CHAPTER IV

Conventional weapons issues


"We must strive just as hard to eliminate the threat of small arms and light weapons as we do to eliminate the threat of weapons of mass destruction."1
Kofi Annan, United Nations Secretary-General
Introduction

Issues related to the regulation and reduction of conventional arms and armed forces have remained on the disarmament agenda of the United Nations for nearly six decades.2 In the 1970s, the need to address conventional disarmament in a systematic way led to negotiations that resulted in the conclusion, in 1981, of the first global agreement to prohibit or restrict certain conventional weapons - 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 (CCW).3 Motivated by humanitarian concerns, the CCW was concluded as an "umbrella" treaty to which additional specific agreements could be attached in the form of protocols. At the outset, three protocols were concluded.4 Since then, other protocols and amendments to the Convention have been adopted since then: Amended Protocol II5 and Protocol IV on blinding laser weapons6 adopted at the first Review Conference of States parties to the CCW (1995-1996); an amendment to article I of the Convention made at the second Review Conference of States parties, in 2001;7 and Protocol V, on the explosive remnants of war, negotiated and adopted in 2003 by the Meeting of States parties to the CCW.8

During the post-cold war years, challenges arose from numerous intra-State conflicts in which small arms and light weapons (SALW) were heavily used. Member States and the United Nations undertook efforts to reduce the excessive and destabilizing accumulation and illicit transfers of those weapons, most notably, the adoption, in 2001, of the UN Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects (the PoA), by the United Nations Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects, in July 2001.9

Other significant achievements in the field of conventional weapons have been the conclusion, in December 1997, of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on Their Destruction (Mine-Ban Convention)10 and the Guidelines on conventional arms control, particularly practical disarmament measures, adopted by the United Nations Disarmament Commission (UNDC or the Commission), in 1999.11 To this end, the General Assembly instituted two mechanisms to address the issue of transparency in military matters: the standardized instrument for international reporting of military expenditures, in 1980, and the UN Register of Conventional Arms (the Register), in 1992. The Register remains the most important instrument for data on imports and exports of conventional weapons at the global level.

This chapter covers issues related to conventional arms at the global level and encompasses the illicit traffic in SALW, the prohibition or restriction of the use of inhumane weapons, transparency and confidence-building measures and export controls.

Developments and Trends, 2005

Military expenditures continued to increase on a global and regional scale. According to SIPRI figures, world military expenditures in 2005 were slightly more than US $1 trillion in current prices. More than sixty per cent of this amount was spent by five countries, while fifteen countries represented over eighty per cent of the global total. The budgetary plans of several countries suggested that global military expenditures were expected to increase in the immediate years.12

International efforts to address SALW were marked by the adoption of the first international instrument negotiated within the framework of the PoA: the International Instrument to Enable States to Identify and Trace, in a Timely and Reliable Manner, Illicit Small Arms and Light Weapons (the Instrument),13 adopted by General Assembly as Decision 60/519, of 8 December. It contained a number of requirements for marking, record-keeping and international cooperation in tracing SALW.

The year saw the convening of the second Biennial Meeting of States to consider the implementation of the PoA,14 (second BMS) in New York, from 11 to 15 July, as well as the second round of consultations on the illicit brokering in those weapons, which indicated that a broad consensus existed on the need for further international action to address the problem.15 By resolution 60/81, the General Assembly decided to establish a Group of Governmental Experts (GGE) to consider further steps to enhance international cooperation to prevent, combat and eradicate illicit brokering in SALW. The GGE would be expected to commence its work in 2006, after the conclusion of the Conference to Review Progress Made in the Implementation of the PoA (the Review Conference), in New York, from 26 June to 7 July 2006. (See General Assembly section of this chapter for discussion of the resolution.)

Another significant development was the adoption by the General Assembly of resolution 60/68, which made an unprecedented call on States to more effectively address the humanitarian and development impact of illicit SALW and to integrate comprehensive armed violence prevention programmes into their national development strategies. Its adoption with only one opposing vote was reflective of the growing recognition of the negative consequences of illicit SALW on development. The Security Council continued to take interest in SALW and held an open debate on small arms that resulted in the adoption of a Presidential Statement on 17 February.16 Another important step was the entry into force, on 3 July, of the Protocol against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Their Parts and Components and Ammunition (Firearms Protocol), supplementing the UN Convention against Transnational Organized Crime.

The Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), first put forward in October 1995 by a group of Nobel Peace Laureates led by Oscar Arias, continued to gain momentum and to draw support from an increasing number of countries.17 Thirty-one governments met in Dar es Salaam, from 20 to 21 February, to discuss the human and security costs of unregulated arms sales and agreed on principles consistent with those proposed by the Control Arms campaign for a global Arms Trade Treaty. On 15 March, in London, then British Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw stated that a new ATT should: (i) be legally binding on all its signatories and negotiated under the auspices of the United Nations and backed by its authority; (ii) cover all conventional arms, not just small arms; (iii) be negotiated as a separate, self-standing initiative and build on good work done elsewhere, notably on SALW; (iv) be based on certain core principles which make clear when exports would be unacceptable, and include provisions on arms brokering; transit and transhipment of arms; licensed production; and Government-to-Government transfers; (v) have an effective mechanism for enforcement and monitoring; and (vi) include a wide range of signatories, including the world's major arms exporters.18

Efforts to prevent man-portable air defense systems (MANPADS) from falling into the hands of non-State actors continued. On 24 February, in Bratislava, the United States Secretary of State and the Russian Defense Minister signed the "United States-Russia Arrangement on Cooperation in Enhancing Control of Man-Portable Air Defense Systems", which aimed to: facilitate mutual destruction of obsolete or excess MANPADS; exchange information on their control, including improving measures to enhance physical security; and share information about MANPADS sales and transfers to third countries.19 Following a similar resolution introduced for the first time in 2004, the General Assembly adopted resolution 60/77, in which, inter alia, Member States were urged to support current international, regional and national efforts to combat and prevent the illicit transfer of MANPADS and unauthorized access to and use of such weapons. (See General Assembly section of this chapter for discussion of the resolution.)

The CCW process continued to make progress. States parties met from 24 to 25 November, and ten more States had notified the Depositary of their consent to be bound by Protocol V, bringing the total to thirteen States.20

The Group of Governmental Experts (GGE) focused on explosive remnants of war (ERW) and on mines other than anti-personnel mines (MOTAPM) - an issue of humanitarian concern because of the risk they posed to the civilian population during armed conflict and at the cessation of the hostilities. The 2005 Meeting of the States parties decided that the GGE should, in 2006, continue to consider the implementation of existing principles of international humanitarian law (IHL) and to further study possible preventive measures aimed at improving the design of certain specific types of munitions, including sub-munitions. The States parties also agreed to continue the current mandate on MOTAPM in 2006.

As mandated by the 2001 second Review Conference, the next Review Conference should take place no later than 2006.21 After an exchange of views on the organizational preparation of the third Review Conference in the GGE, the Meeting of the States parties decided to set the date for the meeting as 7-17 November 2006, in Geneva.

Small Arms and Light Weapons

Security Council

In its Presidential statement of 19 January 2004,22 the Security Council requested the Secretary-General to update the Council for its next meeting, in 2005, on the further implementation of the recommendations contained in his report entitled "Small arms".23 Further to this request, on 7 February, the Secretary-General submitted a report to the Council on ways and means in which it could contribute to dealing with the question of illicit trade in SALW in situations under its consideration.24 The report, which was considered at an open debate on 17 February, highlighted the progress made in key areas such as efforts to enhance cooperation in enabling States to trace illicit SALW.

Noting the significant progress made in the enforcement of Security Council resolutions on sanctions, the Secretary-General nevertheless underscored the need for more to be done on the link between illicit trafficking in SALW and the illicit exploitation of natural and other resources. Further, he pointed to the need for the Council to adopt a comprehensive and regional approach and to take appropriate measures to address cross-border activities.25 The Council adopted a Presidential Statement in which it encouraged the arms-exporting countries to exercise the highest degree of responsibility in their SALW transactions, according to their existing responsibilities under relevant international law. It also encouraged them to undertake vigorous actions aimed at restricting the supply of SALW and ammunition to areas of instability. It called upon all Member States to enforce all Security Council resolutions on sanctions, including those imposing arms embargoes, and to bring their own domestic implementation into compliance with the Council's measures on sanctions. Finally, it encouraged international and regional cooperation in identifying the origin and transfer of SALW in order to prevent their diversion to terrorist groups.26

On 25 February, the Council considered the report of the Secretary-General on ways to combat subregional and cross-border problems in West Africa.27 At the conclusion of the open debate, the Security Council adopted a Presidential Statement by which the Council, inter alia, expressed its deep concern about the involvement of individuals, including those from security and armed forces, in such illicit activities as smuggling of arms, drugs and natural resources.28 In this connection, the Council emphasized the need to pursue security sector reforms with a view to improving civil-military relations in countries emerging from conflict situations and creating a culture of peace and stability and promoting the rule of law.

In the course of the year, the Council also addressed the issue of small arms during its consideration of peacekeeping and peace-building missions; the protection of civilians in armed conflict;29 and women, peace and security.30

Implementation of the Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in SALW in All Its Aspects

The United Nations continued to play a central role in supporting the implementation of the PoA at global, regional and national levels.

The following section covers the final stages of the negotiations of the Open-ended Working Group (OEWG) to negotiate an international instrument to enable States to identify and trace, in a timely and reliable manner, illicit SALW (the Instrument), the convening of the second Biennial Meeting of States (second BMS), the holding of broad-based consultations on preventing, combating and eradicating illicit brokering in SALW and the activities of the United Nations separately and through the Coordinating Action on Small Arms (CASA) mechanism, in support of the PoA.

