Update on Standing Committee on General Status

(Wednesday 12 June 2002 Washington, DC, USA)

Standing Committee on General Status (Monday 27 and Friday 31 May 2002)

Co-chairs: Norway & Thailand
Co-rapporteurs: Austria & Peru

Notes by Mary Wareham, Human Rights Watch

This update includes:

• General status of universalization efforts
  
• Report on the activities of the Coordinating Committee of SPs
  
• Update on consultations to nominate new co-rapporteurs
  
• Discussion on matters related to Article 7
  
• Article 3 (mines retained for training)
  
• Article 9 (national implementation measures)
  
• Article 2 (definitions)
  
• Preparations for the Fourth Meeting of States Parties
  
• Update on facilitation and clarification of compliance

The SC on General Status was held on two days: first, at the start of the week on Monday morning and last, on Friday 31 May. The first day set the scene for the week’s deliberations and was a good introduction to the work of the SCs, especially for newcomers to the process. For the first time, there was a special briefing for all new participants in the intersessional meetings on the first morning prior to the opening, with brieifings by Amb. Steffen Kongstad of Norway (2MSP President), Cecilia Sanchez (representing Nicaragua, the 3MSP President), Kerry Brinkert (Manager, Implementation Support Unit - ISU) and Susan B. Walker (ICBL).

Monday 27 May 2002

The session opened with a global overview of the general status of implementation of the treaty by Nicaragua, the President of the 3MSP. Nicaragua issued a challenge to governments to use the 2004 Review Conference as a target date for their commitment to finishing the job. Most of the statistics in the presentation were taken from the ICBL’s most recent annual report, Landmine Monitor Report 2001.

Each SC co-chair was invited to provide a report on their activities since the last meeting in January and on the agenda for their meetings during the week. Honduras (Victim Assistance SC co-chair together with Canada), Germany (Mine Clearance SC co-chair together with Yemen), and Croatia and Australia (co-chairs of the SC on Stockpile Destruction) each spoke briefly.

Their interventions provided a “big picture” overview with an enhanced focus on the core humanitarian objectives and particular emphasis on meeting the 4 year stockpile destruction deadline, the 10 year mine clearance deadline and provision of victim assistance, in relation to the full implementation of the Convention.

General status of universalization efforts

Canada opened the discussion with a report on the activities of the informal Universalization Contact Group (UCG). Recent efforts in the DRC and Suriname resulted in these countries fully joining the treaty. SPs have set a target of 130 SPs by the time of the 4MSP in September 2002.

Thailand reported on the Landmines Seminar for Southeast Asian countries, which took place in Bangkok in May 2002 with participation by non-SPs Brunei, Indonesia, Laos and Vietnam.

The ICBL (Sylvie Brigot) updated the SC on the ICBL’s universalization efforts. This includes campaigning to reach a goal of 135 SPs by the 4MSP in September 2002. The ICBL has chosen twelve target countries to focus on to reach this goal since they seem close to fully joining the treaty in the near future (Afghanistan, Burundi, Cameroon, Cyprus, East Timor, Ethiopia, Gambia, Greece, Guyana, Sao Tome, Turkey, and Yugoslavia).

The ICRC reminded the SC that it could provide technical assistance, including drafting and/or commenting on legislation efforts.

Japan gave an update on its universalization activities in which it named the countries it has approached through demarches on the need for them join the treaty urgently. It mentioned that Bhutan and Indonesia had responded positively to invitations to join the treaty.

Turkey said that on 9 May 2002, its Parliamentary Foreign Affairs committee approved joining the treaty and the matter is now before the General Assembly. Greece said that its parliament has unanimously adopted the treaty and the law has been published in the Official Gazette. As soon as Turkey completes the process, both countries will simultaneously deposit their instruments with the UN.

The DRC reported on a workshop on the treaty, which was held in Kinshasa from 2-3 May 2002. It confirmed that the instrument of accession was deposited with the UN on 2 May, following approval by the government (decree 00601 of 28 March 2001). DRC said a national committee would soon be established to ensure implementation of the treaty.

New Zealand said it has approached Pacific Island states including the Cook Islands, Tonga and Vanuatu, and it offered practical support for legislation necessary to join the treaty.

Bangladesh said that it ratified because of its moral obligation and genuine humanitarian commitment to the treaty. It said that the March 2003 stockpile destruction deadline is a concern as it will be the first measure against which the treaty would be judged.

