Meeting of High Contracting Parties to the
Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons,
Geneva, 7-13 November 2007

Report
Statements
Documents

Report

Summary:

The Meeting of High Contracting Parties to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW) met in Geneva from 7-13 November 2007 under the chairmanship of Ambassador Fransiscos Verros of Greece. The central issue of the meeting was whether the CCW would be able to adopt a negotiation mandate on cluster munitions.

The meeting managed to reach consensus on a vague, watered-down mandate to negotiate a “proposal” on cluster munitions, and established that the Group of Governmental Experts (GGE) will meet in 2008 for not less than three times, for a total of up to seven weeks, to negotiate this “proposal.” It was evident that there was no agreement as to what the mandate, or a proposal, would entail. While the majority of CCW High Contracting Parties advocated for a stronger mandate that would specify the CCW’s intent to negotiate a legally-binding protocol on cluster munitions, a few countries, most notably Russia, expressed strong reservations. The mandate was adopted with considerable difficulty and it is clear that, from the outset, there is little consensus in the CCW for future work on cluster munitions. (See below for more details.)

On the issue of mines other than anti-personnel mines (MOTAPM), the CCW remains stalled. The few states opposing the beginning of negotiations on a legally-binding protocol on MOTAPM indicated that they have not changed their positions, and discussions did not proceed. The CCW decided to keep the issue “under consideration.”

The Meeting of High Contracting Parties emphasized the importance of achieving the universalization of and increasing compliance with the CCW. Participants expressed satisfaction with steps taken to implement the Program of Action to Promote Universality and the Sponsorship Program, established at the Third Review Conference with the objective of strengthening implementation, universality, and enhancing cooperation and information exchange between High Contracting Parties. The Sponsorship Program provided funding for 24 delegations of High Contracting Parties to attend the Geneva meetings.

Delegations decided to incorporate the issue of the status of implementation and compliance into the agenda of the annual Meetings of High Contracting Parties. A national reporting form was adopted for the submission of annual reports on compliance, and 1 October was set as the recommended deadline for submission. The Meeting also adopted a registration form for sending national experts to the Pool of Experts. High Contracting Parties were encouraged to submit reports and name experts.

Cluster Munitions:

With the failure of the Third Review Conference in 2006 to produce a mandate on cluster munitions and pressure from the Oslo Process—the name for the process initiated by Norway to negotiate a freestanding treaty prohibiting the use of cluster munitions, which cause unacceptable harm to civilians, by 2008—the Meeting of High Contracting Parties’ ability to adopt a substantive negotiating mandate was seen as a test of the relevancy and credibility of the CCW.

Message of the UN Secretary-General:

The meeting began with Mr. Sergio Duarte, High Representative for Disarmament Affairs, delivering a message from the UN Secretary-General. Mr. Ban Ki-Moon’s urgently appealed the CCW High Contracting Parties to adopt a negotiation mandate on a legally-binding protocol containing a prohibition on cluster munitions:

“A year after the Third Review Conference, you are at an important juncture in the evolution of this vital Convention. The atrocious, inhumane impact of cluster munitions requires urgent action. The characteristics of these munitions, with their inherent inaccuracy and their frequent malfunctioning, make them particularly indiscriminate both at the time of use and long after conflicts have ended. They pose significant challenges for international humanitarian law.

I urge you to address the horrendous humanitarian, human rights and developmental effects of cluster munitions by concluding a legally binding instrument of international humanitarian law. The instrument should prohibit the use, development, production, stockpiling and transfer of cluster munitions that cause unacceptable harm to civilians. It should require the destruction of current stockpiles of those munitions. And it should provide for clearance and risk mitigation activities, victim assistance, cooperation, and compliance and transparency measures.

Until such a legal instrument is adopted, I ask that you take domestic measures to immediately freeze the use and transfer of all cluster munitions.”

Unfortunately, the outcome of the Meeting of High Contracting Parties was a wholly inadequate response to the urgent actions called for by Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon.

Report from the Group of Governmental Experts (GGE):

At the Third Review Conference of the CCW in 2006, High Contracting Parties failed to reach consensus on a negotiation mandate on cluster munitions. As a minimum response, it was decided to convene a Group of Governmental Experts to “consider further the application and implementation of existing international humanitarian law to specific munitions that may cause explosive remnants of war, with particular focus on cluster munitions” Ambassador Janis Karklins of Latvia chaired the GGE meeting, which took place in June 2007 in Geneva.

