|
|
|
|
(Delivered by Norwegian government delegation to the CCW. 2nd PrepCom; Geneva 2 - 6 April 2001)
We appreciate that the ICRC has triggered such a widespread interest in and attention to the issue of explosive remnants of war.
The renewed focus on this vast problem has already sparked fruitful discussions that hopefully may lead to the adoption of a new protocol to the CCW. Also recent conflicts have reaffirmed the relevance of addressing this issue.
Norway confirms its support to the principles and general thrust behind the proposal made by the ICRC. We see the need for an instrument that specifically addresses this humanitarian problem and that further reduce the indiscriminate effects of weapons and avoid unnecessary and unacceptable suffering.
The CCW is a natural framework for such a new instrument. To launch a process on an issue which is highly relevant to the objectives of the Convention may also contribute to a much needed revitalisation of the Convention.
On the content of an additional protocol, our views at this stage are preliminary and general.
A new protocol on ERW may include provisions on the responsibility to clear or ensure clearance of UXO. We do recognise that there are various legal and practical questions related to this aspect. It may be useful to look at articles 3 and 10 of the Amended Protocol II in this respect.
A new Protocol should also include measures that secure proper information on technical and geographical data necessary to facilitate timely clearance of UXO. Equally important are provisions to limit the use of weapons against civilians. In addition the protocol should contain provisions to ensure proper warning to the civilian population.
The approach to a process of creating a new protocol on ERW should be broad and comprehensive and at this stage not excluding with regard to type of weapons and munitions. As we said yesterday, it may i a be apprpriate to address the humanitarian concerns related to anti vehicle mines within this context.
In this initial phase our discussions should start focussing on a negotiation mandate. This mandate should include a work-plan with time-lines for negotiations on a new protocol. We would like to see an orderly negotiating process starting immediately after the Review Conference in December. To make sufficient preparations before the Review Conference, we support any inter-sessional activities or arrangements that you, Mr President, find useful and necessary between now and the 3rd PrepCom session in September.