 109017 Moscow, B. Ordynka Street, 24/26. Director: Yuriy Grigoryevich Bespalko. Telephone: (095) 2394650. Fax: (095) 2392535.

 Others:

 All-Russian Scientific-Research Institute for the Comprehensive Use of Milk Raw Materials (VNIKIM). Address: 355040 Stavropol-40, Dovatortsev Street, 52a. Director: Veterinary Surgeon, Director of Milkmen. Telephone: (8652) 97592. Fax: (8652) 73615.

 State Establishment, Institute for Problems of Secure Development of Atomic Power, Russian Academy of Sciences ( IBRAE RAN). Address: 113191 Moscow, B. Tulskaya Street, 52. Director: Leonid Aleksandrovich Bolshov, Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Telephone: (095) 9522421. Fax: (095) 9581151. Web: http:

www.ibrae.ac.ru

 Institute of Nuclear Physics of Budker (IyaF). Address: 630090 Novosibirsk, Lavrentyev Avenue, 11. Director: A. N. Skrynskiy. Telephone: (3832) 356031. Fax: (3832) 352163. Web: http:

www.inp.nsk.su.

 D. V. Skobeltsyn Scientific-Research Institute of Nuclear Physics (NIIYaF MGU). Address: 119899 Moscow, Vorobyevy gory, NIIYaF MGU. Director: Mikhail Igoryevich Panasyuk. Telephone: (095) 9391818. Fax: (095) 9390896. Web: http:

www.npi.msu.su.

 St. Petersburg Institute of Nuclear Physics. Address: 188350 Leningrad oblast, Gatchina. Director: V. A. Nazarenko. Telephone: (812) 7137196. Fax: (812) 7137196.

 11. Educational Establishments.

 Moscow State Engineering-Physics Institute (Technical University) (MIFI). Address: 115409 Moscow, Kashirovskoye Highway, 31. Director: Boris Nikolayevich Onykiy. Telephone: (095) 324 3384. Web: http:

www.mifi.ru

 Ozersk Technological Institute of Moscow State Engineering-Physics Institute. Address: 456783 Chelyabinsk oblast, city of Ozersk, Pobeda Avenue, 48. Director: Yuriy Nikolayevich Stepanov, Rector. Telephone: (35171) 44646.

 Novouralsk Polytechnic Institute of Moscow State Engineering-Physics Institute. Address: 624130 Sverdlovsk oblast, city of Novouralsk-3, Lenin street, 85. Director: Aleksey Petrovich Dyagilev. Telephone: (34370) 23580.

 Polytechnic Institute of Moscow State Engineering-Physics Institute. Address: 620045 Sverdlovsk oblast, city of Lesnoy, Kommunist Avenue, 36. Director: Vyacheslav Mikhaylovich Khrapal. Telephone: (34342) 60963. Fax: (34342) 55621.

 Sarov Physics-Technical Institute of Moscow State Engineering-Physics Institute. Address: 607200 Nizhegorod oblast, Sarov, Dukhov Street, 6. Director: Yuriy Petrovich Shcherbak. Telephone: (83130) 59809.

 Trekhgornyy Polytechnic Institute of Moscow State Engineering-Physics Institute. Address: 456080 Chelyabinsk oblast, city of Trekhgornyy, Mir Street, 17. Director: Fedor Ivanovich Dolinin, Rector. Telephone: (35111) 67067.

 Snezhinsk Physics-Technical Institute--Branch of Moscow State Engineering-Physics Institute. Address: 456776 Chelyabinsk oblast, city of Snezhinsk, Mir Street, 6/8. Director: Vladimir Makarovich Skovpen. Telephone: (35172) 32422. Fax: (35172) 32256.

 Northern Technological Institute of Tomsk Polytechnic University. Address: 634036 Tomsk-36, Kommunist Avenue, 65. Director: Aleksandr Nikolayevich Zhiganov. Telephone: (3822) 779529.

 St. Petersburg State Technical University. Address: 195251 St. Petersburg, Politekhnicheskaya Street, 29. Director: Yuriy Sergeyevich Vasilyev, President. Telephone: (812) 2471616. Fax: (812) 5527882.

 St. Petersburg State Technological Institute (Technical University), Engineering Physics- Chemistry Faculty. Address: 198013 St. Petersburg, Moscow Avenue, 26. Director: Anatoliy Sergeyevich Dudyrev. Telephone: (812) 2596500. Fax: (812) 1127791.