Ambassador Karklins reported on the outcome of the GGE meeting during the Meeting of High Contracting Parties. Building on discussions at the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC)  Expert Meeting on cluster munitions in April 2007, the June GGE meeting discussed various aspects pertaining to cluster munitions, such as the military use, humanitarian impact, technical aspects, legal aspects ,and definitions. Ambassador Karklin’s report stated that the GGE “broadly recognized that the use of cluster munitions has created [an] unacceptable humanitarian problem which has to be addressed by the international community in an urgent manner,” despite failing to agree on the scope, scale and duration of the impact of the weapons. He called on the CCW to negotiate a legally-binding instrument on cluster munitions and “live up to its credibility.”

Negotiation Mandate on Cluster Munitions:

The majority of High Contracting Parties were in favor of adopting a negotiation mandate for the creation of a legally-binding instrument or protocol on cluster munitions in the CCW. The European Union submitted the meeting's main proposal, for a negotiation mandate with the aim of concluding a legally-binding instrument that prohibits the use, production, and transfer of cluster munitions. The EU explained, the “key provision of our proposal is for this meeting ‘to establish a Group of Governmental Experts with a schedule of no less than three meetings to negotiate a legally-binding instrument that addresses the humanitarian concerns of cluster munitions in all their aspects by the end of 2008.’”

Russia expressed strong opposition to the adoption of a negotiation mandate and future work within the CCW on cluster munitions. Others, such as Belarus, China, Colombia, and Cuba also expressed reluctance to agree to a mandate.  Brazil, India, Pakistan, and the United States were opposed to a mandate aimed at a prohibition on cluster munitions or including concrete deadlines.

Discussions came to a halt in the CCW and meetings were extremely brief as negotiations took place in backrooms outside the Conference to water-down the proposed mandate until it was acceptably vague and non-committal soas to accommodate all Parties. After considerable difficulty, the Meeting of High Contracting Parties adopted a mandate at the conclusion of the Meeting which states:

“The Meeting of High Contracting Parties to the CCW decided that the GGE [Group of Governmental Experts] will negotiate a proposal to address urgently the humanitarian impact of cluster munitions, while striking a balance between military and humanitarian considerations.

The GGE should make every effort to negotiate this proposal as rapidly as possible and report on the progress made to the next meeting of the High Contracting Parties in November 2008.

The work of the GGE will be supported by military and technical experts. The GGE will meet in 2008 not less than three times for a total of up to seven weeks.”

The mandate fell far short of many participants’ expectations. It is unclear what is meant by a “proposal,” and the mandate does not state that it aims for a legally-binding instrument, a prohibition on cluster munitions, or an explicit deadline for negotiations.

“The mandate, like cluster munitions themselves, is fatally flawed,” said Steve Goose of Human Rights Watch. “You are not going to be negotiating a legally-binding instrument, you are not going to be negotiating a prohibition of any sort, and you have no timeline to complete negotiations, so no true sense of urgency. A mandate needed all of these elements to be considered serious and credible, and this has none.”

Beyond a legally-binding prohibition, an instrument on cluster munitions must also include “a comprehensive, rights-based approach to victim assistance and the shortest possible deadlines for stockpile destruction and clearance of contaminated areas. In this way states will be pursuing a treaty not really aimed at a weapon, but aimed at protecting civilians and helping the most vulnerable to cope with the consequences of war,” said Mr. Thomas Nash of the Cluster Munition Coalition.

Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, the European Union, Ireland, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, and Switzerland requested the floor after the adoption of the mandate to indicate their disappointment with the outcome and the need for a legally-binding instrument prohibiting cluster munitions.

Canada's delegation argued, 'it is not clear that any GGE called to negotiate would have comprehensive instructions as to what they’re negotiating … Canada would understand it to be a new protocol as legally-binding as all the others, and indeed the GGE could propose a new protocol. Others might understand that a proposal is something less, indeed without clear instructions, we could waste a lot of time.' The Canadians also mentioned that the current phrasing of the mandate does not include the commonly used language 'addressing the humanitarian impact of cluster munitions in all their aspects.' Without including the words “all their aspects,” some States may find a loophole to only address a limited part of the humanitarian impacts of cluster munitions. Austria also stated it was unclear as to what the mandate implied.