UNMAS said it has a five-year plan in place, which includes ensuring that high-level UN officials continue to advocate for accession to and compliance with the ban treaty. UN in-country representatives are also encouraged to assist in efforts to universalise the treaty.

Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Brazil, Chile, Italy and Mexico also spoke.

Report on the activities of the Coordinating Committee of SPs

The Presidency, Nicaragua, introduced a non-paper on the intersessional programme stressing the need to focus on the humanitarian aspects of the treaty. Brazil, Canada, Japan, the Netherlands and South Africa emphasized the importance of constructive informality of the intersessional meetings. ICBL (Susan Walker) and ICRC spoke in its support. The ICBL also emphasized the important contribution which had been made by Kerry Brinkert and the ISU, since they began work in January. ICBL urged mine-affected State Parties to make full use of the intersessionals to provide informal updates on the progress, plans and challenges they face in implementing the Convention, which can also be included in their Article 7 reports to clarify existing needs for technical or financial assistance.

At lunchtime, the meeting adjourned until Friday.

Friday 31 May 2002

SPs were given the opportunity to provide comment on the items from Monday, including the intersessional programme. The Implementation Support Unit gave a report on its activities, as did Canada for the Sponsorship Committee. Canada reported back on the UCG meeting held the previous day.

Comments from the floor

Papua New Guinea stated that it has no stockpile and no problem with uncleared mines so participation in international meetings is a matter of priorities. There is no point in attending meetings when they have nothing to report. It said it will “join very soon.”

Sudan said they face practical problems that they need help with in order to ratify. Rebel groups are using mines and now donors and NGOs are responding with mine action programmes. Landmine Action (UK) intervened to raise the importance of the SPs supporting activities that can bring signatories such as Sudan closer to ratification and mentioned its involvement with civil society groups in the Sudan since 1998.

Japan drew attention to the importance of making more coordinated efforts to bring the “big guys” on board the treaty.

Update on consultations to nominate new co-rapporteurs

The co-chair (Norway) described the need to balance membership (donor and mine-affected countries, as well as regional balances) and said further consultations will be necessary before being able to finalize nominees for Co-Rapporteurs for next year. Interested State Parties were invited to contact the SC-GSOC Co-Chairs. A list of nominations will be circulated for consideration and decision-making at the 4MSP.

Discussion on matters related to Article 7

The co-chair noted that the UN DDA was not able to post all the reports received by the 30 April deadline.

The Coordinator of the informal Article 7 Contact Group, Belgium, gave an update on a meeting that took place on Wednesday that some 30 people attended. It also presented a non-paper on Article 7. As of 29 May 88 initial transparency reports had been submitted which shows the compliance rate with this provision of the treaty has risen to 75%. Still 29 SPs are late submitting their reports. States Parties were urged to consider taking full advantage of the reporting opportunity to provide additional information and mine affected countries could use IMSMA to assist in reporting. A summary cover sheet to the transparency reporting format has been prepared by Switzerland for voluntary use in annual reporting from 2003 onwards.

The Solomon Islands again confirmed that it holds no stockpile of AP mines and an internal situation has led to the delay in preparation and submission of the Art. 7 report but it hopes to complete the task by the 4MSP.

Austria encouraged SPs to use the reporting mechanism as a tool to report problems and needs in implementation.

Norway noted that its article 7 report was submitted 29 April 2002 but somehow it was mislaid by DDA and then posted to their website late.

DRC said its report is due by 30 April 2003 and requested assistance to compile it.

Bangladesh said it fully supports Art. 7 and is aware it is late submitting its initial report but a national committee has been established now and it should be possible to submit the report by the 4MSP.

The ICBL (Steve Goose, HRW) said it was pleased that the list of SPs submitting initial reports continues to grow but also noted its concern that some 29 countries have still not submitted, including some key mine-affected states and states believed to hold stockpiled mines. Also, some initial reports but not yet submitted are now years overdue with eleven due in 1999 and six in 2000. The ICBL announced that a LM fact sheet on reporting was available to delegates. It also asked SPs to pay attention to the annual reporting requirement, noting that 45 were submitted for 2002 but another 30 have not done so.

Peru said it would reduce its mines retained for training and welcomed some of the ICBL’s suggestions, which included reporting on Claymores.

Angola stated that it should be able to ratify the treaty “this year,” and made an appeal to donors.

Guatemala, Mexico and Nicaragua also spoke.

Updates by SPs on implementation of Article 3 (mines retained for training)

Italy said it has retained 10,000 AP mines for training and the number has since decreased to 8,000. Some 2,500 components were counted as mines.