 Moscow Power Institute (MEI). Address: 105835 Moscow, Krasnokazarmennaya Street, 14. Director: Yevgennyy Viktorovich Ametistov, Rector. Telephone: (095) 3627088. Web: http:

www.mpei.ac.ru

 Inter-Branch Special Training Center affiliated to the Ministry of Atomic Energy of Russia. Address: 249020 Kaluga oblast, Obninsk, Kurchatov Street, 21. Director: Vladimir Nikolayevich Serikov. Telephone: (08439) 25344. Fax: (08439) 48510.

 State Central Institute for Qualification Enhancement. Address: 249020 Kaluga oblast, Obninsk, Kurchatov Street, 21. Director: Yuriy Petrovich Rydnev. Telephone: (08439) 48833. Fax: (08439) 48011.

 Moscow Institute for Qualification Enhancement, "Atomenergo". Address: 125413 Moscow, Senezhskaya Street, 1/9. Director: Nikolay Ivanovich Ishchenko, Rector. Telephone: (095) 453 0277. Fax: (095) 453 8559.

 State Regional Educational Center of the Ministry of Atomic Energy of Russia. Address: 197348 St. Petersburg, Aerodromnaya Street, 4. Director: Yuriy Petrovich Lisnenko, Rector. Telephone: (812) 3945005.

 Ural Institute for Qualification Enhancement, "Progress". Address: 624133 Sverdlovsk oblast, city of Novouralsk, Pervomayskaya Street, 107. Director: Valeriy Ivanovich Makarov. Telephone: (34370) 91601. Fax: (34370) 91354. Web: http:

/ Siberian Institute for Qualification Enhancement, "Spetsmontazh". Address: 630075 Novosibirsk-75, Narodnaya Street, 7/1. Director: Oleg Igorevich Sidorov. Telephone: (3832) 760564. Fax: (3832) 760117.

 Central Scientific-Research Institute of Control, Economics, and Information of the Ministry of Atomic energy of Russia (TsNIIatominform). Address: 127434 Moscow, Dmitrovskoye Highway, 2. Director: Nikolay Yegorovich Yakovlev. Telephone: (095) 9767272. Fax: (095) 9767203.

 Novosibirsk Branch of TsNIATOMINFORM [see acronym expansion above]--Branch Scientific-Technical Center of Information Science in Construction (ONTTs "Informstroy). Address: 630055 Novosibirsk, M. Dzhalil Street, 23. Director: Anatoliy Nikolayevich Tseba. Telephone: (3832) 321747. Fax: (3832) 325853.

 Angarsk Scientific-Research Center of Control, Economics, and Information (ATOMINFORM-A). Address: 665816 Irkutsk oblast, Angarsk, P. O. Box 289. Director: Vitaliy Valentinovich Denisenko. Telephone: (39518) 43621. Fax: (39518) 40262.

 State Enterprise, "Chernobyl Archive". Address: 109017 Moscow, B. Ordynka Street, 24/26. Director: Yevgenyy Viktorovich Postnikov. Telephone: (095) 2394687. Fax: (095) 2392237.

 Firm for Commercial Advertisement and Scientific-Technical Propagation. Address: 103105 Moscow, Varshavskoye Highway, 3. Director: Stanislav Mikhaylovich Tsvetayev. Telephone: (095) 9541082. Fax: (095) 9525963.

 Northern Indusrial College (municipal educational establishment). Address: 636070 Tomsk obalst, Seversk, Kommunist Avenue, 65. Director: Aleksandr Nikolayevich Zhiganov. Telephone: (3822) 779529.

 Beloyarsk Polytechnic College Address: 624051 Sverdlovsk oblast, Zarechnyy, Lenin Street, 27. Director: Oleg Nikolayevich Arefyev. Telephone: (34377) 32004.

 Balakhna Polytechnic College. Address: 606400 Nizhegorod oblast, Balakhna, Dzerzhinskiy Street, 21. Director: Aleksandr Aleksandrovich Checherin. Telephone: (83144) 20781.

 Moscow Industrial College. Address: 113191 Moscow, Kholodilnyy Lane, 7. Director: Viktor Sergeyevich Geraskin. Telephone: (095) 9522621.

 Moscow Oblast Polytechnic College. Address: 144000 Mocow oblast, Electrostal, Lenin Street, 41. Director: Nikolay Stepanovich. Telephone: (095) 7029028.

 Siberian Polytechnic College. Address: 630075 Novosibirsk-75, B. Khmelnitskiy Street, 9. Director: Pavel Andreyevich Tereshchenko. Telephone: (3832) 760239.