DDA organized two workshops in New York and Geneva, on 31 May and 3 June, respectively, to prepare the second round of broad-based consultations on further steps to enhance international cooperation in preventing, combating and eradicating illicit brokering in SALW. The consultations took place in New York and Geneva, on 1 and 8 July. As part of the follow-up to the PoA and pursuant to resolution 59/86, the second BMS took place in New York, from 11 to 15 July.

Open-Ended Working Group to Negotiate an International Instrument to Enable States to Identify and Trace, in a Timely and Reliable Manner, Illicit Small Arms and Light Weapons

The OEWG, established pursuant to resolution 58/241 of 23 December 2003, held its second session, from 24 January to 4 February, and its third and last session from 6 to 17 June 2005, under the chairmanship of Anton Thalmann (Switzerland).

At the second session, the OEWG negotiated the proposed instrument on the basis of a draft text prepared by the Chairman and circulated to all delegations in December 2004. A revised draft text was prepared for the third session. Discussions at both sessions were marked by persisting differences on key issues of the character and scope of the Instrument and whether it should be legally binding or political in character. The OEWG succeeded in reaching a consensus and recommended that the General Assembly adopt a draft instrument of a political character at its sixtieth session.31

The Instrument contains a number of provisions outlining requirements for marking SALW, record-keeping and cooperation in tracing. Under those provisions, States commit themselves, inter alia, to mark all SALW at the time of their manufacture; take necessary measures to ensure that all SALW in the possession of government armed and security forces for their own use are duly marked; ensure that accurate and comprehensive records are established for all marked SALW within their territory; and provide prompt, timely and reliable responses to tracing requests made by other States. The Instrument also contains provisions for follow-up by which States commit themselves to report to the Secretary-General, on a biennial basis, on implementation of the Instrument and to meet every other year to consider the reports submitted.

Divergent views did not allow the OEWG to reach consensus on the inclusion of SALW ammunition in the Instrument and on the applicability of its provisions to peacekeeping operations mandated by the Security Council or regional organizations. Consequently, the OEWG recommended that both issues be addressed in a comprehensive manner as part of a separate process conducted within the United Nations framework.

By its decision 60/519 of 8 December, the General Assembly adopted the Instrument with 151 votes in favour, but with widespread abstention of States from the Latin American and Caribbean region. (see General Assembly section of this chapter for explanations of vote.)

Second Biennial Meeting of States to consider the implementation of the PoA at the national, regional and global level

Pursuant to resolution 59/86 of 3 December 2004, the second BMS was held from 11 to 15 July, under the chairmanship of Pasi Patokallio (Finland). Member States, international organizations, regional organizations and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) participated.32

During its ten plenary meetings, seventy-nine national statements by representatives of participating States and one Observer State were made; statements were also made by representatives from six international and regional organizations as well as by representatives of the International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA) and the World Forum on the Future of Sport Shooting Activities. In accordance with the provisions of the PoA, one hundred national reports had been submitted to the Secretariat.

The Meeting held thematic discussions of issues related to weapons collection and destruction; stockpile management; disarmament, demobilization and reintegration; marking and tracing; capacity-building; resource mobilization; institution-building; linkages to terrorism, organized crime, trafficking in drugs and precious minerals; import/export and illicit brokering; human development; public awareness and the culture of peace; and the effects of SALW on women, children and the elderly.

The discussions highlighted the fact that illicit SALW continued to pose a complex and multifaceted challenge to international peace and security, social and economic development, human security, public health and human rights, among others. Consequently, the successful implementation of the PoA had to take into account the cross-cutting nature of the problem. It therefore, required a holistic, integrated and coherent approach covering all dimensions. Although it was generally agreed that there was increasing consensus or common understanding on many of the fundamental issues relating to the problem of illicit SALW, other issues such as transfers to non-State actors and civilian possession of firearms, remained controversial.

International cooperation in preventing, combating and eradicating illicit brokering in SALW

Pursuant to paragraph 5 of resolution 59/86, DDA continued to hold consultations on further steps to enhance international cooperation in preventing, combating and eradicating illicit brokering in SALW with all Member States and interested regional and subregional organizations. Also invited to participate were entities of the UN system, NGOs and experts in the field in New York and Geneva, on 1 and 8 July, respectively. In preparation, DDA, with financial support from the Governments of the Netherlands and Norway, organized two workshops, which brought together renowned experts on the issue of brokering in SALW and Member States, in order to enhance understanding of the major issues related to the topic.

In addition, DDA held informal consultations on the margins of its other meetings, such as the regional symposium on the Implementation of the PoA, by the Arab States, in Algiers, from 11 to 13 April; the UN Workshop on SALW, in Beijing, from 19 to 21 April; the meeting on the implementation of the UN PoA organized by the Organization for Security and Cooperation In Europe (OSCE), on 25 April; the Organization of American States (OAS) Forum on Confidence and Security-Building Measures, in Washington D.C., on 25 April; the Workshop on Transfer Control Initiatives for the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), in Nassau, on 12 May; the UN Regional Workshop on Conventional Arms, in Nairobi, from 31 May to 2 June; the Workshop on Transfer Control Initiatives for the Andean Community, in Lima, from 19 to 20 May; and the Workshop on Transfer Controls Initiatives for the MERCOSUR region, in Porto Alegre, Brazil, on 2 June.

It was noted that considerable advances had been made at the regional and subregional levels, where existing instruments covered over 120 countries, and that these instruments could offer a basis for discussions on action at the global level. It was also concluded that a group of governmental experts should be established, within the framework of the United Nations, to study what actions would be appropriate for tackling the problem at the global level and to seek common understandings on some fundamental technical issues, such as definitions and the concept of extra-territorial jurisdiction.

For its part, the General Assembly adopted resolution 60/81, which decided to establish a group of governmental experts, appointed by the Secretary-General on the basis of equitable geographical representation, commencing after the Review Conference and no later than 2007, to consider further steps to enhance international cooperation in preventing, combating and eradicating illicit brokering in SALW in three sessions of one week's duration each, and to submit the report on the outcome of its study to the General Assembly at its sixty-second session. (See General Assembly section.)

Coordinating Action on Small Arms (CASA) Mechanism

CASA members, collectively and individually, continued to carry out activities to address aspects of the SALW problem and to support the implementation of the PoA. CASA's collective priority remained the provision of assistance to States in developing their capacity to implement the PoA as illustrated below.

DDA, the Department for Economic and Social Affairs (DESA) and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) continued jointly to support the Sri Lanka National Commission on Small Arms and Light Weapons and, from 30 March to 4 April, undertook an advisory mission to the country to assist the Commission's start-up.

In addition, upon request from the Government, an inter-agency mission (DDA, DESA, UNDP and the UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC)) was dispatched to Guinea-Bissau, to identify areas where the United Nations could be of assistance. Pursuant to the recommendations of the mission, a capacity-building project was developed with funding from the Government of Japan. However, owing to the deteriorating political situation in the country during the last quarter of 2005, implementation of the project was put on hold until the political situation improved.

Furthermore, assistance was provided to over 115 developing countries under the terms of a project entitled "Capacity development for reporting to the UN PoA on small arms", jointly designed and implemented by DDA, UNDP and the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR), in collaboration with the Small Arms Survey (SAS).33 Assistance was provided mainly through regional workshops and an online help desk.

In another important CASA initiative, DDA, UNIDIR and SAS joined forces to develop a comparative study of existing regional and subregional instruments to regulate brokering in SALW. The study is expected to be published in 2006, prior to the commencement of the work of the group of governmental experts (GGE) to be established by the Secretary-General pursuant to resolution 59/86.

Meanwhile, significant progress was made in efforts to improve the internal functioning of the CASA mechanism and its communication capability. In that regard, a meeting of principals (Heads of departments, funds, agencies and programmes that are CASA members) was held in New York, on 21 December, at which principals' support was renewed for the mechanism and a Strategic Framework approved. The Framework provided guidelines for coordination and cooperation among the members, identified thematic clusters and outlined a communication strategy for effective information exchange and dissemination. Also endorsed was the establishment of the CASA Internet Database designed to facilitate the communication strategy and data collection and report on UN activities related to small arms among CASA members, Member States and the public in general. Details of the initiatives and activities of various CASA members follow.

Department of Public Information (DPI)

DPI continued to develop and implement public information programmes to promote the Organization's activities to combat the illicit trade in SALW. It also covered SALW-related issues in its daily radio live broadcasts and current affairs magazines in official and non-official languages. Topics covered included: "Deaths by firearms in Brazil"; "An interview with the director of a Brazilian NGO on disarmament in Brazil"; "The positions of Arab NGOs on small arms"; and "Small arms issues in Syria, Yemen and Qatar". The Department produced a UN in Action television news story in all official languages about small arms and light weapons called "Surviving rebel abduction in Uganda". Moreover, a number of small arms-related stories were also carried by UNIFEED, the daily satellite feed which reaches some 560 television stations around the world through the Associated Press Television News (APTN) news agency. Topics covered included small arms issues in the Great Lakes region of Africa and publicity work by UN Messengers of Peace relating to SALW.

Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO)

The Department of Peacekeeping Operations continued to play an important role in the implementation of disarmament, demobilization and reintegration (DDR) programmes in peacekeeping missions. In 2005, there were six peacekeeping missions (Burundi, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Cte d'Ivoire, Haiti, Liberia and Sudan) that included specific provisions for weapons collection and destruction in the planning and implementation of their DDR programmes. Operational activities were undertaken within a regional context, which emphasized monitoring the illicit flows of SALW and arms embargoes. Some programmes also stressed weapons collection strategies at the community level, which were complemented by support to develop SALW control regimes and the capacity of national Governments to deal with the proliferation of these weapons. In addition to operational activities, DPKO continued to lead the joint UN inter-agency initiative to develop comprehensive and coherent UN policies, guidelines and procedures as well as a web-based UN resource centre on DDR.

