OFFICE DES NATIONS UNIES À GENÈVE BUREAU DES AFFAIRES DÉSARMEMENT SERVICE DE GENÈVE Tel.: +41 22 (0) 917 2281 Fax: +41 22 (0) 917 0054 UNITED NATIONS OFFICE AT GENEVA OFFICE FOR DISARMAMENT AFFAIRS GENEVA BRANCH Palais des Nations CH-1211 Genève 10 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) Third 2011 Session of the Group of Governmental Experts Preparation for the Fourth Review Conference Excellency, 15 August 2011 I have the pleasure of forwarding to you a letter dated 15 August 2011 signed by Ambassador Gancho Ganev of Bulgaria in his capacity as the President designate of the CCW Fourth Review Conference. Yours sincerely, Bantan Nugroho Head of the CCW Implementation Support Unit The Permanent Representatives of the High Contracting Parties to the CCW, Signatory States and Observer States, the interested organizations and NGOs Geneva
ПОСТОЯННО ПРЕДСТАВИТЕЛСТВО НА РЕПУБЛИКА БЪЛГАРИЯ ПРИ СЛУЖБАТА НА ООН И ДРУГИТЕ МЕЖДУНАРОДНИ ОРГАНИЗАЦИИ В ЖЕНЕВА MISSION PERMANENTE DE LA REPUBLIQUE DE BULGARIE AUPRES DE L ONU ET LES AUTRES ORGANISATIONS INTERNATIONALES A GENEVE Geneva, 15 August 2011 Excellency, The Fourth Review Conference will be a significant milestone in the life of the CCW and its Protocols. I am now well underway with preparations for the Fourth Review Conference and look forward to working with you. During the upcoming Third 2011 Session of the Group of Governmental Experts (GGE), there will be two sessions on preparations for the Review Conference where I intend to address the issues of universalization and compliance. States Parties have a responsibility at the Fourth Review Conference to review and determine the way forward on the decisions taken at the Third Review Conference concerning universalization and compliance. Currently, with the assistance of the CCW Implementation Support Unit (ISU), I am preparing papers on each of these matters. Below is a brief snapshot of the progress on universalization and compliance along with some proposed recommendations and questions which I hope will be a useful starting point for our discussions. All ideas and feedback will be most welcome. There will be time available for any new issues so I would like to encourage States Parties to come forward with their proposals. The relevance of the CCW is dependent on its States Parties addressing current challenges and problems in armed conflicts. I believe that any new or even old issues should be brought forward and given serious consideration. Universalization Universalization is critical to strengthening the CCW and its norms. At the time of the Third Review Conference there were 100 States Parties to the CCW and now there are 114. Unsurprisingly, Protocol V has attracted the largest number of new States Parties. Over the past five years 44 States Parties have joined Protocol V, which brings the total number to 73 States Parties. In 2006 only 44 States were party to Amended Article 1 of the Convention, whereas nowadays the total number of States Parties is 69. The Permanent Representatives of the CCW States Parties and Observer States The interested international organizations and NGOs
2 While significant progress has been made over the past five years, in comparison to other disarmament treaties the rate of universalization for the CCW and its Protocols is still poor. States Parties, the United Nations and other organizations need to do much more to encourage those outside the CCW regime to come on board. Possible recommendations for taking forward universalization at the Fourth Review Conference include: States Parties to seize all opportunities to promote the Convention and its Protocols, especially through their bilateral contacts. Prioritizing universalization efforts on Signatory States, non-states Parties from conflict zones, mine and explosive remnants of war affected non-states Parties and regions with low levels of adherence to the Convention. States Parties and the United Nations to increase their collective efforts to promote the Convention and its Protocols in the regions of Africa and South Asia where universalization remains low. States Parties to work with international organizations, regional organizations, International Committee of the Red Cross, parliamentarians, civil society and other stakeholders to promote universalization of the Convention and its Protocols. Calling on the United Nations Secretary-General to use all available channels to promote the universalization of the Convention and its Protocols, including through the Disarmament Regional Centres in Lima, Lomé and Kathmandu. Requesting the CCW ISU to support States Parties efforts to promote universalization, gather information on non-states Parties and work towards the objective of universal adherence to the Convention and its Protocols. The CCW Sponsorship Programme to explore all avenues and opportunities to promote universalization of the Convention and its Protocols. Establishing Universalization of the Convention and its Protocols as a standing agenda item of the Meeting of the High Contracting Parties under which the President, the CCW States Parties, the United Nations, the International Committee of the Red Cross, regional organizations and NGOs would