Multilateral Environmental Agreements outlines the rights, duties, and obligations of the parties, the procedure for resolving any disputes that have arisen or may arise under the substantive agreement. Thus Multilateral Environmental Agreements may be described as substantive as well as procedural. If the question is answered in the affirmative, Multilateral Environmental Agreements cannot assume jurisdiction in situations where one of the parties contends that the substantive agreement containing the arbitration clause is invalid, at least until the validity of the substantive agreement is determined (perhaps by a national court).
Multilateral Environmental Agreements implies a legally accepted union aimed to protect environment and stipulate certain norms and rules for environmentally ethical behaviors. It does not take much effort to see that if the validity of the international public policy clause is dependent on the validity of the main contract, a party seeking to frustrate or delay the Environmental Agreements process need only plead that the main contract is invalid in order to preempt the jurisdiction and seek a court resolution of that preliminary objection. The principle of the autonomy of Multilateral Environmental Agreements is designed, in part, to prevent the use of this kind of tactic in stalling the process of Multilateral Environmental Agreements (Common and Stagl 2005, p. 469). The principle of ISO 14000 of agreement proclaims that an agreement is autonomous in relation to the contract from which it originates. In this sense, Multilateral Environmental Agreements are independent of the commercial agreements in which it is contained, and cannot be automatically affected by the fortunes of the substantive contract. The example of a direct strategy is environmental remediation. The examples of indirect strategy are economic reforms and social changes. This strategy is closely connected with quality standards and ISO 14000. One effect of the principle is that the Multilateral Environmental Agreements survive the invalidity of the substantive contract unless it is shown that the cause of the invalidity also specifically applies to the clause. The primacy accorded to party autonomy in the determination of law meshes neatly with the private nature of Multilateral Environmental Agreements. Nevertheless, it should always be remembered that Multilateral Environmental Agreements can never be entirely privatized, for it must continually respond to the policy demands of those jurisdictions whose legitimate interests are implicated in the proceedings (International Standards ISO 14000).
Multilateral Environmental Agreements is an important part of modern business relations and international politics. The survival of Multilateral Environmental Agreements as a legitimate system of quality control depends not only on its responsiveness to the needs of the participants but, perhaps more crucially, on its respect for vital juridical interests. Multilateral Environmental Agreements are derived from rules of law, the principles of universal justice and the environmental policy accepted in a generality of nations Arbitrators are particularly suited to apply the principles of transnational public policy because they have a responsibility to maintain a certain element of equity and fair play in the international arena, and they are not guardians of the public policy of any particular State. Therefore, when a mandatory ISO 14000 is in conflict with a transnational policy, the latter prevails, at least in an international system.