 |
|
 |
|||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||
Africa Policy E-Journalgiven the difficulty in maintaining up-to-date links in old files. However, we hope they may still provide leads for your research.
Africa: Recent Landmines Documents, 1
Date Distributed (ymd): 960216
UN Information Service:
Round-up of Session DC/2541, 22 January 1996 (Excerpts)
REVIEW CONFERENCE ON CONVENTION ON CERTAIN CONVENTIONAL
WEAPONS CONCLUDES FIRST RESUMED SESSION, GENEVA, 15-19 JANUARY
Conference Defines Framework for Final Agreement On
Land-mines; Will Resume Deliberations in Geneva, 22 April-3
May
GENEVA, 19 January (UN Information Service) -- The Review
Conference of States Parties to the 1980 Convention on Certain
Conventional Weapons concluded a five-day resumed session
today after defining what its President called a framework for
a possible final agreement to place sharp restrictions on
land-mines.
In a closing statement, Johan Molander (Sweden), President of
the Conference, cautioned, however, that the 43 States parties
and 33 observer States had much to do before an agreement
could be reached that would effectively address what
Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali has called a global
"land-mine crisis".
The Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of
Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed To Be
Excessively Injurious or To Have Indiscriminate Effects came
into effect on 2 December 1983 and is currently undergoing its
first review. In addition to the Protocol on land-mines
(Protocol II), it contains Protocols on the prohibition of
fragments which remain undetectable in the human body
(Protocol I), and on incendiary weapons (Protocol III). A
Protocol on blinding laser weapons (Protocol IV) was adopted
at the Vienna session of the Review Conference, held from 25
September to 13 October 1995.
The main focus of the Vienna session was the Convention's
Protocol on landmines, which also encompasses the use of
booby-traps. However, no agreement was reached on provisions
to strengthen that Protocol because of the breadth and number
of proposals that were advanced, and insufficient time to
consider them. Since many of the difficulties concerned
technical terminology, national military perspectives and
existing stocks, it was agreed that the January session would
discuss technical and military issues, focusing on
detectability, self-destruction capabilities and the length of
any transition periods. It was also decided that the second
resumed session, scheduled for 22 April to 3 May in Geneva,
would focus on all remaining aspects of the land-mines
Protocol, including scope, implementation mechanisms and
technical cooperation.
- - Press Release DC/2541 22 January 1996
Statements at Concluding Session
Speaking in his capacity as President of the Conference, JOHAN
MOLANDER (Sweden), said that while the work of this session
had ended, the work of the Conference was far from over, and
a general framework for changes to the land-mines Protocol had
been spelled out in the revised President's text. While
acknowledging that there were many compromises in that
document, he said adoption would represent a significant step
forward in international humanitarian law. He said he had
incorporated into the text what he viewed as the current
status of negotiations, with the expectation that its contents
would be reviewed at the national level and be the subject of
negotiations before the April Conference.
MARK MOHER (Canada) announced that his Government had adopted
a unilateral ban on the production, export and operational use
of anti-personnel land mines. Such measures would serve to
complement efforts to strengthen efforts to eliminate
anti-personnel land-mines and encouraged other countries to
follow suit.
ANTONIO DE ICAZA (Mexico) said that although his country was
neither a producer nor user of mines, it believed the only
solution was a comprehensive ban on all mines. It was
deplorable that no stronger action was contemplated. Mexico
would, nevertheless, support all efforts towards consensus, as
all efforts towards strengthened regulations and adherence
were welcome.
JOERG WIMMERS, of the Mine Clearance and Policy Unit of the
United Nations Department of Humanitarian Affairs (DHA),
reminded delegates of the necessity to find a durable solution
to the humanitarian aspects of the land-mine crisis. Speaking
on behalf of DHA, the Office of the United Nations High
Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the United Nations
Children's Fund (UNICEF) and the World Food Programme (WFP),
he said technical solutions did not adequately take those
concerns into account and it was "high time for a bold
political commitment" to end the proliferation of land-mines.
Public opinion was increasingly expecting a solution from the
international community and some 20 countries had already
asked for a total ban. He urged all States parties to
reinforce their commitment to that goal at the resumed session
in April.
SALLY CURRY, Secretary-General for Humanity's Future, said
land-mines were a flagrant violation of human rights, most
specifically the rights of the child, and constituted a crime
against humanity and the earth. Delegates needed to turn the
discussion away from the search for more sophisticated
technological weapons and towards means of initiating a
massive clean-up and comprehensive ban on production, use,
stockpiling and trade in mines.