 Novovoronezh Polytechnic College. Address: 396072 Voronezh oblast, Novovoronezh, Oktyabrskaya Street. Director: Mikhail Alekseyevich Dukhanin. Telephone: (07364) 28096.

 Yuzhnouralsk Polytechnic College. Address: 456783 Chelyabinsk oblast, Ozersk, Pobeda Street, 48. Director: Angelina Valentinovna Romanovna. Telephone: (35171) 44623.

 Uralsk Polytechnic College. Address: 624130 Sverdlovsk oblast, Novouralsk-3, Lenin street, 85. Director: Leonid Nikolayevich Mochalov. Telephone: (34370) 22497.

 Volgodonsk Engineering College of Power-Machine Building. Address: 347340 Rostov oblast, Volgodonsk, Lenin street, 27. Director: Tamara Vailyevna Bazavova. Telephone: (86392) 25673.

 Zarechnyy Industrial College (municipal educational establishment). Address: 249020 Kaluga oblast, Obninsk, Lenin Avenue, 71. Director: Vladimir Petrovich Petrov. Telephone: (08439) 61209.

 Obninsk Poly-Engineering College. Address: 249020 Kaluga oblast, Obninsk, Lenin Avenue, 71. Director: Vladimir Petrovich Petrov. Telephone: (08439) 61209.

 Krasnoyarsk Electro-Mechanical Engineering College. Address: 663690 Krasnoyarsk kray, Zelenogorsk, Bortnikov Street, 13. Director: Grigoriy Antipyevich Porsev. Telephone: (39169) 34433.

 Angarsk Polytechnic College. Address: 665030 Irkutsk oblast, Angarsk, P. O. Box 60. Director: Yuriy Vasilyevich Dragunov. Telephone: (3951) 999362.

 Sosnovyy Bor Branch of Moscow Obalst Polytechnic College. Address: 188537 Leningrad oblast, Sosnovyy Bor, Mir Street, 5. Director: Tatyana Nikolayevna Keller. Telephone: (812) 69662224.

 Protvino Branch of Moscow Oblast Polytechnic College. Address: 142284 Moscow Oblast, Serpukhov rayon, P. O. Box 66. Director: Nadezhna Pavlovna Sholokhova, Branch Head. Telephone: (09677) 41362.

 Kirovo-Chepetsk Branch of Moscow Oblast Polytechnic College. Address: 613020 Kirov oblast, Kirovo-Chepetsk, P. O. Box 32. Director: Lidiya Aleksandrovna Malykh, Branch Head. Telephone: (83361) 31296.

 Dubna Branch of Moscow Oblast Polytechnic College. Address: 141980 Moscow oblast, Dubna, Priborstroitelnaya Street, 2. Director: Galina Nikolayevna Lepunova, Head of Branch. Telephone: (09621) 40523.

 Glazov Branch of Moscow Oblast Polytechnic College. Address: 427600 Udmurt Republic, Glazov, General Post Office, P. O. Box 238. Director: Olga Andreyevna Trushkina, Head of Branch. Telephone: (34141) 30476.

 Professional-Technical School No. 1. Address: 171850 Tver Oblast, Udomlya, Kurchatov Avenue, 8. Director: Viktor Mikhaylovich Bezverkhov. Telephone: (08255) 43075.

 12. Export Services.

 Joint-Stock Company, "Tekhsnabeksport". Address: 109180 Moscow, Staromonetnyy Lane, 26. Director: Revmir Georgiyevich Frayshtut. Telephone: (095) 9533864. Fax: (095) 2302638.

 Firm, "Uranservis"--Director Aleksy Antonovich Grigoryev. Firm, "TVELy"--Director Oleg Valeriyevich Bondarenko. Firm, "Atomimpeks"--Director Viktor Mikhaylovich Rodin. Currency and Finance Section. Section for State of Market and Prices. Section for Foreign Relations and Protocol. Section for Informational Provision. Section for Processing and Protection of Information.

 Separation Plants.

 Ural Electro-Chemical Combine. Separation Plant. Address: 624130 Novouralsk, Sverdlovsk oblast, Dzerzhinskiy Street, 2. Director: Anatoliy Petrovich Knutarev, General Director. Telephone: (34370) 92424. Fax: (34370) 94141. Web: http:

www.ricon.e-burg.ru

 Electro-Chemical Plant (EkhZ). Separation Plant. Address: 663690 Zelenogorsk, Krasnoyarsk kray. Director: Anatoliy Nikolayevich Shubin, General Director. Telephone: (39169) 33350, 33321.