Other states expressed their dissatisfaction with the mandate’s lack of attention to addressing the humanitarian suffering caused by the use of cluster munitions or concluding a legally-binding instrument. New Zealand's Ambassador Mackay lamented, “unfortunately, the mandate adopted today falls far short of providing us with a credible pathway towards those aims, and we are dismayed by the huge difficulty in reaching even this outcome.” As a result of the difficulty the CCW is having in dealing meaningfully with the cluster munitions issue, New Zealand announced that it intends to spend much of its effort next year towards “fulfilling the specific, measurable and time-bound commitment undertaken in Oslo in February, to conclude a comprehensive legally binding instrument on cluster munitions that will make a substantive difference to the lives of civilians affected by conflict.”

The EU indicated that it had joined consensus on the mandate because it believed that it would still be possible to promote its proposal on cluster munitions and work towards a legally-binding instrument.

Argentina, Japan, the Republic of Korea, and the United Kingdom were more positive about the CCW’s ability to reach consensus on the issue and more optimistic for future work. But only the US said it was pleased with the outcome of the meeting. “The language of the decision taken today is clear and direct; there can be no doubt it represents agreement of all the High Contracting Parties to the CCW, by consensus, to initiate negotiations on an urgent basis next year … It demonstrates that the High Contracting Parties to the CCW can come to consensus on an urgent issue rapidly,” the US delegation stated.

The Russian delegation also took the floor to inform High Contracting Parties that it harbors “some doubts with respect to the practical outcome of the work ahead,” arguing that “the practical basis for commencing negotiations is very weak,” citing the “considerable differences” of opinion about the subject. The delegation further argued, “There is still uncertainty concerning the basic provisions and definitions of cluster munitions which brings into question in formal terms the possibility of finding approaches that can be used in practice. Work will not be easy. If we commence negotiations, this should lead to proposals which can match the interest of each State concerned.”

The Russian delegation also gave its interpretation of the mandate, and listed its criteria on what it will (and will not) accept in future negotiations, giving participants a set of conditions for its acceptance of the mandate:

“First, we are prepared to support the proposals which will not weaken our possibility for defense linked to the definition of cluster munitions;

Secondly, the implementation of such proposals should not have economic and financial consequences;

Third, the main direction of such proposals must above all include the development of measures concerning the use of cluster munitions in acceptable conditions and likewise to mitigate the humanitarian impact on the civilian population and not to limit in technical terms the cluster munitions themselves;

We consider that if it is necessary to refer to technical proposals then such proposals must be in the form of recommendations and must be accompanied by a transition period of considerable and sufficient length in time.”

In light of Russia’s remarks, along with statements from Brazil, India, Pakistan, and the United States, it seems that it will be considerably difficult to achieve consensus in the CCW for a prohibition on cluster munitions, within a reasonable timeframe, that reflects the urgency and serious humanitarian concerns caused by the use of cluster munitions. Furthermore, these five states continue to insist on the recognition of the military legitimacy of the use of cluster munitions and their “distinct military advantages” in certain situations, indicating their interest in retaining and possibly using cluster munitions.

Some States continue to argue the CCW is the most appropriate forum for negotiations on cluster munitions, as it contains the world’s major cluster munitions users and producers. Yet with the major producers and users stipulating that they will not agree to a prohibition on the use of cluster munitions, it is hard to see the value of any result the CCW is capable of producing. As Steve Goose of Human Rights Watch stated, “With this outcome, it is clear that any state that is serious about wanting to achieve urgently an effective international instrument that will prohibit cluster munitions that cause unacceptable harm to civilians will throw their full support to the Oslo Process, which will conclude a strong treaty next year in 2008. It is the only viable approach on the cluster munitions issue.”

The Oslo Process was initiated by Norway after the failure of the Third Review Conference of the CCW to adopt a negotiation mandate on cluster munitions. At a Conference in Oslo in February 2007, 46 States signed a Declaration pledging to conclude in 2008 an international treaty prohibiting cluster munitions that cause unacceptable harm to civilians. Now more than 80 countries are participating in the Process and will meet in Vienna in December 2007 to begin negotiations on the text of a treaty.

60 CCW High Contracting Parties are participating in the Process along with 20 non-High Contracting Parties. The Oslo Process is rapidly moving toward the completion of a ban on cluster munitions with an emphasis on providing victim assistance to end the humanitarian suffering caused by these indiscriminate and inaccurate weapons.