United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)

UNDP continued to provide technical and financial assistance regarding weapons and ammunition collection, stockpile management and destruction. As a result, 102,652 SALW and the equivalent of 13 million small arms cartridges (bullets) were destroyed. Metal from the melted weapons was used in construction, in the production of sewage covers and in peace-related art, such as the dove of peace in Podgorica, Montenegro. Wood from the rifle butts was converted into souvenirs or used as firewood for the destruction of ammunition. Assistance was coordinated through local Country Offices and regional/national SALW project initiatives that covered the regions of Africa, South Eastern Europe and Latin America and the Caribbean. In addition, UNDP developed a software called DDR and SALW Control Management Information System (DREAM), which was deployed in the following countries: Central African Republic, Haiti, Indonesia (Aceh province), Republic of Congo and Sudan.

UNDP, through its Bureau for Crisis Prevention and Recovery (BCPR), continued to support small arms control initiatives. BCPR continued to provide financial and technical support to the South Eastern Europe Clearinghouse for the Control of Small Arms and Light Weapons (SEESAC) regional project. SEESAC further supported the Stability Pact Regional Implementation Plan by building regional and national capacity to control and reduce the proliferation and misuse of SALW, and thus contributed to enhanced stability, security and development in South Eastern Europe.34

In Central America, a regional small arms control project was developed to support the General Secretariat of the Central American Integration System (SG-SICA). This regional project was expected to start in March 2006.

The Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) Small Arms Control Programme (ECOSAP) was launched with the support of UNDP and its ECOWAS development partners. The project will help build the capacity of national small arms commissions in West Africa and will support the implementation of the Moratorium on the Importation, Exportation and Manufacture of Small Arms and Light Weapons in West Africa. In the Great Lakes Region and the Horn of Africa, BCPR supported an external evaluation of the region's Small Arms Reduction Programme (SARP), which had been initiated in May 2002 and finalized in March 2005. Furthermore, BCPR organized a meeting on UNDP Small Arms Programming in the Great Lakes Region of Africa: Lessons learned and a way ahead. This meeting included SARP-donors and Friends of the Nairobi Declaration, presented the lessons learned from the SARP programme and discussed further support for advancing the regional small arms agenda in the Great Lakes Region. At the national level, in addition to continuous financial and technical support to on-going small arms and DDR programmes, UNDP initiated new projects in Burundi, Indonesia, Mozambique and Sudan.

United Nations Disarmament Research Institute (UNIDIR)

UNIDIR, in partnership with the South Eastern Europe Clearinghouse for the Control of Small Arms and Light Weapons (SEESAC, Serbia and Montenegro) and the Centre for International Cooperation and Security (CICS), undertook a study to identify the actual costs of storage and security of small arms and ammunition, to compare them with the costs associated with the destruction of SALW, and to develop a model to assist governments in the formulation of SALW control policies. While this model was originally commissioned to help States in South Eastern Europe make decisions about the future of their surplus stocks, the model was applicable to other regions. The project was funded by UNDP Serbia and Montenegro.35

United Nations Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM)

On 14 July, on the occasion of the second BMS, UNIFEM and the Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue (CHD) co-organized a panel event entitled "Men, women and gun violence: Options for action".36 Presentations were given under two thematic headings: `gender analysis as a tool for understanding impacts and solutions for gun violence' and `policy change for action'. From 31 October to 2 November, the Secretariat of the Multi-Country Demobilization and Reintegration Programme (MDRP) and UNIFEM organized a consultation workshop in Kigali, Rwanda for approximately forty-five participants. The workshop was convened as part of the capacity-building activities of the MDRP Technical Coordination Group (TCG) and was aimed at strengthening MDRP-supported activities in the region and supporting the joint learning within the MDRP partnership. Participants included delegations from the national programmes of the seven active MDRP countries, namely, Angola, Burundi, the Central African Republic, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Republic of Congo, Rwanda and Uganda. Representatives of NGOs from Angola, Burundi and Rwanda and a number of internationally recognized experts on issues associated with gender, DDR and masculinity also attended.37

The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC)

In 2005, the UNODC assisted States in ratifying and implementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime, including the Firearms Protocol and two other Protocols.38 In accordance with guidance provided by the Conference of the Parties to the Convention at its second session (Vienna, 10 to 21 October), UNODC also circulated a questionnaire, in December, aimed at collecting information from States parties and signatories of the Firearms Protocol.

World Health Organization (WHO)

WHO, in partnership with UNDP, continued to implement Phase I of the Armed Violence Prevention Programme (AVPP). This Programme aimed to strengthen national capacities and to promote coherent institutional synergies at international and regional levels on armed violence prevention. Phase I of the AVPP built on the previous work of WHO and UNDP in Brazil and El Salvador and identified and evaluated actions undertaken to prevent armed violence. The goal is to contribute to the development of a database of evidence on effective ways to prevent armed violence and to enhance the capacity to develop strategies to reduce the demand for small arms.

Consolidation of peace through practical disarmament measures

In 2005, the Group of Interested States on Practical Disarmament Measures (GIS) held four meetings to assess project proposals and review requests for assistance by Governments.39 Several project proposals were funded through the GIS, including a joint UN fact-finding mission to Burundi (DDA and UNDP/BCPR). The GIS also funded the travel of an expert from Kenya to brief the Group on the SALW situation and related activities in Sudan and Uganda. In addition, it supported a project in Sudan entitled "Implementation of SALW control measures in south Sudan", which was being implemented by the Bonn International Center for Conversion (BICC).

Transparency in conventional arms transfers and military expenditures

Annual report on the Register for the calendar year 2004

The thirteenth consolidated report issued by the Secretary-General and the two addenda and one corrigendum for the calendar year 2004 contained data and information provided by 115 governments on imports and exports in the seven categories of conventional arms covered by the Register. A composite table for 2004, listing all the replies received by the Secretary-General and indicating whether each reply contained data on imports and exports or both, and whether relevant explanations and background information were included, is annexed to this chapter (see page 38). Regional participation is reflected in the following table.
Regional participation of Member States in the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms: 1999-2004
(excluding Cook Islands, Holy See and Niue)
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
African States (53 members)
7
11
17
17
9
16
Asian States (54 members)
23
32
31
30
34
30
Eastern European States (22 members)
18
20
21
22
20
21
Latin American and Caribbean States (33 members)
21
23
26
24
21
18
Western European and Other States (29 members)
28
28
29
28
29
28

The UN Register of Conventional Arms

DDA continued its efforts to raise extra-budgetary funds to organize workshops in cooperation with interested States to enhance familiarity with and promote participation in the two UN reporting instruments: the standardized instrument for international reporting of military expenditures and the UN Register of Conventional Arms (the Register). As a result of these efforts, subregional workshops were held in Nairobi, in May/June, where the Register was discussed. A presentation on the subject was also made at a plenary meeting of the Hemispheric Committee of the OAS in Washington D.C., in April.

The United Nations continued to gather official data from Member States through its standardized reporting instrument for military expenditures. In 2005, seventy-seven States reported to the instrument, maintaining a relatively high level of participation compared to the previous decade. Although the progress to date fell short of the goal of universal participation, the replies submitted by Member States increased significantly over the past five years, indicating a positive trend towards greater transparency of military expenditures.

Objective information on military matters, including transparency of military expenditures

The Secretary-General requested Member States to submit their annual reports, not later than 30 April, on their military expenditures for the latest fiscal year for which data was available, preferably using to the extent possible, the reporting instrument recommended in resolution 35/42, of 12 December 1980, or as appropriate, any other format developed in conjunction with similar reporting on military expenditures to other international or regional organizations. Replies from seventy-seven Governments, most having used the reporting instrument, were reproduced in a report of the Secretary-General.40 A number of States that did not maintain regular armed forces also reported by submitting a "nil" return.

By its biennial resolution 58/28, para. 5 (f), of 8 December 2003, the General Assembly requested the Secretary-General to promote international and regional symposia and training seminars to explain the purposes of the UN system for the standardized reporting of military expenditures and to give relevant technical instructions. Pursuant to this request, DDA continued to cooperate with interested Governments in holding workshops on transparency in armaments, including the UN standardized instrument, which took place in Nairobi, in May/June. During a plenary meeting of the Hemispheric Committee, (OAS) in Washington D.C., in April, a presentation was also made on the subject and a variety of documents was distributed to the participants. In addition, DDA published the "United Nations Standardized Instrument for Reporting Military Expenditures - Guidelines," which contained general and specific instructions for reporting military expenditures in accordance with the form agreed by Member States. DDA also assisted the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean, as part of an overall governance project, coordinated by the Department of Political Affairs, in the preparation of a report entitled "Methodology for the comparison of military expenditures", which was published in July 2005.

Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW)

Group of Governmental Experts

The tenth, eleventh and twelfth sessions of the CCW Group of Governmental Experts (GGE) were held in Geneva from 7 to 11 March, 2 to 12 August and 14 to 22 November.

During its three sessions, the GGE conducted its work in two Working Groups that addressed the issues of ERW and MOTAPM, chaired by Jayant Prasad (India) on ERW, and Markku Reimaa (Finland) on MOTAPM, respectively. The working group on ERW discussed the implementation of existing principles of international humanitarian law (IHL) and possible preventive measures aimed at improving the design of certain specific types of munitions, including sub-munitions, with a view to minimizing the humanitarian risk of these munitions becoming explosive remnants of war. Based on the mandate agreed in 2004,41 the working group on MOTAPM considered all proposals put forward since the establishment of the GGE with the aim of elaborating appropriate recommendations for submission to the 2005 Meeting of the States parties. Furthermore, under the chairmanship of Gordan Markotic (Croatia), the participants also considered options to promote compliance with the Convention as well as organizational aspects on the third Review Conference.

