New Hope for Restricting Certain Conventional Weapons
By Les Luck

UN Photo/John Olsson

The coverage of conventional weapons in multilateral treaties is considered by many to be less extensive than that of weapons of mass destruction. Yet, casualties in recent conflicts have been caused overwhelmingly by conventional weapons. The 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW) - formally known as 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 - is the only instrument that prohibits or restricts the use of certain types of conventional weapons. The origins of the CCW lie in customary international law and in two of its key principles: that the right of belligerents to adopt means or methods of warfare is not unlimited; and that the employment in armed conflicts of means and methods of warfare causing indiscriminate effects or of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering is prohibited.

The CCW builds on these and other principles by aiming to “protect civilians from the effects of weapons and to protect combatants from the infliction of suffering which exceeds that necessary for the achievement of a legitimate military objective”. This objective is set out in the Convention itself, and its Protocols build on this framework by setting out restrictions or prohibitions on specific types of weapons. To date, these Protocols cover non-detectable fragments, mines (and booby traps and other devices), incendiary weapons and blinding laser weapons.

The CCW, through its particular structure, was clearly intended to be a dynamic instrument capable of evolving as technology and international opinion develop. In fact, it states clearly that States parties may initiate amendment to the Convention or its Protocols and may propose the addition of new protocols. The Review Conferences are the obvious mechanism to address such amendments or proposals.

The next Review Conference will take place from 11 to 21 December 2001, to consider a range of proposals to strengthen the Convention and further elaborate its fundamental obligations. It also offers States parties an opportunity to reiterate their commitment to the Convention’s objective and purpose, intensify their efforts towards universality of the Convention, and improve the Convention’s profile and position as a fundamental pillar of international humanitarian law. States parties will naturally be able to raise any further ideas at the Conference itself. At this stage, the proposals the Preparatory Committee has focused on and which the Review Conference will consider are: scope of the Convention; compliance with the Convention; anti-vehicle mines; explosive remnants of war; and small calibre weapons and ammunition.

In addition to considering proposals to strengthen and enhance the Convention, the Review Conference will need to review and assess more broadly the operation of the Convention, and negotiate a political declaration that establishes a forward-looking agenda and sets out collective objectives for the period following the Conference. Clearly, it is important to move towards universal adherence to the Convention, and this will feature as one of the Conference’s objectives. There are currently 87 States parties to the Convention, but the prospect of further work on issues of importance and relevance should encourage additional accessions and ratifications. States parties can also encourage additional adherence by making every effort at the Conference to ensure that the Convention’s existing provisions are operating effectively.

Each of the proposals for amending the Convention and its Protocols, as well as those for negotiating additional protocols, have been brought forward in a very deliberate and consultative manner at successive Preparatory Committee sessions and with the strong humanitarian traditions of this Convention in mind. As a result, we are well placed to be able to agree to measures that would reinforce these traditions, either through new obligations or strengthened commitments to existing provisions. States parties have, throughout the preparatory process for the Review Conference, emphasized their commitment to working constructively to reach agreement on the proposals to strengthen the Convention and, at the same time, working towards a more effective implementation of the Convention, including through its universalization. Progress in these areas would further demonstrate the important place this Convention has within the framework of international humanitarian and arms control law.

CCW Review Conference Proposals

• Scope of the Convention: States parties will consider extending the scope of application of the Convention to cover internal as well as international armed conflicts. At present, it only applies to the latter, although when States parties amended Protocol II (on mines) at the first Review Conference in 1995, they expanded its scope to cover internal conflicts. This proposal reflects the common recognition that many of today’s conflicts are internal.
• Compliance with the Convention: States parties will consider provisions aimed at improving compliance with the Convention and/or certain of its Protocols. Aside from the Amended Mines Protocol, there are no provisions that specifically deal with compliance. Ideas range from proposals to strengthen the compliance provisions of the Amended Mines Protocol, to importing the Protocol’s existing obligations into the Convention, to designing new compliance obligations.
• Anti-vehicle mines: The 1996 Amended Mines Protocol is the only international instrument that specifically governs and places restrictions on the use of anti-vehicle mines. States parties will consider a proposal for a new protocol that would cover this issue more comprehensively, including by strengthening the existing provisions on self-destruction (or as an alternative, self-neutralization) and self-deactivation of remotely delivered anti-vehicle mines, and introducing requirements for detection of all anti-vehicle mines. As humanitarian organizations continue to report on the serious consequences of anti-vehicle mines on themselves and on civilians, this issue has gained momentum in the CCW context.
• Explosive remnants of war: States parties will consider the establishment of a group of governmental experts to explore how the Convention should address the issue of explosive remnants of war, a term that covers a wide range of munitions, such as cluster bombs, grenades, mortars and artillery shells. One of the group’s tasks will be to determine which particular munitions pose the greatest humanitarian risk, and then develop ways to minimize the danger. The International Committee of the Red Cross has been largely responsible for placing this issue on the Conference’s agenda, but there is a strong recognition on the part of States parties that this is a problem that requires urgent attention. It is also widely acknowledged that the CCW is the most suitable context in which to examine this issue.
• Small calibre weapons and ammunition: States parties will consider a proposal for developing new restrictions on small calibre ammunition which can cause excessive wounding. Given the technical nature of the issue, the Review Conference will be addressing the possibility of further work by technical experts.

Ambassador Les Luck, Permanent Representative of Australia to the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva, was elected President-designate of the Second CCW Review Conference. He has served as Chairman of the Conference’s Preparatory Committee, having been elected in April 2001.