The discussion of the Convention on Nature Protection and Wild Life Preservation in the Western Hemisphere, begun by Thomas Guilbert in an article in the May issue of ELR, is completed this month in an article at 3 ELR 50044. Readers of the first article will recognize the Convention as a broadly phrased treaty including wilderness preservation provisions that Mr. Guilbert marshalled in support of the recent decision in Izaak Walton League v. St. Clair.

In this month's article, Mr. Guilbert takes up some of the objections that may be interposed against introducing the Convention into a domestic legal proceeding and sketches out how the objections may be answered by the environmental lawyer. As he lists the obstacles to successful invocation of the treaty, he admits "the environmental lawyer may well ask if the flame is worth the candle": is the Convention worth the effort it would take to brief and argue for its introduction into court? Mr. Guilbert is of the opinion the exercise is worthwhile, for "in a close case, such as the recent St. Clair decision, or Parker v. United States, the Convention introduces a weighty new factor into the legal balancing process which may be decisive."