Second Meeting of the MBT's SCE

12 May 2000) Letter from ICBL to the States Parties upon the second meeting of the Mine Ban Treaty's Standing Committee of Experts (SCE)

Dear States Party,

We are writing on behalf of the International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL) with regard to the second meeting of the Mine Ban Treaty's Standing Committee of Experts (SCE) on the general status and operation of the Convention, to be held in Geneva on 29-30 May 2000. The first meeting of this SCE, held in Geneva on 10-11 January 2000, was a very successful and very significant meeting, with some crucial progress on a number of the issues the ICBL has identified as top priorities.

In its continuing cooperation with governments, the ICBL views this upcoming May SCE meeting as an important opportunity for further clarification of issues of interpretation and concern in the Mine Ban Treaty, and for follow-up on the recommendations and various actions made at the first January SCE meeting. While the ICBL fully understands that the SCE meetings are not a venue to amend the treaty in any way, we seek a common understanding of the treaty's existing provisions in order to facilitate implementation of the treaty and maximize its effectiveness. Thus, the ICBL would ask that all governments consider the following issues in preparation for the upcoming meeting:

SCE PROCESS: The ICBL views the intersessional process as important and successful thus far, with welcome and extensive ICBL involvement. Problems identified by ICBL at the January SCE meeting included need for fewer meetings, need to get more participation from South and mine-affected nations, and need to get real experts to the meetings. Suggestions included merging some SCEs together, especially technology and mine clearance; moving the mine awareness issue from the victim assistance to the mine clearance SCE; having all the SCEs meet at the same time (one right after the other) during a period of one week or so, and to meet twice a year, so that you have three "landmines weeks" during the year -- two clusters of SCEs meetings, plus the annual meeting of states parties. The co-chairs (Canada and South Africa) agreed to carry out consultations on these matters and make recommendations at the May meeting. The ICBL hopes that its suggestions are taken into consideration.

ARTICLE 1: At the January SCE meeting, the ICBL asked states parties to come to a common understanding of what acts are and are not permitted under Article 1(c), under which each State Party undertakes never under any circumstances to assist, encourage or induce, in any way, anyone to engage in any activity prohibited to a State Party under the Convention. The ICBL called for states parties to reach a common interpretation of the term "assist," especially relative to (a) the use of antipersonnel mines by non-signatories in joint operations with states parties and (b) the stockpiling and transit of foreign antipersonnel mines. The ICRC said that it viewed foreign transit and (permanent) stockpiling of AP mines to be treaty violations, but that it had no position on legality of joint operations. South Africa said transit is clearly prohibited. Canada and the Netherlands clarified their views on joint operations, both saying they could participate in joint operations, but couldn't take part in planning for use of mines, and if ordered to use mines would not do so. The ICBL urges states parties to clarify their views on the legality of joint operations with non-signatories using mines, foreign stockpiling and transit.

ARTICLE 2: At the January SCE meeting, the ICBL asked states parties to reconfirm that according to the definitions in the treaty, antivehicle mines (AVMs) equipped with antihandling devices (AHDs) that function like antipersonnel mines -- that explode from an unintentional act -- are banned by the treaty. Human Rights Watch distributed a fact sheet on this issue. Nine states parties (Ireland, Australia, Austria, Canada, Mexico, Netherlands, Norway, South Africa and Switzerland) and the ICRC stated that the treaty language was clear (that an AVM with an
AHD that explodes from an unintentional act is banned by the treaty), and that the diplomatic record (included in the HRW Fact Sheet) supports this. Not a single country spoke up to dispute this. Ireland proposed the formation of an expert group to clarify what specific types of antihandling devices, antivehicle mines and delivery methods are permissible and which are prohibited under the treaty. The SCE co-chairs, Canada and South Africa, were tasked with carrying out consultations on possible formation of such a group. The ICBL urges states parties to publicly acknowledge that anti-vehicle mines with anti-handling devices that explode from an unintentional act are banned by the Mine Ban Treaty. The ICBL also urges the creation of some mechanism, such as the expert group proposed by Ireland, to identify which AVMs and/or AHDs are problematic.

ARTICLE 3: A significant number of signatories are exercising the Article 3 exception, which permits the retention of live mines for demining development and training purposes. At the January SCE meeting, the ICBL questioned the need for any mines for training and expressed concern that some nations are keeping more than 10,000 mines. The ICBL recommended that states parties come to the May meeting with a statement about precisely how they have used retained mines thus far, and how they expect to use them in future. The ICBL welcomes the decision taken at the January meeting that states parties are encouraged to bring such a statement to the May SCE meeting, and that those who decided not to keep mines are also encouraged to provide a statement on their experience.