 Siberian Chemical Combine. Separation Plant. Address: 636070 Seversk, Tomsk oblast, Kurchatov oblast, 1. Director: Valeriy Konstantinovich Larin, General Director. Telephone: (3822) 771798. Fax: (3822) 772528. Web: http:

 Angarsk Electrolytic Chemical Combine. Separation Plant. Address: 665804 Irkutsk oblast, city of Angarsk. Director: Viktor Panteleymonovich Shopen. Telephone: (39518) 40710. Fax: 39518) 66715.

 Joint-Stock Company, "Atomstroyeksport". Address: 113184 Moscow, Malaya Ordynka Street, 35, building 3. Director: Viktor Vasilyevich Kozlov. Telephone: (095) 7379037.

 All-Regional Association, "Izotop" [Isotope].

 State Unitary Enterprise, All-Regional Association, "Izotop" (V/O "Izotop"). Address: 119435 Moscow, Pogodinskaya Street, 22. Director: Boris Viktorovich Akakiyev. Telephone: (095) 2450118. Fax: (095) 2452492.

 Yekaterinburg Enterprise, "Izotop". Address: 620142 Yekaterinburg, Belinskiy Street, 143. Director: Lilian Akhramovich Khamitov. Telephone: (3432) 223149. Fax: (3432) 227473.

 Khabarovsk Enterprise, "Izotop". Address: 680020 Khabarovsk, Volchayevskaya Street, 83. Director: Vladimir Vladimirovich Fedorov. Telephone: (4212) 222025. Fax: (4212) 222025.

 13. Business Partners of Enterprises of Ministry of Atomic Energy (none listed).

 14. Banks, Insurance Organizations, and Investment Companies (none listed).

 15. Ecological Organizations.

 Bellona. Web: http:

www.bellona.no.

 Green World. Web: http:

www.spb.org.ru/greenworld

 Social-Ecological Union. Web: http:

www.cci.glasnet.ru/seu

 Contructive-Ecological Movement, "Kedr". (no listing)

 Ecoline. Web: http:

www.cci.glasnet.ru

 World-Wide Informational Service for Problems of Energy. Web: http:

www.antenna.nl

 E-tip. Web: http:

www.ecologia.nier.org

 EcoNet. Web: http:

www.igs.org/igs/econet

 Grinpis [Greenpeace] Russia. Web: http:

www.greenpeace.ru

 Grinpis Interneshnl [Greenpeace International]. Web: http:

www.greenpeace.org

 Prima-M. Web: http:

www.glasnet.ru/aoprima

 Center for Disarmament, Energy, and Ecology MFTI [Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology]. Web: http:

www.armscontrol.ru

 16. Social and Non-Commercial Organizations. (none listed)

 17. Strategic Nuclear Forces of Russia. (none listed)      

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

guest essay

Is There a Constitutional Right to Talk About Abortion?

By Linda Greenhouse

Ms. Greenhouse, the recipient of a 1998 Pulitzer Prize, reported on the Supreme Court for The Times from 1978 to 2008 and was a contributing Opinion writer from 2009 to 2021.

There has hardly ever been as fierce a defender of free speech as the current Supreme Court.

Since John Roberts became chief justice almost 19 years ago, the court has expanded the protective net of the First Amendment to cover such activities as selling videos depicting animal torture, spending unlimited amounts of money in support of political candidates and refusing to pay dues (or a dues-like fee) to a public employee union.

This last decision, Janus v. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Council 31, overturned a 41-year-old precedent and led a dissenting justice, Elena Kagan, to accuse the majority of “weaponizing the First Amendment.” In the 303 Creative case last year, the court gave a Christian web designer the First Amendment right not to do business with would-be customers whose same-sex wedding websites would violate her views about marriage.

The court’s version of free speech has become a powerful tool against government regulation. Six years ago, effectively striking down a California law, the court gave so-called crisis pregnancy centers — offices that try to imitate abortion clinics but strive to persuade women to continue their pregnancies — a First Amendment right not to provide information on where a woman could actually get an abortion. The state said the notice was needed to help women who came to such centers under the false impression that they provided abortions. In his majority opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas said the “unduly burdensome” requirement amounted to unconstitutionally compelled speech.

Now the question is whether the court’s solicitude toward those who would rather not talk about abortion extends in the other direction. What about state laws that prohibit rather than require offering information about where to get an abortion?