The tenth session

The tenth session of the GGE adopted its agenda,42 confirmed the Rules of Procedure43 and adopted its Programme of Work.44 At the end of the session, the Group adopted its Procedural Report.45

The Working Group on ERW held two meetings during the tenth session. Although the Group had no mandate on the issue of cluster munitions, the topic was raised during discussions.

The Coordinator's "three-step approach" presented in 2004 continued to guide the discussions.46 Canada presented a working paper with Australia, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the United States (in consultation with the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC)) containing a questionnaire addressed to all States parties.47 The survey put forward a number of questions on IHL principles that were considered applicable to the use of munitions that might become ERW and on the current status of their implementation. The authors suggested that the responses of States parties could form a baseline of common understanding concerning the implementation of existing IHL principles.

The Group also held one meeting of military and technical experts under the chairmanship of Roman Hunger (Switzerland), who presented a paper on "Provisional agenda for the meeting of military experts on ERW".48 The meeting sought to take stock of the key questions related to categorizing the types of munitions that could cause humanitarian problems after a conflict and to the possible technical preventive measures as well as other measures that could reduce the risk of munitions, including sub-munitions, from becoming ERW. Upon the request of many delegations, the Chair's assessment of the state of affairs and on prospects for 2005 were reproduced as conference documents.49

During the general exchange of views on MOTAPM, the majority of States reiterated their support for a legally binding instrument. China, Cuba, Pakistan and the Russian Federation conveyed their long-standing positions that it was more important to universalize Amended Protocol II (AP II) than to adopt a new instrument on MOTAPM. China and the Russian Federation, in particular, pointed out that there was still an absence of sufficient objective data confirming the gravity of the humanitarian risks posed by MOTAPM. The United States and other co-sponsors of the "31-nation proposal" strongly reiterated the importance of adopting new restrictions on the use of MOTAPM.

The Coordinator on MOTAPM urged delegations to concentrate on the substantive and technical aspects of the issue. He presented an updated discussion paper building upon the knowledge and views expressed throughout the previous nine sessions of the Group and reflecting on proposals put forward.50

The discussion on Compliance focused on the new discussion paper by the Chairperson-designate51 and a paper by the European Union entitled "Responses to certain concerns regarding a possible compliance mechanism under CCW: Elaborative memorandum on CCW/GGE/IX/WP.1", which attempted to clarify some elements of the proposal presented last November.52

The eleventh session

At the eleventh session of the GGE, the Working Group on ERW continued to consider the implementation of existing IHL principles and further studied possible preventive measures.53 The Working Group on MOTAPM continued to discuss all proposals that had been made since the establishment of the GGE and focused on a discussion paper presented by the Coordinator.54

The Working Group on ERW held three meetings and heard presentations on "Methodology for evaluation of shelf life of ammunitions" (Argentina), "Implementation of IHL principles in the armed forces of the Czech Republic" (Czech Republic), "Methodological approach to evaluation in the context of improvement of the design of certain specific types of munitions" (France), "Military aspects of ground launched cluster munitions" (Norway) and "Cluster weapons: Real or mythical threat" (Russian Federation).

The Group held one meeting of military and technical experts under chairperson, Vera Bohle (Geneva International Centre for Humanitarian Demining (GICHD)), who presented a paper that focused on the second main topic, preventive technical measures.55 Work focused on the identification of the types of munitions, including sub-munitions that presented a specific humanitarian risk, based on a humanitarian risk threat matrix (United Kingdom), a matrix on possible preventive measures for specific types of munitions (Switzerland) as well as a methodological matrix (France).56 The objective was to set minimum reliability standards that would decrease the humanitarian impact and improve the military utility of munitions and sub-munitions. Improvement of the design of munitions was the main controversial point of the debate.

The Working Group on MOTAPM held seven meetings and discussed the Coordinator's updated discussion paper, which dealt with the main substantive items (detectability, restrictions on the use of MOTAPM, measures to prevent unauthorized use of MOTAPM, fuse design and sensors, protection of civilians, warning and mine risk education, transfers, transparency and other confidence-building measures, cooperation and assistance).57 The Group held two meetings of military experts, chaired by Ahti Vartiainen (Finland), who presented a provisional agenda for the discussion.58

On the issue of options to promote compliance with the Convention and its annexed Protocols, the Group had before it a discussion paper prepared by the Chairperson which attempted to merge the two existing proposals by South Africa and by the European Union (EU).59 The discussions on the two proposals revealed a division in the Group between those favouring the South African proposal modeled after AP II, and those strongly advocating a more enhanced compliance model as proposed by the EU.

The Chairman-designate presented a "Food for Thought Paper" on the Preparation of the third Review Conference.60

The twelfth session

The twelfth session of the GGE held four plenary meetings. The Coordinator on MOTAPM was assisted by Australia on Definitions, Brazil on Transfers, Canada on Active Life, France on Transparency, Germany on Detectability and Mexico on Cooperation and Assistance. At the end of the session, the Group adopted a Procedural Report.61

The Working Group on ERW held two meetings. Preventive technical measures were discussed at length at the meeting of military and technical experts chaired by Vera Bohle.62 The discussion focused on finding ways to set minimum reliability standards that would decrease the humanitarian impact and improve the military utility of munitions and sub-munitions. Improvement of the design of munitions was the chief controversial point of the debate.

The Working Group on ERW heard presentations on "Explosive remnants of war - a view from an operational theatre" (Australia), "A way ahead to reduce the ERW rate" (France), "General requirements for safety and suitability for service of cluster munitions" (Germany), "Defense Science Board Task Force on munitions system reliability" (United States), "ERW" (UN Mine Action Service (UNMAS)) and a methodology for analyzing the extent to which different classes of munitions contributed to the ERW problem (United Kingdom).

The Working Group on MOTAPM was unable to reach agreement on recommendations and forwarded the issue to the November Meeting of the States parties.63

Regarding the Preparation of the third Review Conference, the Chairperson-designate presented additional ideas in another "Food for Thought Paper."64

The Meeting of the States Parties

The Meeting of the States parties to the CCW was held in Geneva, from 24 to 25 November, under the chairmanship of Gordan Markotic (Croatia) with the participation of sixty-seven States parties,65 two Signatory States66 and fifteen States not parties to the Convention as observers,67 representatives of UNDP, UNMAS and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), as well as a number of other international and NGOs.

Its main task was to consider the report of the GGE of the States parties to the Convention, including the recommendations contained therein on the mandates of the two working groups for further work in 2006.

In his message to the Meeting, the Secretary-General expressed satisfaction at the progress being made in the consideration of MOTAPM and strongly encouraged States to follow the successful example of Protocol V on ERW. He also expressed satisfaction that the States parties were examining ways to strengthen the implementation of international humanitarian law to address the humanitarian and development impact of sub-munitions, and hoped that the States parties would reach a common understanding on an effective, flexible and transparent compliance mechanism for the framework Convention and all its Protocols.

The Meeting of the States parties took the following decisions:

1. that further work in Working Group on ERW in 2006 would continue to consider, including through participation of legal experts, the implementation of existing principles of IHL and to further study, on an open-ended basis, with particular emphasis on meetings of military and technical experts, possible preventive measures aimed at improving the design of certain specific types of munitions, including sub-munitions, with a view to minimizing the humanitarian risk of these munitions becoming explosive remnants of war. Exchange of information, assistance and cooperation would be part of this work. The Group would report on its work to the third Review Conference in 2006;
2. that the Working Group on MOTAPM would continue, in 2006,

(a) to continue to consider all proposals on MOTAPM put forward since the establishment of the Group of Governmental Experts with the aim of elaborating appropriate recommendations on MOTAPM for submission to the third Review Conference; (b) to conduct meetings of military experts to provide advice on these activities; and (c) to designate Francois Rivasseau (France) as President of the third Review Conference of the States parties and appoint Edvardas Borisovas (Lithuania) as Coordinator on ERW, and a representative of the Group of the Non-Aligned Movement as Coordinator on MOTAPM;

3. that the President-designate should undertake consultations during the intersessional period on possible options to promote compliance with the Convention and its annexed Protocols, taking into account proposals put forward, and submit a report, adopted by consensus, to the States parties;
4. that the Secretary-General of the United Nations, as Depositary of the Convention and its annexed Protocols, and the President-designate, on behalf of the States parties, exercise their authority to achieve the goal of universality of the Convention and its annexed Protocols. To this effect, the Meeting requested that the President-designate consider reporting to the sixty-first session of the General Assembly on his endeavours;
5. that the States parties be called upon to promote wider adherence to the Convention and its annexed Protocols in their respective regions and, in particular, to consider organizing national or regional workshops, conferences or other events aimed at promoting the Convention and its annexed Protocols;
6. that a separate appeal be issued urging all States that had not yet done so to take all measures to accede to the Convention and its annexed Protocols as soon as possible. (see Appendix 46).

The Meeting also took the following procedural decisions:

1. the third Review Conference of the CCW would be held in Geneva, from 7 to 17 November 2006, in conjunction with the eighth annual Conference of the States parties to Amended Protocol II, on 6 November;
2. preparations for the third Review Conference within the framework of the GGE would convene in three sessions in Geneva during 2006: 6-10 March, 19-23 June and 28 August-6 September.