exchange information and report on their respective efforts to promote universalization. I would very much appreciate any other ideas on how we can further promote universalization. Furthermore, States Parties are welcome to provide updates on their efforts to promote the CCW and its Protocols and this will be included in the paper on universalization currently being prepared for the Fourth Review Conference. Compliance The decision on compliance at the Third Review Conference was supplemented by the decisions taken at Meeting of the High Contracting Parties in 2007. The substantive elements of that decision were: States Parties to submit annual compliance reports covering issues such as the dissemination of information on the Convention and its Protocols and measures taken on technical cooperation; States Parties to put in place measures to prevent, investigate, prosecute and punish violations of the Convention and its Protocols; States Parties to provide their armed forces with instructions, operating instructions and training on the Convention and its Protocols; establishment of a voluntary consultative mechanism to resolve any issues arising
3 from the Convention and its Protocols; establishment of a Pool of Experts, which can be called on to assist in cases where there are concerns relating to States Parties fulfillment of their legal obligations; and the issue of compliance to be a standing item on the agenda of the annual Meetings of the High Contracting Parties. The central component of the compliance decision is the requirement for reporting. Disappointingly, the number of States Parties submitting compliance reports has been low. The highest rate of reporting was in 2009 when 31 States Parties submitted reports, which accounts for 28 percent of all States Parties. Currently only five States Parties have submitted reports for 2011. The rate of reporting is so low that it is difficult to determine how many States Parties have fulfilled the other elements of the compliance decision, such as the number of States Parties which have issued instructions to their military authorities on the Convention and its Protocols. States Parties which have submitted reports since 2007 are: Albania, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belarus, Belgium, Canada, China, Colombia, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Hungary, India, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Lithuania, Malta, Mexico, Montenegro, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Pakistan, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Senegal, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Sweden, Switzerland, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, and Ukraine. Eighteen States Parties have provided qualified CCW experts for the Pool of Experts on compliance. Those States Parties are: Argentina, Belarus, Bulgaria, Chile, China, Colombia, Croatia, Cyprus, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Pakistan, Portugal, South Africa, Switzerland, Tunisia and Turkey. Rather than only being a standby if issues regarding compliance arise, we could consider the possibility of the Pool of Experts assisting the CCW and its Protocols in other ways. The following questions are provided to stimulate thinking and discussion on compliance: Are States Parties satisfied with the progress that has been made on compliance? How useful is the information presented in the reports on compliance? Is there additional information that States Parties should be required to present? What can be done to increase the rate of reporting on compliance? Possible suggestions for encouraging more States Parties to submit compliance reports are to synchronize the deadlines for compliance, Amended Protocol II and Protocol V. Another proposal is for States Parties which do not have new information to present, after their initial report, to provide updates in the years when review conferences take place. Furthermore, another option is allow them to submit a much shorter report. For example, a summary sheet similar to that used under Amended Protocol II or Protocol V could be adapted for the purposes of the reporting on compliance. What other options are possible to reduce the reporting burden on States parties? What further measures can be carried out to encourage a higher rate of reporting? Would it be helpful under the standing item on compliance for the President or a new Coordinator to make a presentation on best practices for compliance reporting and if necessary, to adjust the compliance reporting form? Clearly the CCW ISU is best placed to prepare a review of States Parties
4 implementation of the Decision on Compliance and submit this as a report to the Meeting of the High Contracting Parties. I wish to reiterate once again my readiness to working with you to advance the objectives of the CCW. If you have any questions or comments please contact either me or the CCW ISU. Please accept, Excellency, the assurances of my highest consideration. President designate of the CCW Fourth Review Conference Gancho Ganev Ambassador, Permanent Representative of the Republic of Bulgaria to the UN Office and Other International Organizations in Geneva