While there is not yet such a case on the Supreme Court’s docket, lower courts have been tightening a First Amendment noose around efforts by anti-abortion states to curb the flow of information about how to obtain legal abortion care across state lines. Federal District Courts in Indiana and Alabama both ruled this month that while states in the wake of Roe v. Wade’s demise can ban abortion, they cannot make it illegal to give abortion-related advice, including advice to minors seeking abortions without parental consent.

A federal magistrate judge issued a similar ruling last November on Idaho’s abortion law, one of the most extreme in the country, which makes it a crime to assist a minor in obtaining an abortion in any state without a parent’s consent. Idaho could criminalize abortion, the judge, Debora Grasham, wrote. “What the state cannot do,” she went on, “is craft a statute muzzling the speech and expressive activities of a particular viewpoint with which the state disagrees under the guise of parental rights.” The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit heard Idaho’s appeal on May 7.

With the Supreme Court extremely unlikely to revisit its decision 23 months ago in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization that eradicated the constitutional right to abortion, the question of how far states can go to prevent their citizens from finding alternative ways to terminate a pregnancy will become increasingly urgent. In his concurring opinion in the Dobbs case, Justice Brett Kavanaugh raised the question of whether a state could now “bar a resident of that state from traveling to another state to obtain an abortion.” The answer was “no,” he continued, “based on the constitutional right to interstate travel.” It is worth noting that Justice Kavanaugh wrote only for himself; none of the other conservatives who made up the Dobbs majority joined him. “Other abortion-related legal questions may emerge in the future,” Justice Kavanaugh offered noncommittally.

The future arrived quickly enough in the form of the two abortion-related cases awaiting decision before the court’s current term, which concludes at the end of June or in early July. Both are anomalous in that they involve questions of federal rather than state authority.

One, Food and Drug Administration v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine , concerns the government’s approval of the expanded use of the medication that first received F.D.A. approval 24 years ago. Medication abortion now accounts for more than half of abortions in the United States. The case contains an off-ramp for the court that, based on the argument in March, the justices appear likely to take: Because the anti-abortion doctors, dentists and medical groups who challenged the F.D.A. suffered no harm from the availability of the medication, and are unlikely to suffer harm in the future, they never had standing to bring the case in the first place.

The other, Moyle v. United States, results from a clash between the federal government and Idaho over whether federal law requires the state to provide emergency abortion care in its hospitals. The outcome largely depends on whether the court accepts the Biden administration’s view that there is no abortion exception to the law at issue, which prohibits hospitals from turning away people who need emergency care.

In the abortion cases in Indiana, Idaho and Alabama that may yet find their way to the Supreme Court, the justices would face the acute dilemma of reconciling their fealty to the First Amendment with the profound anti-abortion sentiment the Dobbs majority opinion displayed.

In defending their laws, the states argue that what they are prohibiting is not actually speech but conduct, namely inducing criminal activity. Rejecting this argument in the Indiana case, Judge Sarah Evans Barker of Federal District Court wrote that the Planned Parenthood affiliate that challenged the law simply “seeks to provide truthful information to clients regarding out-of-state options and medical referrals to out-of-state providers for abortion services that are legal in those states.” A prohibition on providing such information, the judge said, “does not further any interest Indiana may have in investigating criminal conduct within its borders.” In the Alabama case, another Federal District Court judge, Myron Thompson, observed that “unable to proscribe out-of-state abortions, the attorney general interprets state law as punishing the speech necessary to obtain them.”

From the cases they are in the process of deciding this term, the justices are well aware that their effort to wash their hands of the nettlesome business of abortion has failed. One or more of the First Amendment cases is likely to reach the court during its next term. I wonder if the justices have a clue about how much pain lies ahead when they have to decide whether the right to speak inevitably encompasses the right to choose.

Linda Greenhouse, the recipient of a 1998 Pulitzer Prize, reported on the Supreme Court for The Times from 1978 to 2008 and was a contributing Opinion writer from 2009 to 2021.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips . And here’s our email: [email protected] .

Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook , Instagram , TikTok , WhatsApp , X and Threads .

May 14, 2024

Asbestos Is Finally Banned in the U.S. Here’s Why It Took So Long

The carcinogenic effects of asbestos have been known for decades. We should have banned it long ago

By Naomi Oreskes

Scott Brundage

In March the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced that it was banning ongoing uses of asbestos. People might have thought, Wait—what? Wasn’t it already banned? After all, many remember asbestos—a naturally occurring, fibrous mineral that is resistant to heat and flame but is also toxic and carcinogenic—being removed from schools and hospitals across the U.S. starting in the 1970s. The new EPA decision is welcome, of course, but it highlights the need to figure out a better process for dispensing with deadly products.

