As the Espoo Convention responds to an evolving policy context, the Parties have increasingly turned to subsidiary means of decision making under the Convention. This article considers the kinds of activities that the Meeting of the Parties and the Implementation Committee are being called upon to perform and the ambiguous normative status of these decisions in international law. In light of these developments, it is argued that if the continued vitality and robustness of the Espoo regime complex is to be maintained, careful attention must be paid to questions of accountability, procedural justice and the quality of justification provided by subsidiary bodies.