Anti-personnel mines

The seventh annual Conference of the States Parties to Amended Protocol II of the CCW

The seventh annual Conference met on 23 November, presided by Jrg Streuli (Switzerland). The United Nations Secretary-General sent a message to the Conference underscoring that the full and effective application of the Amended Protocol's (AP II) provisions would significantly improve the protection of civilian populations. He also echoed the appeal made by the Heads of State and Government during the 2005 World Summit which urged all States parties to AP II to fully implement their respective obligations and called on States in a position to do so, to provide greater technical assistance to mine-affected countries.

The Conference adopted a report, which included an appeal for the Protocol's universality.68 Among other things, it also recommended that the Secretary-General, in his capacity as Depositary of the Protocol, as well as the President of the Conference, exercise their authority to achieve that goal.

The Conference devoted a great deal of its work to considering the annual national reports submitted by the States parties. A record sixty national annual reports were received, containing information on eight specific items as outlined in article 13 paragraph 4 and article 11 paragraph 2 of AP II. During the course of its work, China delivered a video presentation entitled "China's mine action 2005", which highlighted its demining operations, technical exchange and cooperation, socio-economic reconstruction and landmine victim assistance.

The Conference decided to nominate the permanent representative of the Czech Republic as President-designate of the eighth annual Conference of the States parties, which would take place in Geneva on 6 November 2006.

Sixth Meeting of the States Parties to the Mine-Ban Convention

Pursuant to the decision taken at the first Review Conference of States parties to the Mine-Ban Convention, the Nairobi Summit, meetings of the States parties would be convened annually until the second Review Conference, to be held in 2009.69 The first Review Conference also decided that the sixth Meeting of the States parties would be convened in Croatia, from 28 November to 2 December 2005. To prepare for the sixth Meeting, in keeping with past practice, intersessional work was conducted in Standing Committees, which met from 13 to 17 June.70

The official opening of the meeting was preceded by a ceremony, on 27 November, during which statements were delivered by the President of the Republic of Croatia, Stjepan Mesi, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and European Integration of Croatia, Kolinda Grabar-Kitarovi, the Mayor of the City of Zagreb, Milan Bandi, the President of the First Review Conference, Wolfgang Petritsch (Austria), the President of the fourth Meeting of the States parties, Jean Lint (Belgium) and the 1997 Nobel Peace Prize co-recipient, Jody Williams of the International Committee to Ban Landmines (ICBL). The Meeting was attended by a large number of States parties and observers, as well as by representatives of numerous international organizations and NGOs.71

Kolinda Grabar-Kitarovic was elected President of the Meeting, and Dijana Plestina, from the same Ministry, was confirmed Secretary-General. The Meeting devoted its time to thematic discussions organized in accordance with the main themes in the Nairobi Action Plan.72 The Meeting welcomed the Zagreb Progress Report as an important means to support the application of the Nairobi Action Plan by measuring progress made during the period 3 December 2004 to 2 December 2005 and highlighted priority areas of work for the States parties, the Co-Chairs and the Conference's President in the period between the sixth and seventh Meetings of the States parties.73 The Zagreb Progress Report could be considered the first in a series of annual progress reports prepared by the States parties in advance of the 2009 second Review Conference.

The Meeting also reviewed the general status and operation of the Convention, expressing satisfaction that 143 States had ratified or acceded to it, and also noted that a number of States parties had acted in accordance with their commitment to seize every appropriate opportunity to promote adherence to the Convention, thus indicating that universalization was an important matter for all States parties. In keeping with the relevant actions of the Nairobi Action Plan, specific efforts towards universalization and universal observance of the Convention's norms were also stressed.

Consideration was given to the submission of requests under articles 5 and 8 of the Convention. The Meeting took note that the President had not been informed that any State wished to make a request for an extension of the deadline for completing destruction of anti-personnel mines, as provided for in article 5, nor a request for clarification of compliance, as provided for in article 8. The Meeting also considered matters concerning transparency reports submitted under article 7. All States parties were encouraged to place a renewed emphasis on ensuring that reports were submitted, as required, by forwarding them to the Geneva Branch of DDA. Moreover, on the basis of a proposal related to voluntary supplementary information, presented by Argentina and Chile, the Meeting agreed to amend the article 7 reporting format.74 (The reporting format is reproduced in annex II of this chapter.)

The Meeting again recognized the value and importance of the Coordinating Committee in the effective functioning and implementation of the Convention and for operating in an open and transparent manner. It also noted the work undertaken by interested States parties through the Sponsorship Programme, which continued to ensure widespread representation at meetings of the Convention.

At the final plenary, the Zagreb Declaration was adopted, thereby reaffirming the commitments made by the States parties at the landmark Nairobi Summit on a Mine Free World. (See Appendix V for the Declaration.) The next Meeting of the States parties will be held under the Presidency of Australia, in Geneva, from 18 to 22 September 2006. Meetings of the Standing Committees are scheduled from 8 to 12 May 2006.

Wassenaar Arrangement

In 2005, the Wassenaar Arrangement on Export Controls for Conventional Arms and Dual-Use Goods and Technology (WA)75 continued to strengthen its outreach to non-Participating States and international organizations, with the goal of promoting its objectives. The WA continued with its Outreach Seminar, first initiated in 2004, by organizing an outreach to industry seminar for business and government representatives in October with the aim of providing a forum for professional exchanges of views and the sharing of national experiences and strengthening the effectiveness of export controls. The Participating States also conducted outreach to other countries in their respective national capacities.

During its eleventh plenary meeting in Vienna, from 13 to 14 December, the Participating States reviewed the year's accomplishments and considered further export control measures.  The Plenary agreed to a number of amendments to the control lists, including in relation to items of potential interest to terrorists such as jamming equipment and unmanned aerial vehicles. It also agreed to continue reviewing other items that could pose a threat, if obtained by terrorists. The Plenary also welcomed practical steps taken by a number of Participating States in implementing Wassenaar Elements for Export Controls of MANPADS, such as the destruction of stockpiles of such weapons, and encouraged the Participating States to promote the Elements on MANPADS to non-Participating States.76

Furthermore, six new States77 participated for the first time in the Plenary, while South Africa was admitted as the first African country to join the Arrangement. The WA's next regular plenary meeting will take place in December 2006.

General Assembly, 2005

The General Assembly took action on eleven draft resolutions and one draft decision related to conventional weapons issues.

Small arms and light weapons

60/68

Addressing the negative humanitarian and development impact of the illicit manufacture, transfer and circulation of small arms and light weapons and their excessive accumulation. The draft resolution was introduced by the Netherlands, on behalf of the sponsors (see page 8 for the sponsors) on 14 October. The revised draft resolution was adopted by the First Committee on 28 October as follows: (160-1-0) and by the General Assembly on 8 December as follows: (177-1-0). For the text of the resolution and the voting pattern, see pages 8 and 16.

In its introductory statement, the sponsor stated that the draft resolution aimed to make the First Committee's work more relevant and that it was a one-time-only resolution on a topical subject, namely, connecting the concept of the close interlinkage that existed between development, peace, security and human rights with the issue of small arms. By its terms, the resolution called upon States to explore ways, as appropriate, to more effectively address the humanitarian and development impact of the illicit manufacture, transfer and circulation of SALW and their excessive accumulation, particularly in conflict or post-conflict situations, and included a number of recommended measures and guidelines.

First Committee

Before the vote, Jordan made a general statement in support of the objectives of the draft resolution.

After the vote, the United States said that it opposed the draft resolution because its issues were outside the purview of the First Committee, particularly the link between the illicit trade in SALW and the humanitarian and socio-economic consequences of the spread of these weapons; also, it felt that issues related to the small arms Review Conference should be left to the Preparatory Committee.

Egypt, Pakistan and Venezuela voted in favour of the draft resolution because they shared its humanitarian and socio-economic concerns and recognized the challenges posed to States emerging from conflict. Egypt believed in the need to address the development and humanitarian aspects of the illicit trafficking in SALW in States emerging from conflict in a manner that conformed to ongoing UN efforts to develop the concept of post-conflict peacebuilding, so in its view, the draft resolution met that criterion. However, Pakistan and Venezuela expressed reservations about some parts of the text. Pakistan would have preferred that the draft resolution kept its focus on the negative impact arising from the agreed understanding of illicit trade rather than introducing elements which had not yet been agreed to, such as a common understanding of what constituted the illicit transfer and manufacture of these SALW. Venezuela sought clarification of the words "excessive accumulation" in the draft resolution and had questions as to what was excessive, how would that be determined and who would make that determination.

60/71

Assistance to States for curbing the illicit traffic in small arms and collecting them. The draft resolution was introduced by Mali, on behalf of the States Members of the United Nations that are members of the Economic Community of West African States, on 14 October. It was adopted without a vote by the First Committee on 28 October and by the General Assembly on 8 December. For the text of the resolution, see pages 50.

The resolution encouraged the Secretary-General to pursue efforts to curb the illicit circulation of SALW and collect them in the affected States that so requested; invited him and those States and organizations that were in a position to do so, to provide assistance to States for the above-mentioned activities; and requested him to continue to consider the matter and to report to the Assembly at its sixty-first session on the implementation of the present resolution. It also encouraged the international community to support the implementation of the ECOWAS Moratorium and to extend further assistance in transforming it into a legally binding instrument. .

First Committee

Although Venezuela joined the consensus, it wished to place on record that the reference, in the eleventh preambular paragraph, to the 2005 summit outcome document, did not give rise to any obligation or mandate.

60/81

The illicit trade in small arms and light weapons in all its aspects.The draft resolution was introduced by Japan, on behalf of the sponsors, (see page 12 for sponsors), on 13 October. It was adopted by the First Committee on 26 October as follows: as a whole (without a vote) and operative paragraph 2 ((162-0-2); and by the General Assembly (without a vote) on 8 December. For the text of the resolution and the voting pattern, see pages 69 and 23.