Scientific understanding of the harms of asbestos can be traced back to 1898, when British factory inspector Lucy Deane described asbestos manufacturing as one of four dusty occupations worthy of scientific observation because of “their easily demonstrated danger to the health of workers.” In 1927 the term “asbestosis” was adopted to describe a devastating lung disease often seen in asbestos workers, and doctors began to notice that victims of asbestosis often also developed lung cancer.

More than 30 years passed before the asbestos-cancer link was firmly established, however. In 1960 a book published by E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Company openly acknowledged that “pulmonary carcinoma has been ob­­served with such high frequency in em­­ployees of the asbestos industry that a causal relationship has been accepted by most authorities.” Four years later Irving J. Selikoff, a doctor and researcher at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York City, tied together various lines of investigation in a now classic study. He found a statistically significant higher incidence of mesothelioma—an otherwise extremely rare cancer—in workers exposed to asbestos compared with that in the general population. Asbestos exposure also led to increased rates of lung, pleura, stomach, colon and rectal cancers. Crucially, the evidence indicated that there was no safe level of exposure.

On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing . By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.

At a 1964 New York Academy of Sciences conference on asbestos, industry representatives agreed that the only way to prevent cancers caused by asbestos ex­­posure was to eliminate that exposure. And so, in the 1970s, many nations began to ban asbestos. As of 2020, at least 67 countries had banned asbestos use either entirely or with very limited exemptions.

Because of the long latency period of many cancers caused by as­­best­os—and the difficulty of knowing all the circumstances in which people might have been exposed to asbestos outside industrial settings—it is hard to say just how many people have died or are still dying from asbestos. The University of Washington–based In­­sti­tute for Health Metrics and Evaluation estimates that as­­best­os caused more than 40,764 worker deaths in 2019 alone; this figure does not include deaths outside industrial settings, such as those of family members exposed to asbestos brought home on a worker’s clothes or shoes.

According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, be­­tween 1999 and 2015 there were 45,221 me­­so­­the­li­o­ma deaths in the U.S. The cumulative number of occupational deaths that were caused by asbestos over the course of the 20th century may be something on the order of 17 million, with perhaps an­­oth­er two million deaths from nonoccupational exposures.

Yet until now, only various partial and limited bans have been in place in the U.S.

It’s generally impossible to say why something didn’t happen in a given situation. But in this case, industry pushback, aided by antiregulatory attitudes that have dominated in the U.S. since the 1980s, clearly played a role. In 1989 the EPA tried to use its authority under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TOSCA) to phase out and ultimately ban most asbestos-containing products. But a company named Corrosion Proof Fittings, backed by several trade associations, successfully challenged the rule in federal court. The plaintiffs claimed that the agency’s rule would save only three lives over the course of 13 years and at “an approximate cost of $128–277 million.” That was patently false, and the court did not accept it. But it did accept a different complaint about the procedure by which the EPA had come to its proposed remedy.

The EPA could have proposed a new rule, but during the 1990s the political tide had turned against “big government” as various industry groups worked to de­­mon­ize “regulation,” and the EPA stood back. Rather than attempting to propose a new, broad rule under TOSCA, the agency fo­cused on more limited and specific regulations, such as developing guidelines to accredit asbestos-removal personnel, or regulations that were explicitly authorized by Congress.

One such regulation was the 1990 As­­bestos School Hazard Abatement Re­authorization Act , which empowered the EPA to help schools deal with asbestos on their grounds. As a result of these choices, asbestos use was greatly reduced, but it was not eliminated, and a number of asbestos-bearing products remained on the market.

Moreover, throughout the 1990s and 2000s industry groups pursued a strategy similar to that of the tobacco industry, attempting to cast doubt on the science that demonstrated the harms of asbestos. Among other things, they attempted to discredit asbestos researchers—particularly Selikoff—as zealots and to muddy the scientific waters by claiming that only certain mineralogical forms of asbestos were hazardous, when in fact the science supported no such distinction.

In 2016 Congress amended TOSCA to restore to the EPA some of the authority that had been stripped from it by the courts. The asbestos ban is the EPA’s first new rule under the amended law.

America was once a leader in occupational health and safety. Now we are laggards. It took 126 years for us to heed Lucy Deane’s warning about the dangers of asbestos. We need a better way to translate science into policy.

This is an opinion and analysis article, and the views expressed by the author or authors are not necessarily those of Scientific American.