ARTICLE 6: At the January SCE, the ICBL spoke on international cooperation and assistance provisions contained in Article 6 and described these provisions as an obligation on all states parties to help mine victims, because all governments are "in a position to do so" in some way. To better gauge progress in this area, the ICBL urged reporting on victim assistance programs be included under Article 7. The ICBL made numerous recommendations growing out of the previous SCE meetings on mine action, including long-term funding for all aspects of mine action, improved availability of mine clearance equipment in emergency situations, more accessible, transparent and impartial sharing of information, improved coordination of governments and the UN with mine action NGOs, and greater assistance for stockpile destruction. In the end, it was recommended that all donors enter data into the new UNMAS "Mine Action Investments" database, and that UNMAS prepare a report for the May meeting on the state of international assistance for mine action.

ARTICLE 7: At the January SCE meeting, the ICBL expressed concern about the lack of timely reporting under Article 7. Approximately half of the states parties required to have filed reports by now have actually done so, and some are less than complete. Human Rights Watch distributed a Fact Sheet on "Mine Ban Treaty Transparency Reporting." The ICBL called on governments and NGOs to work harder to encourage and facilitate reporting, urged governments to share experiences and develop minimum standards, and also called for states parties to include reporting on foreign stocks, antivehicle mines with antihandling devices prohibited by the treaty, on Claymore mines (directional fragmentation mines) and steps taken to ensure command detonation only, on the specific anticipated purpose and the actual use of mines retained for training/development, and on victim assistance programs. The ICBL looks forward to hearing the outcome of discussions with interested states coordinated by the co-chairs, to try to bring recommendations to the May meeting. The ICBL urges on-time Article 7 reporting, and supports the inclusion of reporting on Claymore mines, AVMs with AHDs, specific uses of retained mines, and any foreign stocks.

ARTICLE 8: At the January meeting, the ICBL stressed the need for states parties to urgently put in place the structures and methodology necessary to carry out Article 8 on compliance. The ICBL described the need for states parties to utilize the article (that is, to call for clarifications regarding possible violations) whenever appropriate, and not to only use it in the most dire situations. The co-chairs agreed to coordinate a group of interested states to produce a document aimed at "operationalizing" Article 8.

ARTICLE 9: At the January SCE, the ICBL noted that only some 15 of the 90 states parties had enacted domestic implementation legislation, and called on all to do so, especially to ensure adequate penal sanctions for violations. The ICBL noted that some states have said they don't believe they need such legislation for a variety of reasons, and recommended that states parties provide the May meeting with a statement regarding why they have not adopted domestic legislation. After discussion, the co-chairs put forth the recommendation that states parties are encouraged to provide the May meeting with information on their particular approach to meeting Article 9 obligations. The ICBL also expressed concern about possible inconsistencies of certain national legislation with the treaty and said that ICBL and national campaigns would be continuing to press on this. The ICBL urges states parties to enact national implementing legislation and urges those that have not, to come to the May SCE meeting with a statement of why they have not adopted such legislation.

UNIVERSALIZATION: At the January SCE meeting, the ICBL made a presentation on universalization of the treaty, citing ICBL priorities, strategies, tactics, and methods, and the need for continued coordination of ICBL efforts with those of governments, ICRC and UN agencies. The meeting agreed that all should press for ratifications before 1 March, and that information sharing be improved. The ICBL now urging signatories to ratify and non-signatories to accede by the Second Meeting of States Parties (SMSP) and welcomes continued coordination of efforts with governments, ICRC and UN agencies to increase the number of states parties.

SMSP: The January SCE meeting discussed preparations for the Second Meeting of States Parties (SMSP) to take place in Geneva from 11-15 September 2000. A draft agenda, program, and rules of procedure were circulated and discussed and a number of recommendations made. There was also a discussion on the location of the third meeting of states parties and subsequent ones, with a general view emerging that the meetings should rotate between Geneva and a mine-affected country. The ICBL supports holding the Third Meeting of States Parties in 2001 in a mine affected state party and urges states parties to support this at the May SCE meeting.

On a final point, we would also like to remind you that the co-chairs of the Stockpile Destruction SCE have encouraged states parties to bring to the 22-23 May meeting in Geneva a statement on methods used and lessons learned from their stockpile destruction experiences to date.

The ICBL believes that the above recommendations are important to full and effective implementation of the treaty. We hope that in setting out the issues here and recording the actions taken on these issues at the January meeting, states will be prepared to discuss them further in Geneva in May. We believe this will contribute to our common goal of the total elimination of antipersonnel landmines.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

CC: ICBL Country Campaign Contact