During the Meeting of High Contracting Parties, Bulgaria, Croatia, and Serbia announced that they are in the process of finalizing national legislation that will allow them to declare national moratoria on the use of cluster munitions. Austria, Belgium, Hungary, and Norway have already announced national moratoria on the use of cluster munitions during Oslo Process meetings.

MOTAPM:

At the Third Review Conference of the CCW in 2006, States Parties decided to allocate two days at the 2007 Meeting of High Contracting Parties to discuss mines other than antipersonnel mines (MOTAPM). Ambassador Carlos Paranhos of Brazil, acting as Friend of the Chair, informed the meeting on the outcome of three working meetings held on MOTAPM during the past year. Despite efforts, it was not possible to agree on the contentious issues of detectability and active life. Questions were circulated on responsible use of MOTAPM, and new language was introduced on addressing perimeter marked areas, active life, production and transfer, and detectability, but no progress towards consensus was made.

During the Meeting of High Contracting Parties, many States made interventions calling for a legally-binding protocol on MOTAPM. Canada, the EU, India, Ireland, the Republic of Korea, and the United States supported the commencement of negotiations on a legally-binding protocol.

Belarus, China, Cuba, Pakistan, and Russia expressed reservations to continuing work on MOTAPM, saying that the provisions of the CCW and Amended Protocol II adequately address the problems related to MOTAPM. Pakistan argued, “the solution does not lie with technical improvement or addition in the mines but with the faithful implementation of the obligation and responsible use.”

Russia stated, “the time that has passed since the Review Conference has again convincingly demonstrated that the issue of MOTA[PM], if judged from humanitarian point of view, is of non-urgent nature and for today is not of current concern. We have not yet received any documentary data proving that these are the mines and not, for example, improvised explosive devices posing a real threat, that are the reason of human loss and suffering.”

Cuba echoed this argument, adding, “there is no justification for adoption of further measures and no substantive difference between MOTAPM and other conventional weapons that are broadly used. The problem is in the use of the weapon and not the design.”

The US, while stating that it would like to see a protocol on MOTAPM adopted in the CCW, said that as there is no indication that the positions of the few states opposed to negotiations on MOTAPM have changed, the CCW “should save the time and money and move on to other agenda items,” arguing there is “no utility to further consultations or debate on this matter.”

The US and India moved to close the debate on MOTAPM during the Meeting of High Contracting Parties during the first of the four sessions allotted to the subject. The US also indicated that it objected to apportioning two days to MOTAPM in future Meetings of High Contracting Parties, as discussions do not seem able to proceed. 

Universalization:

Universalization of the CCW remains a high priority for High Contracting Parties. Participants discussed the Plan of Action to Promote the Universality of the Convention. The EU announced that it has approved a Joint Action on 23 July 2007 with the goal of supporting universalization of the CCW. It will hold a workshop and regional and sub-regional seminars aimed at increasing membership and improving national implementation, and will issue a publication on the results of its efforts, lessons learned, and recommendations.

China stated it has donated $10,000 USD to the Sponsorship Program, and that it hosted a demining training course for five non-High Contracting Parties—Angola, Burundi, Chad, Guinea Bissau, and Mozambique.

Since the Third Review Conference of the CCW in 2006, Cameroon, Gabon, and Montenegro have joined the CCW framework and Protocol I. Cameroon and Montenegro acceded to Protocol II, Cameroon and Niger to Amended Protocol II, Cameroon, Gabon, and Montenegro to Protocol III, and Cameroon, Niger, and Montenegro to Protocol IV. Australia, Austria, Spain, Estonia, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Hungary, Slovenia, and Uruguay acceded to Protocol V.

Sponsorship Program:

At the Third Review Conference, CCW members established a Sponsorship Program with the aim of strengthening the implementation and universalization of the Convention. Ambassador Eduardas Borisovas of Lithuania, the Coordinator of the Steering Committee of the Sponsorship Program, informed the Meeting of High Contracting Parties that the Sponsorship Program decided to provide support to 24 countries to send delegations to the Meetings of the CCW in Geneva. Invitations to apply for future sponsorship have been sent to more than 70 countries.

Ambassador Borisovas welcomed sponsored participants and thanked Australia, Canada, China, Lithuania, Switzerland, Turkey, and the EU, the donor States whose contributions made the program operational. He called on High Contracting Parties to further develop eligibility criteria for beneficiaries and to consider implementing other aspects of the Sponsorship Program beyond funding for country delegations.