The ICBL (Steve Goose, HRW) said it was pleased that a dozen SPs had revised downward the numbers of mines retained for training, including Denmark, Italy, and Slovenia. Three more SPs have chosen not to retain any mines under Art. 3, including Albania, Chad and Colombia. In an interesting development, SPs retaining the largest stocks for training appear to include three that have been over counting by including inert AP mines and mine components in their reports (Argentina, Italy and Sweden). A better understanding of what to count is needed. It also appears that a relatively small number of SPs are actually using AP mines for training. In their Art. 7 reports, just four out of 45 SPs indicated that they have used the mines for these purposes. No AP mines should be kept for a “rainy day.”

Nicaragua also spoke.

Updates by SPs on implementation of Article 9 (national implementation measures)

Bosnia-Herzegovina made a presentation on its domestic demining law.

The UK presented on the recent case involving the arrest of a person for attempting to sell AP mines and discussed the administrative, judicial and policy procedures necessary for domestic implementation of the treaty. Landmine Action (UK) (Rosy Cave) made some recommendations to SPs in light of the incident, including that national measures to implement the treaty have to be taken, that nationals of the country are covered by the UK legislation even if they commit an offence while out of the country, a clear definition should always be included in the legislation and there is a need for clear responsibility for enforcement of the provisions.

South Africa said that its draft “AP Mine Bill” was approved by the Cabinet on 29 May 2002 and will be forwarded to the Parliament for consideration. Noel Stott of the SACBL described the extensive consultation process on the domestic law that enabled representatives to civil society to provide input on the draft legislation early on. Another NGO representative said that the legislation is notable because it includes an extended version of the AP mine definition contained in the treaty, the scope applies not only to citizens operating outside of the country but to foreign nationals in-country and finally, because it includes a requirement for domestic inspectors.

The ICRC updated the meeting on its activities which include some upcoming meetings of the Commonwealth Ministers of Justice together with the Red Cross/Crescent at the end of 2002 and start of 2003, as well as a meeting of Caribbean states on implementing legislation for the ban treaty. According to the ICRC, 43 countries have adopted or are in the process of adopting national legislation. Those reported to be “in progress” are: Bosnia-Herzegovina, Colombia, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Jordan, Mauritania, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Senegal, Seychelles and South Africa.

Legal and operational experiences in implementing Article 2 (AV mines equipped with anti-handling devices)

Austria said that it agreed with the ICRC Working Paper of January 2002, which states that any mine is banned by the Convention if the design is such that it would detonate by the presence, proximity or contact of a person. Austria further stated that Article 2 (1) provided an exception to this general rule, stating that an AV-Mine that is equipped with an Anti Handling Device (AHD) is not to be considered as an AP-mine, as a result of being so equipped. Austria continued by explaining its definition of an AHD as being a device intended to protect a mine and which activates when an attempt is made to “tamper with or otherwise intentionally disturb the mine”. In Austria’s view, if the action of the person is directed against the mine, it is not necessary that the person be aware of the fact that they are dealing with a mine, in order to be exempt from the general rule.

Belgium said its position remains unchanged since its 11 May 2001 statement (basically the same as Austria, ICBL and ICRC) and reminded the SC of the recommendations by the 3MSP that the SC review this issue. Later Latin American SPs Mexico, Brazil and Peru supported the ICRC view as did Norway.

The UK said its view on this subject is well known and remains unchanged. It views any discussion of AV mines as inappropriate for the intersessionals or meetings of states parties and instead insisted that the subject be addressed within the framework of the Convention on Conventional Weapons (CCW). France voiced its agreement with the UK position as did Japan, who cited concerns that discussion could detract from universalization of the ban treaty. Later Denmark also supported the UK’s position.

The ICRC said its position is clear (that AV mines that function as AP mines are prohibited under the treaty) and referred SPs to a January 2002 information paper on the subject.

Landmine Action (UK) (Richard Lloyd) said the discussion was not a “distraction” from universalization efforts and urged SPs to act on the ICRC’s proposal that they concentrate on the practical aspects of this issue, including establishing “best practises.” An overly legalistic perspective could decrease attention from the humanitarian impact.