STEPHEN GOOSE, of the International Campaign to Ban Land
Mines, an umbrella coalition of some 400 non-governmental
organizations in 36 countries, expressed his dismay that no
solution had yet been found to the pressing issues under
review. His organization did not believe in a technological
solution and it would be difficult to convince the 70 persons
injured by land-mines each day -- "many of whom may never take
another step" -- that such a step-by-step approach was
effective. Citing Switzerland's support for a total ban, the
announcement of Canada and the eight other nations which had
proclaimed bans in the past four months, he said that number
would continue to grow, pushing the discussion away from
technology and towards a humanitarian solution. In the eyes of
the non-governmental organization community, that would be
progress.
Background
The first session of the Conference in Vienna was attended by
453 representatives of some 44 of the 49 States which are
parties to the Convention, 40 observer nations, and a large
number of international and non-governmental organizations.
The Vienna meeting had been charged with reviewing the 1980
Convention with an eye to strengthening international
restrictions on the production, sale and use of land-mines and
other weapons which strike indiscriminately.
A preparatory group of governmental experts had been assigned
the task of proposing changes to the Convention and its
Protocols and considering the possibility of adding new
protocols. Following almost two years of extensive
deliberations under the chairmanship of Mr. Molander, that
body developed a "rolling text" which served as the basis for
the Vienna review.
Despite intensive negotiations on the land-mines protocol
(Protocol II) during the three-week Conference, no changes
were made to it. However, some agreement was reached in broad
terms in several areas including expanding the scope of the
Protocol to include internal as well as international
conflicts and introduction of regulations on transfers. There
was also agreement that full responsibility for clearance of
land-mines would be assigned to the mine-laying party and
broad support for improved protection to humanitarian workers.
Delegates were able to agree on the addition of a fourth
protocol to the Convention. The newly adopted Protocol IV bans
the use and transfer of blinding laser weapons. By that
instrument, all weapons which have blinding as a major combat
function may not be used or transferred to any entity or
State. While many delegations had wanted a more far-reaching
ban, the new Protocol represents a unique step in humanitarian
international law in that it is pre-emptive -- a weapon has
been banned before it came into use.
The Vienna discussions stalled on the question of
detectability of land-mines, their self-destruction
capabilities and the amount of time which should be allotted
for States parties to bring their mine stocks into line with
new specifications. The decision was subsequently made to
discuss only those issues at the January session. All other
issues are to be considered in a third session in Geneva. It
is expected that the revised Convention will be completed at
that time.
Questions Examined in Geneva
Detectability: Some delegations believed that the overriding
humanitarian principles guiding the Review Conference --
improved protection of civilians and improved demining
capabilities -- could not be met without making all
anti-personnel land-mines detectable. There appeared to be a
strong trend towards making at least all anti-personnel mines
detectable. However, no consensus was reached and questions
remained open, including the amount of time which should be
allotted for transition.
Anti-handling devices: Although an attempt was made to balance
military capabilities with humanitarian concerns on the
subject of anti-handling devices, delegations remained far
from reaching consensus. One possible point of agreement,
should discussions continue, could prove to be the injunction
that the lifetime of an anti-handling device could not exceed
the lifetime of the mine itself.
Anti-sensing activities: Delegates were able to agree on a
strengthened "anti-sensing" clause to the technical annex of
the President's rolling text. By that prohibition, detonation
caused by non-contact detection with any "commonly available
mine detector" would be expressly prohibited for all mines,
booby-traps and other explosive devices.
Self-destruction: Unlike manually emplaced mines, remotely-
delivered mines are dispersed from a distance, for example by
plane or helicopter. Discussion continued on the reliability
factor associated with self-destruction capabilities for
remotely-delivered anti-personnel mines. There was general
agreement that such a feature would be backed up by a self-
deactivation feature (whereby a mine automatically becomes
inoperable because an integral component becomes exhausted
within an allotted time).
Delegations appeared prepared to accept a failure rate of no
higher than 10 per cent, while many wanted that rate to be
brought down to 5 per cent of mines. The outside time period
for the potential lifetime of such mines ranged in discussions
from 30 days (if the self-destruct mechanism functioned) to
120 days; at least one delegation wanted further testing
before committing itself to a time-limit.
Transition period: No broad consensus was reached on the
period of time which should be allotted for transition. ...
Documents previously distributed in the e-journal are
available on the Africa Action website: To be added to or dropped from the e-journal subscription list, write to e-journal@africaaction.org. For more information about reposted material, please contact directly the source mentioned in the posting.
|
|
Africa Policy E-Journal