Compliance:

High Contracting Parties discussed three issues pertaining to compliance under the CCW: the frequency of future meetings; the frequency of reporting and reporting formats; and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) proposal concerning the review of the legality of new weapons.

The meeting decided that the issue of the status of implementation and of compliance with the Convention would be incorporated into the agenda of the annual meetings of the CCW. It also decided to adopt national reporting form and fix a recommended deadline of 1 October for their submission. Reports will not be issued as official documents in the future, but will be posted on the CCW website, in an effort to save costs and resources. The meeting also decided to adopt a registration form for the submission of national experts to the Pool of Experts, as established at the Third Review Conference.

There was no consensus on the ICRC proposal on the review of the legality of new weapons.

Future agenda:

The meeting appointed Ambassador Masood Khan of Pakistan to preside over the next Meeting of High Contracting Parties, from 13-14 November 2008. The Second Conference of High Contracting Parties on Protocol V will meet from 10-11 November, with one informal Meeting of Experts from 2-4 July. The Tenth Annual Conference on Amended Protocol II will take place the day after Protocol V, on 12 November.

The Group of Governmental Experts is scheduled to meet four times in 2008, in accordance with the mandate adopted at the Meeting. The GGE will meet from 14-18 January, 7-31 July, 1-5 September, and 3-7 November. A representative of the Western European and Others Group will chair the meetings. 

 

Statements

November 7th

Message of the UN Secretary-General, delivered by Mr. Sergio Duarte, High Representative for Disarmament Affairs
Report of the Work of the Group of Governmental Experts (GGE), Chairperson Ambassador Janis Karklins of Latvia
Report of the Coordinator of the Steering Committee of the Sponsorship Program, Ambassador Eduardas Borisovas of Lithuania
Portugal on behalf of the EU (General Statement) , Mr. Jose Julio Pereira Gomes
Portugal on behalf of the EU (Cluster Munitions and the GGE) , Mr. Jose Julio Pereira Gomes
Portugal on behalf of the EU (Compliance Mechanism) , Mr. Jose Julio Pereira Gomes
Portugal on behalf of the EU (MOTAPM) , Mr. Jose Julio Pereira Gomes
Pakistan, Ambassador Masood Khan
Japan, Ambassador Sumio Tarui
Argentina, Ambassador Alberto Dumont
China, Ambassador Cheng Jingye
Republic of Korea, Ambassador Chang, Dong-hee
Russian Federation
India, Ambassador Jayant Prasad
United States, Mr. Ronald J. Bettauer
Turkey
Brazil, Ambassador Carlos Paranhos
Belarus
Bangladesh
Switzerland, Ambassador Jurg Streuli
Venezeula, Ambassador Juan Arias Palacio
Slovakia, Ambassador Anton Pinter
Republic of Macedonia, Ambassador Georgi Avramchev
Colombia
Serbia
Canada
Morocco
United National Mine Action Team, Mr. Gustavo Laurie
Cluster Munition Coalition, Mr. Thomas Nash
Geneva Centre for Humanitarian Demining, Mr. Ian Mansfield
Lithuania, Ambassador Eduardas Borisovas
Germany, Ambassador Rudiger Ludeking

November 13th, Closing Remarks

Canada
Norway
Switzerland, Ambassador Jurg Streuli
Russian Federation, (in Russian)
Japan
Turkey
Mexico
Argentina
Portugal on behalf of the EU, Mr. Jose Julio Pereira Gomes
United Kingdom
ICRC
Human Rights Watch, Mr. Steve Goose
New Zealand, Ambassador Don MacKay
Australia
United States, Mr. Ronald Bettauer
Belgium
Ireland, Ambassador O'Ceallaigh
Austria
Pakistan, Ambassador Masood Khan
Republic of Korea

Documents

Draft Final Report and Amendments
Provisional Agenda
Decision on Compliance
Observations on Compliance
Compliance Reports Submitted
Submissions to the Pool of Experts
Decision on Universality and Sponsorship Program
List of Participants

EU Proposed Mandate on Cluster Munitions

Summary Report November 7th
Summary Report November 8th
Summary Report November 9th
Summary Report November 12th

Cluster Munition Coalition Press Release
Human Rights Watch Press Release
Handicap International Press Release (in German)

-Report by Katherine Harrison, 23 November 2007