The ICBL (Steve Goose, HRW) said that its position was well known (same as ICRC). It said that only five SPs had expressed a view contrary to the majority opinion and not much support had been voiced for a legal definition that differed from the one already contained in the ban treaty. The ICBL said the CCW may be the best venue to address AV mines but the weapons being discussed in this SC were AP mines and need to be addressed in this venue. It also said that none of the five SPs or any others had raised the issue during the CCW group of experts meetings that took place last week. The ICBL said that legal interpretation is not the key to this issue; rather the practical aspects should be addressed, as currently there are a variety of practises among SPs, which is not helpful.

Italy voiced support for further discussion on best practises.

The ICRC asked how the discussion on this issue has “distracted” others and how one hour of discussions on it had ”slowed down” the intersessional process. It reminded SPs that the universalization argument had also been used during the negotiations for a number of proposals that would have weakened the treaty.

Spain said that as the current chair of the European Community, it recommended that the ICRC continue its investigation into the matter and urged that SPs address the issue through the CCW. It said the EC member states would attempt to reach consensus on the issue.

Best practises in implementing Article 2

Austria, Belgium, Chad, Norway, and the ICRC and ICBL made brief remarks.

Preparations for the Fourth Meeting of States Parties

President-Nominee (Ambassador Jean Lint of Belgium) made a presentation on the preparations, as did the Secretary of the meeting (Enrique Roman-Morey of the UN Dept. of Disarmament Affairs-DDA Geneva office). Roman-Morey said that Richard Lennane has been designated as the DDA’s focal point for the meeting preparations. Several SPs congratulated the DDA for their work, especially for revising the budget for the meeting downwards from $600,000 to $256,000.

Experiences in implementing Article 1 (interpretation of “assist” and joint operations)

Sweden said that in its view the ban treaty is not yet customary international humanitarian law (IHL) and therefore while it would do its utmost to avoid a situation in which it operated in a joint military operation with a non-SP which used AP mines, such participation could not be described as being against the “spirit” of the treaty. Sweden also said it would do its utmost to prevent use by others.

Germany said it would not support planning or use of AP mines as part of a joint military operation and said that all German Armed Forces receive detailed information outlining their obligations under the treaty. On the question of stockpiling or transit of AP mines by a non-SP on the territory of a SP, it said there are specific prohibitions against this but the ban treaty is not applicable to foreign military forces and under a 1954 agreement, US forces based in Germany are not under German jurisdiction or control.

Italy said that its domestic law allows for joint military operations with non-SPs but only if the joint operations are consistent with the Mine Ban Treaty. Italy provides its Armed Forces with written directions not to violate the terms of the ban treaty.

Earlier Zimbabwe made an intervention detailing its views of these issues stating that its troops would not directly or otherwise be involved in prohibited activities but also said “assist” should not be interpreted too widely or liberally.

Update on facilitation and clarification of compliance

Canada presented a non-paper on compliance and France gave an intervention on the topic.

Mexico expressed its agreement with the proposals by Canada that the issue be further discussed and studied. Austria said that regional approached might work best. Brazil said that informal mechanisms are already in place on compliance and spoke against allowing the CC to address such issues. It said there is “no sense of urgency on this discussion” on compliance. Senegal said it has done everything it can to pass laws to implement the treaty. Belgium thanked Canada and France for their interventions. New Zealand described the ban treaty as “self-sufficient” and said it is not convinced that anything more than Article 8 is necessary.

VERTIC announced that it has embarked on a new project (with funds provided by the Diana Fund) to produce a guide for SPs receiving fact-finding missions that should be available by the 4MSP.

The ICBL (Steve Goose, HRW) expressed its support for the ongoing efforts by Canada to move forward, however incrementally, and noted that SPs were doing well with respect to compliance issues at the lower end of the scale (such as ensuring timely Article 7 reporting). It expressed concern that more serious compliance issues may potentially need to be addressed quite soon (eg. Compliance with the March 2003 initial deadline for stockpile destruction). It questioned how regional groups could deal with compliance matters. The ICBL said it had raised two very serious issues related to use in the past year, one of which, Tajikistan, had not been addressed by SPs. If SPs reject new mechanisms, they must take individual responsibility.

Uganda said that its commitment to the ban treaty couldn’t be underestimated and noted that its internal investigations committee looking into its Army’s actions in Kisangani in 2001 did not yet include examination of any landmine use in its mandate. It denied any use of AP mines by its troops while in the DRC.

The SC was adjourned after the ICBL (Susan B. Walker), the 3MSP President (Cecilia Sanchez representing Nicaragua) and the GICHD Director (Amb. Martin Dahinden) gave statements reflecting on the week of meetings.