Among other things, the resolution called upon all States to implement the international instrument on marking and tracing; decided to establish a group of governmental experts, appointed by the Secretary-General, commencing after the review conference and no later than 2007, to consider further steps to enhance international cooperation in illicit SALW and to submit the report on the outcome of its study to the sixty-second session of the General Assembly. It also requested the Secretary-General to continue to collate and circulate data and information provided by States on a voluntary basis, including their national reports, on their implementation of the PoA, and encouraged Member States to submit such reports; and also requested him to report to the sixty-first session on the implementation of the present resolution.

First Committee

Before the vote, Mexico said that it would abstain on paragraph 2 because it contained no reference to existing binding regional and international instruments on the marking and tracing of SALW.

After the vote, France expressed its support for the principle of consensus in the area of SALW, and advised that breaking with the consensus on the PoA and on the issue of small arms would create a much more dangerous precedent at the global level.

60/519

International instrument to enable States to identify and trace, in a timely and reliable manner, illicit small arms and light weapons. The draft decision was introduced by Switzerland, on behalf of the sponsors, (see page 19 for the sponsors), on 13 October. It was adopted by the First Committee on 26 October as follows: (145-0-25); and by the General Assembly on 8 December as follows: (151-0-25). For the text of the decision and the voting pattern, see pages 30 and 30.

By its terms, the General Assembly decided to adopt the International Instrument to enable States to identify and trace, in a timely and reliable manner, illicit small arms and light weapons .78

First Committee

Speaking before the vote and on behalf of the European Union, the United Kingdom said that they would support the decision to adopt the instrument, but expressed regret that no operational provisions on ammunition and peacekeeping operations were included, and that the instrument was not legally binding. Norway said that it would align itself with the views expressed by the United Kingdom on behalf of the EU.

The view expressed by several States that abstained in the vote was that the marking and tracing instrument was not legal in nature and excluded any reference to ammunition; therefore, its non-binding nature and voluntary application would do little to stem the illicit traffic in SALW and would eventually become ineffectual. These views were held by St. Vincent and the Grenadines on behalf of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), , Uruguay, which spoke on behalf of the States members of MERCOSUR and a number of other States that aligned themselves with its explanation of vote,79 Venezuela and Jamaica.

Although Guyana supported the draft resolution, it believed that a legally binding instrument would have reflected a stronger global commitment, which was needed to curb the illicit traffic in small arms.

Conventional arms transfers, transparency and ammunition

60/69

National legislation on transfer of arms, military equipment and dual-use goods and technology. The draft resolution was introduced by the Netherlands, on behalf of the sponsors (see pages 8 for the sponsors) on 14 October. It was adopted without a vote by the First Committee on 28 October and by the General Assembly on 8 December. For the text of the resolution, see page 44.

The resolution invited Member States that were in a position to do so, without prejudice to the provisions in Security Council resolution 1540, to enact or improve national legislation, regulations and procedures to exercise effective control over the transfer of arms, military equipment and dual-use goods and technology; encouraged them to voluntarily provide information to the Secretary-General on the above matters, as well as the changes therein; and requested the Secretary-General to make this information accessible to all Member States

First Committee

Cuba believed that the most effective model of export and import control was one negotiated and applied in a multilateral framework of universal scope and non-discriminatory in nature. In its view, the resolution fell within the framework of legally binding international treaties.

60/74

Problems arising from the accumulation of conventional ammunition stockpiles in surplus. The draft resolution was introduced by France, on behalf of the sponsors (see page 10 for the sponsors), on 14 October. The orally revised draft resolution was adopted by the First Committee without a vote on 31 October and by the General Assembly on 8 December. For the text of the resolution, see pages 57.

In introducing this draft resolution to the First Committee for the first time,80 the sponsors hoped to promote a pragmatic and voluntary approach to the issue, to link voluntary assessments and international assistance, and that the longer-term objective would make a positive impact on the illicit trade in ammunition. By its terms, the resolution encouraged all interested States to assess, on a voluntary basis and in conformity with their legitimate security needs, whether parts of their stockpiles of conventional ammunition should be considered to be in surplus. It also requested the Secretary-General to seek the views of Member States regarding the risks arising from the accumulation of such surplus stockpiles and regarding national ways of strengthening controls on conventional ammunition, and to submit a report to the General Assembly at its sixty-first session.

First Committee

Before the vote, Argentina said that it would support the draft resolution because the need to comprehensively address the problems associated with SALW also addressed the issue of ammunition.

After the vote, India said that it joined the consensus on the grounds that the draft was an appeal only to interested States to voluntarily assess their ammunition stockpiles and was not an obligation for States to report on their assessment of ammunition stockpiles, including information on the security, management and destruction of such stockpiles. Venezuela reaffirmed the legitimate sovereign right of all States to obtain, produce and retain the quantity of conventional arms and ammunition deemed appropriate to meet their legitimate self-defence and security needs.

60/77

Prevention of the illicit transfer and unauthorized access to and use of man-portable air defence systems. The draft resolution was introduced by Australia, on behalf of the sponsors (see page 11 for the sponsors), on 14 October. The revised draft resolution was adopted by the First Committee without a vote on 28 October and by the General Assembly on 8 December. For the text of the resolution, see page 61.

The resolution stressed the importance of effective and comprehensive national controls on the production, stockpiling, transfer and brokering of man-portable air defence systems (MANPADS). It also encouraged Member States to exercise effective control over access to and transfer of MANPADS, to prevent their illicit brokering, transfer, unauthorized access and use; to enact or improve legislation, regulations and procedures to ban the transfer of those weapons to non-State end-users and to ensure that such weapons were exported only to Governments or agents authorized by a Government; and to incorporate controls over training and instructions materials, which might assist non-State actors in their use of these weapons.

Venezuela, which joined the consensus, emphasized the legitimate sovereign right of States to acquire and possess such weapons for their self-defence and security needs, as recognized in the third preambular paragraph of the draft resolution.

Transparency in conventional arms transfers and military expenditures

60/44

Objective information on military matters, including transparency of military expenditures. The draft resolution was introduced by Germany, on behalf of the sponsors (see pages 1 for the sponsors) on 17 October. It was adopted without a vote by the First Committee on 25 October and by the General Assembly on 8 December. For the text of the resolution, see pages 1.

The resolution called upon Member States to report annually to the Secretary-General on their military expenditures for the latest fiscal year and encouraged them to submit nil returns, if appropriate; to inform the Secretary-General of possible problems with the system and to continue to provide him with their views and suggestions on ways and means to strengthen and broaden its participation. It also requested the Secretary-General to encourage the three UN regional centres to assist Member States in their regions to enhance their knowledge of the system through international and regional/subregional symposiums and training seminars to and to report on experiences gained during those symposiums and training seminars.

60/226

Transparency in armaments. At its 23rd meeting on 1 November, the First Committee had before it a revised draft resolution entitled "Transparency in armaments". It was adopted by the First Committee at the same meeting as follows: as a whole (122-0-21), op. para. 2 (last sixteen words) (108-1-16), op. para. 3 (115-0-18), op. para. 4(b) (118-0-16) and op. para. 6 (116-0-19) and by the General Assembly on 23 December as follows: as a whole (99-0-22), op. para. 2 (last sixteen words) (97-0-20), op. para. 3 (94-0-22), op. para. 4 (b) (97-0-19) and op. para. 6 (93-0-22). For the text of the resolution and the voting pattern, see pages 99 and 27.

Among other things, the resolution requested the Secretary-General, with the assistance of a group of governmental experts to be convened in 2006, to prepare a report on the continuing operation of the Register and its further development, taking into account the work of the Conference on Disarmament, the views expressed by Member States and the reports of the Secretary-General on the operation and further development of the Register, with a view to taking a decision at its sixty-first session.

First Committee

After the vote, a number of States explained their abstentions. Egypt, on behalf of the League of Arab States (LAS), stressed that the Register did not meet their security needs because of its limited scope, and needed to be expanded to include WMDs, particularly nuclear weapons, and advanced technology; reasserted their view that an unbalanced Register with an incomplete approach, especially in the Middle East, could not be an effective and reliable confidence-building measure and early-warning instrument; and had reservations about the proposal to create a group of governmental experts. The Syrian Arab Republic, Yemen and Sudan expressed their full support for the Arab position on the draft resolution. Syria added that the draft resolution overlooked the special situation in the Middle East, where Israel's claimed transparency in the field of armaments applied to only a small portion of its sophisticated arsenal. Cuba noted controversial elements in the draft resolution, namely, the references to recommendations contained in the 2003 report of the Secretary-General and the invitation for the Conference on Disarmament to consider continuing its work in the field of transparency in armaments. It also expressed interest in participating in the GGE, in 2006. China reiterated its known position vis--vis the United States' practice of registering its arms sales to Taiwan as the only obstacle to its submission of reports to the Register and the principal reason for its inability to support the draft resolution. Turning to this year's draft resolution, it believed that the registration of SALW should be subject to study and discussion by next year's group of governmental experts, and that the present resolution should not prejudge that group's work.

60/82

Information on confidence-building measures in the field of conventional arms. The draft resolution was introduced by Argentina, on behalf of the sponsors (see pages 13 for the sponsors) on 18 October. It was adopted without a vote by the First Committee on 25 October and by the General Assembly on 8 December. For the text of the resolution, see page 71.

The resolution, first introduced at the fifty-ninth session in 2004 as resolution 59/92, requested the Secretary-General to establish, with the financial support of States in a position to do so, an electronic database containing information provided by Member States and to assist them, at their request, in the organization of seminars, courses and workshops aimed at enhancing the knowledge of new developments in this field.

Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW)

60/93

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. The draft resolution was introduced by Sweden, on behalf of the sponsors (see pages 16 for the sponsors) on 14 October. It was adopted without a vote by the First Committee on 25 October and by the General Assembly on 8 December. For the text of the resolution, see page 90.

The resolution called upon all States that had not yet done so to become parties to the Convention and its Protocols; and called upon all States parties that had not yet done so to extend the scope of the Convention and its Protocols to include armed conflicts of a non-international character. It also recalled the decision of the Second Review Conference to convene a further conference not later than 2006.

Anti-personnel mines

60/80

Implementation of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-personnel Mines and on Their Destruction. The draft resolution was introduced by Austria, on behalf of the sponsors (see page 12 for the sponsors), on 13 October. It was adopted by the First Committee on 28 October as follows: (147-0-15) and by the General Assembly on 8 December as follows: (158-0-17). For the text of the resolution and the voting pattern, see pages 66 and 23).

The resolution invited all States that did not sign the Mine-Ban Convention to accede to it without delay; urged those that had signed but not ratified the Convention to ratify it without delay; and urged all States parties to provide the Secretary-General with complete and timely information as required under article 7 of the Convention, to promote transparency and compliance. It also highlighted the importance of full and effective implementation of the Nairobi Action Plan (2005-2009)81.

First Committee

Twelve States, not party to the Ottawa Convention- Azerbaijan, China, Cuba, Egypt, India, Kazakhstan, Morocco, Myanmar, Pakistan, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation and Singapore-explained their positions.

Some States, which attached importance to the legitimate humanitarian concerns of the indiscriminate use of anti-personnel landmines (APLMs), had to abstain in the vote. The Russian Federation was prepared to accede to the Convention only when it was able to meet its obligations. Cuba said that it could not renounce the use of APLMs, in order to preserve its sovereignty and territorial integrity, in accordance with the right of self-defence in the UN Charter. India favoured a phased approach that addressed the legitimate defence requirements of States, especially those with long borders, and a process that could cost-effectively eliminate APLMs through militarily effective and non-lethal alternative technologies. Egypt believed that the Convention contained significant imbalances: its failure to address the legitimate right of self-defence, international cooperation to States affected by mine proliferation and the need to provide such States with assistance in mine-clearance. The Republic of Korea stressed that its unique security situation did not allow it to adhere to the Convention. Kazakhstan asserted that it had to abstain because it was not a signatory to the Convention, but was ready to become a party when the proper conditions were created. Given its security requirements, Pakistan could not agree to the demands for the complete prohibition of APLMs until viable alternatives were available; therefore, had to abstain.

For the first time, China and Azerbaijan voted in favour of the draft resolution because they supported the humanitarian purposes and objectives of the Ottawa Convention. While supporting the draft resolution, Singapore also reaffirmed that legitimate security concerns and the right of self-defence of any State could not be disregarded, therefore a blanket ban on all types of APLMs might be counter-productive. By its affirmative vote, Morocco reaffirmed its support for and commitment to the humanitarian principles and goals of the Convention.

As a State party to the Ottawa Convention, Venezuela voted in favour of the draft resolution and announced that it had actively contributed to the mine-clearance process in Central America.

Conclusion

The adoption of the International Instrument to Enable States to Identify and Trace, in a Timely and Reliable Manner, Illicit Small Arms and Light Weapons was a welcome achievement in the area of arms control in 2005. Nevertheless, divergent perspectives persisted on the Instrument. The heated debate over its character and the lack of agreement on the inclusion of SALW ammunition and on the applicability of the Instrument's provisions to peacekeeping operations reflected the challenges inherent to decision-makers by consensus, and for some States, laid the ground for future work on the Instrument.

The second Biennial Meeting of States provided yet another opportunity for a State to State exchange of information and experience, as well as fruitful interaction between governmental representatives and civil society organizations. The intensity of the thematic debate offered a clear hint at growing expectations for the 2006 Review Conference. In addition, the decision by the General Assembly to establish a group of governmental experts to consider further steps to enhance international cooperation to prevent, combat and eradicate illicit brokering in SALW underscored its commitment to strengthen UN efforts to prevent, combat and eradicate the illicit trade in those weapons. The Assembly's adoption of a one-time resolution aimed at addressing the humanitarian and development impact of the illicit trade in SALW represented a first step towards a more holistic approach to addressing the problem. In a related development, the Assembly also adopted a new resolution on the problems arising from the accumulation of conventional ammunition stockpiles, encouraging all interested States to assess whether, in conformity with their legitimate security needs, parts of their stockpiles of ammunition should be considered as surplus.

The two UN instruments - the Register of Conventional Arms and the standardized instrument for international reporting of military expenditures - continued to contribute to promoting transparency in military matters. Although both instruments recorded a major increase in the number of reporting States over the past five years, differences among Member States continued, especially regarding the Register's scope. Despite these differences, the general trend to move towards the direction of greater transparency in the interest of increased confidence-building among States on military matters continued.

Annex I
Composite table of replies of Governments for the UN Register of Conventional Arms: Calendar Year 2004

(Including "nil" reports submitted by Cook Islands and Niue)
Government
Data on exports
Data on imports
Explanation submitted in note verbale
Background Information
Albania
nil
nil

no
Andorra
nil
nil

no
Antigua and Barbuda
nil
nil

no
Argentina
nil
yes

yes
Armenia
nil
nil

yes
Australia
yes
yes

yes
Austria
yes
yes

yes
Azerbaijan
nil
nil

no
Bahamas
nil
nil

no
Bangladesh
nil
yes

no
Barbados
nil
nil

no
Belarus
yes
nil

no
Belgium
nil
nil

yes
Belize
nil
nil

no
Bolivia
nil
nil

no
Bosnia and Herzegovina
nil
nil

no
Brazil
nil
yes

yes
Bulgaria
yes
yes

yes
Burkina Faso
nil
nil

no
Burundi
nil
nil

no
Cambodia
nil
nil

no
Canada
yes
yes

yes
Chile
nil
yes

no
Burkina Faso
nil
nil

no
Comoros
nil
nil

no
Cook Islands
nil
nil

no
Costa Rica
nil
nil

no
Croatia
nil
nil

yes
Cuba
nil
nil

no
Cyprus
nil
yes

no
Czech Republic
yes
yes

no
Denmark
nil
yes

no
Estonia
nil
yes

yes
Fiji
nil
nil

no
Finland
yes
yes

yes
France
yes
nil

yes
Gabon
nil
yes

no
Gambia
nil
nil

no
Georgia
nil
yes

no
Germany
yes
yes

yes
Greece
yes
yes

yes
Guatemala
nil
nil

no
Guyana
nil
nil

no
Hungary
yes
nil

yes
Iceland
nil
nil

no
India
nil
yes

no
Indonesia
nil
nil

no
Ireland
nil
yes

yes
Israel
yes
yes

yes
Italy
yes
nil

no
Jamaica
nil
nil

no
Japan
nil
nil

yes
Jordan
yes
yes

no
Kazakhstan
nil
yes

no
Kiribati
nil
nil

no
Kyrgyzstan
nil
yes

no
Latvia
nil
nil

no
Lebanon
nil
nil

no
Lesotho
nil
nil

no
Liechtenstein
nil
nil

no
Lithuania
nil
yes

yes
Luxembourg
nil
nil

yes
Malawi
nil
nil

no
Malaysia
nil
yes

no
Maldives
nil
nil

no
Malta
nil
nil

no
Marshall Islands
nil
nil

no
Mauritius
nil
nil

no
Mexico
nil
yes

no
Micronesia (Federated States of)
nil
nil

no
Monaco
nil
nil

no
Mongolia
nil
nil

no
Mozambique
nil
nil

no
Namibia
nil
nil

no
Nepal
nil
nil

no
Netherlands
yes
yes

yes
New Zealand
nil
yes

yes
Niue
nil
nil

no
Norway
nil
nil

no
Pakistan
nil
yes

no
Palau
nil
nil

no
Paraguay
nil
nil

no
Peru
nil
yes

no
Philippines
nil
yes

no
Poland
yes
yes

yes
Portugal
nil
yes

no
Republic of Korea
nil
yes

no
Republic of Moldova
nil
nil

yes
Romania
yes
yes

yes
Russian Federation
yes
nil

no
Saint Lucia
nil
nil

no
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
nil
nil

no
Samoa
nil
nil

no
San Marino
nil
nil

no
Senegal
nil
nil

no
Serbia and Montenegro
yes
nil

yes
Singapore
yes
yes

no
Slovakia
yes
yes

yes
Slovenia
nil
nil

no
Solomon Islands
nil
nil

no
South Africa
yes
yes

yes
Spain
yes
yes

yes
Sweden
yes
nil

yes
Switzerland
yes
yes

yes
Tajikistan
nil
nil

no
Thailand
nil
yes

no
Tonga
nil
nil

no
Trinidad and Tobago
nil
nil

no
Turkey
yes
yes

yes
Turkmenistan
nil
nil

no
Tuvalu
nil
nil

no
Ukraine
yes
nil

no
United Kingdom
yes
yes

yes
United Republic of Tanzania
nil
nil

no
United States
yes
yes

yes
Vanuatu
nil
nil

no
Viet Nam
nil
nil

no
Zambia
nil
nil

no

Annex II
Amended Article Seven Reporting Format




Annex III
An Appeal of the High Contracting Parties to 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 (CCW) on the Occasion of the 2005 Meeting of the States Parties

We, the High Contracting Parties to 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, meeting in Geneva on 24 and 25 November 2005:

Recalling with satisfaction the adoption and entry into force of 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, and the Protocol on Non-Detectable Fragments (Protocol I), the Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby Traps and Other Devices (Protocol II) and its amended version (Amended Protocol II), the Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons (Protocol III), the Protocol on Blinding Laser Weapons (Protocol IV), as well as the amendment of Article 1 of the Convention by which the scope of application of the Convention and its annexed Protocols was extended to include armed conflicts of a non-international character;

Recalling with satisfaction the adoption of the Protocol on Explosive Remnants of War (Protocol V) at the Meeting of the States Parties held at Geneva on 27 and 28 November 2003;

Recalling with satisfaction the adoption without a vote at the 60th session of the United Nations General Assembly of resolution A/C.1/60/L.48 entitled "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" by which the Member States of the United Nations have renewed their call upon all States that have not yet done so to take all measures to become parties, as soon as possible, to the Convention and the Protocols thereto, as amended, with a view to achieving the widest possible adherence to these instruments at an early date, and so as to ultimately achieve their universality;

Welcome the fact that, as of 25 November 2005 100 States have adhered to the Convention, 98 States have notified the Depositary of their consent to be bound by Protocol I, 87 States have notified the Depositary of their consent to be bound by Protocol II, 85 States have notified the Depositary of their consent to be bound by Amended Protocol II, 93 States have notified the Depositary of their consent to be bound by Protocol III, 81 States have notified the Depositary of their consent to be bound by Protocol IV, 13 States have notified the Depositary of their consent to be bound by Protocol V, 44 States have adhered to the amended Article 1 of the Convention;

Emphasize the importance of achieving universal adherence to the Convention and its annexed Protocols;

Urge all States that have not yet done so to take all measures to become parties, as soon as possible, to the Convention and its annexed Protocols.


1A/59/2005, Report of the Secretary-General, In larger freedom: towards, development, security and human rights for all, para. 81.
2See The United Nations and Disarmament: 1945-1970, chap. II (United Nations publications, Sales No. 70.IX.1), in particular, resolution 41(I) of 14 December 1946.
3The texts of all treaties, protocols and amendments thereto, signatures, ratifications and accessions are available at http://disarmament/un.org/ TreatyStatus.nfs.
4Protocol I on non-detectable fragments, Protocol II on mines, booby-traps and other devices and Protocol III on incendiary weapons.
5Amended Protocol II entered into force on 3 December 1998.
6Protocol IV entered into force on 30 July 1998.
7Amendment I entered into force on 18 May 2004.
8Protocol V has not yet entered into force.
9See (A/CONF.192/15) for The Programme of Action, also available at http://disarmament.un.org/cab/poa/html.
10The text of the Mine-Ban Convention is reproduced in The United Nations Disarmament Yearbook, (United Nations publication, Sales No. E.98.IX.1), vol.22:1997, appendix II, pp. 227-241.
11Report of the Disarmament Commission, Official Records of the General Assembly, Fifty-fourth session, Supplement No. 42 (A/54/42, annex III).
12http://yearbook2006.sipri.org/ch8.
13 See Report of the Open-ended Working Group to Negotiate an International Instrument to Enable States to Identify amd Trace. in a Timely and Reliable Manner, Illicit Small Arms and Light Weapons, (A/60/88, annex).
14See Report of the Second Biennial Meeting of States to Consider the Implementation of the Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects (A/CONF.192/BMS/ 2005/1).
15 Report of the Secretary-General on the Illicit trade in small arms and light weapons in all its aspects (A/60/161).
16S/PRST/2005/7.
17A group of Nobel Peace Laureates pledged to promote an international initiative to establish an agreement to control the arms trade. Together, they drafted the Nobel Peace Laureates International Code of Conduct on Arms Transfers, which over time has developed into the Arms Trade Treaty. See www.controlarms.org.
18Further information on the ATT is available at www.fco.gov.uk.
19www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2005/42647.htm (accessed 6 September 2006).
20See CCW/MSP/2005/2, annex V: Croatia, Denmark, Finland, Germany, India, Liberia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Sierra Leone, Sweden and Ukraine.
21The Final Declaration of the 2001 second Review Conference of the States Parties to CCW (CCW/CONF.II/2, Part II), "Review of Article 8 of the Convention: "The Conference decides, consistent with Article 8 paragraph 3 (c) to convene a further Conference five years following the entry into force of the amendments adopted at the second Review Conference, but in any case not later than 2006, with preparatory meetings starting as early as 2005, if necessary." More comprehensive background on this matter is contained in document CCW/GGE/X/4 of 4 March 2005.
22S/PRST/2004/1.
23Report of the Secretary-General on Small Arms (S/2002/1053), 20 September 2002.
24S/2005/69.
25Ibid., paras. 22 and 68.
26S/PRST/2005/7.
27S/2005/86.
28S/PRST/2005/9.
29S/PRST/2005/25.
30S/PRST/2005/52.
31op. cit., footnote 13.
32op. cit., footnote 14.
33Small Arms Survey is an independent research project located at the Graduate Institute of International Studies (Geneva) and serves as the principal international source of public information on all aspects of small arms.
34Information on SEESAC is available at www.seesac.org. See also chapter V of this volume.
35See Note by the Secretary-General, United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research (A/60/135).
36Information on CHD is available at www.hdcentre.org/index.php.
37Information on UNIFEM and its activities is available at www.unifem.org.
38The Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children and the Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Air and Sea.
39Information on the Group of Interested States is available at http://disarmament.un.org/cab/pdm-gis.html.
40A/60/159 and Add. 1, 2 and 3.
41The 2004 Meeting of the States parties did not reach agreement on a negotiating mandate on MOTAPM; instead, they agreed to use the previous mandate on the understanding that it was sufficiently generic to permit a "negotiation-oriented" style of discussion.
42CCW/GGE/X/1, 10 February 2005. The agenda was applied to all three sessions of the Group of Governmental Experts. (This and all documents of the CCW are available through the Official Document System of the United Nations at http://documents.un.org.
43CCW/CONF.II/PC.1/1 with oral amendments as recommended and used by the second Review Conference of the States parties to the CCW.
44CCW/GGE/X/2, 10 February 2005.
45CCW/GGE/X/5, 16 March 2005.
46This approach was outlined in CCW/GGE/VII/WG.1/WP.1, 8 March 2004, and identified: (i) which principles of IHL were relevant to these weapons; (ii) the status of their implementation by the various States parties; and (iii) the adequacy of the national implementation mechanisms as required by IHL, and whether any further measures were required.
47CCW/GGE/X/WG.1/WP.2, 8 March 2005 "International Humanitarian Law and ERW".
48CCW/GGE/X/WG.1/1, 8 March 2005.
49CCW/GGE/X/WG.1/WP.5, 15 March 2005, "Review 2004" and CCW/GGE/X /WG.1/WP.6, 15 March 2005, "Perspectives 2005".
50CCW/GGE/X/WG.2/1, 1 March 2005, "Proposals and ideas on MOTAPM in the Group of Governmental Experts (GGE) with the purpose to provide a basis for further work".
51CCW/GGE/X/3, 1 March 2005.
52CCW/GGE/X/WP.1, 4 March 2005.
53The Group confirmed its agenda, as adopted at its tenth session, confirmed the Rules of Procedure and adopted its Programme of Work.
54CCW/GGE/XI/WG.2/1, 21 July 2005, "Proposals and ideas on MOTAPM in the Group of Governmental Experts (GGE) with the purpose to provide a basis for further work".
55CCW/GGE/XI/WG.1/1, "Provisional agenda for the Meeting of the Military and Technical Experts on ERW".
56CCW/GGE/IX/WG.1/1, 31 January 2005, annexes.
57op. cit., footnote 50.
58CCW/GGE/XI/WG.2/2, "Provisional agenda for the meetings of the military experts on MOTAPM", 21 July 2005.
59CCW/GGE/XI/2, 26 July 2005.
60CCW/GGE/XI/3, 29 July 2005.
61CCW/GGE/XII/4, 8 February 2006.
62op. cit., footnote 55.
63CCW/GGE/XII/4, para. 21, 8 February 2006.
64CCW/GGE/XII/2 and Corr.1, 16 November 2005.
65Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Cambodia, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Ecuador, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Holy See, Hungary, India, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Senegal, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States and Venezuela.
66Egypt and Vietnam.
67Azerbaijan, Cte d'Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, United Arab Emirates and Yemen.
68CCW/AP.II/CONF.7/2. The text of the Appeal is reproduced in Appendix IV.
69See Final Report of the Conference, APLC/CONF/2004/5, para. 32 (a), 9 February 2005.
70The intersessional meetings were supported by the Implementation Support Unit (ISU) of the Geneva International Centre for Humanitarian Demining (GICHD) and benefited from the active participation of relevant regional and international organizations and NGOs.
71See Final Report of the Meeting, APLC/MSP.6/2005/5, 5 April 2006, paras. 12-17.
72op. cit., footnote 69, Part III.
73op. cit., footnote 71, Part II.
74APLC/MSP.6/2005/5, annex II. See also annex II of this chapter.
75Participating States of the Wassenaar Arrangement are: Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom and United States.
76www.wassenaar.org/docs/oth_manpads.pdf.
77Croatia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta and Slovenia.
78The International Instrument on marking and tracing is reproduced as Appendix II of this volume.
79Uruguay spoke on behalf of the States members of MERCOSUR - Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay - the associated States of Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, and the countries which associated themselves with the statement: Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua and Panama.
80A similar text had been adopted without a vote, as Decision 59/515, by the First Committee on 27 October 2004 and by the General Assembly on 3 December. See further explanation in The United Nations Disarmament Yearbook, (United Nations publication, Sales No. E.05.1X.1), vol. 24:2005, p.120.
81op. cit., footnote 69, Part III (Nairobi Action Plan 2005-2009).