Dispositivos asistenciales y propuestas organizativas

first PrepCom of the Second Review Conference.The paper was sponsored by a considerable number of other States Parties to the CCW and met with widespread agreement during the discussions.205 _{The Netherlands stated that ERW should be}

considered as an important issue and that the appropriate forum to tackle it was the CCW. The Dutch delegation proposed reserving some time for discussion on ERW during the PrepCom process. The objective of these discussions would be to provide the Review Conference in December 2001 with a general conceptual (political, technical, military and legal) approach on the scope of ERW. The Review Conference would have to decide whether to proceed and – if so – how.

Impediments

A clear impediment to putting ERW on the CCW agenda was the initial focus of the ICRC on a possible moratorium on the use of cluster weapons in a densely populated territory. This was a complicating factor for many CCW States Parties, including the Netherlands, because cluster weapons were widely regarded as having military operational value.

The second impediment in this phase consisted of some reservations expressed by States Parties of the CCW. The US and the UK pointed out that it was premature to start negotiations on a legal binding instrument and emphasised the necessity of

universalising the CCW and its protocols. They agreed that the CCW would be the right forum to address ERW, but emphasised that ERW should first be defined. Both countries stressed the necessity of more research on ERW. Neither country found it realistic to assume that it would be possible to conclude a protocol in December 2001. The US argued for submitting a draft protocol during the CCW Review Conference in 2006. The US also wished to discuss the issue of ERW in the context of NATO. Other countries that proved to be somewhat reluctant were China and Argentina.

Both impediments were overcome. First, the idea of a moratorium on cluster weapons was dropped by the ICRC, and secondly, the reservations of some States Parties became groundless because their concerns could be addressed during the discussions in the PrepComs of the Second Review Conference.

205 The Dutch discussion document was sponsored by the member states of the EU, Canada, Hungary, Norway, the US, Argentina, Bulgaria, Cambodia, Israel, New Zealand, Peru, Slovakia and Switzerland (27400, V and X, nr. 53, file 720865, 14 December 2000 and file 717619, 19 February 2001).

102

5.3 Putting ERW on the CCW agenda

Table 5.2 Dutch policy on ERW December 2000 – December 2001: Putting ERW on the CCW agenda

Objectives The principal objective of the Dutch government was to achieve internatio-

nal consensus on a broadly formulated negotiation mandate, by which a GGE would be formed to look at all relevant aspects of ERW and to make recommendations for a legal instrument. The mandate should include measures on preventing ERW from coming into existence and measures on the clearance of existing ERW. A related objective was to consolidate the role of the Netherlands as a front runner on the ERW issue.

Results During the Review Conference it was decided to establish an open-ended

GGE to discuss (instead of negotiate) ‘ways and means to address the issue of ERW’. The Netherlands became Friend of the Chair (FoC) in April 2001 and was appointed as coordinator of the GGE in December 2001.

Interventions From 28 to 30 March, the Netherlands hosted an informal expert meeting

on ERW. As FoC, the Netherlands organised three meetings and drafted a mandate for negotiations on ERW.

Impediments Many countries were still in the initial phase of thinking about ERW and not

‘ready’ for a negotiation mandate. There was a threat that the ERW issue would be linked to progress on the AVM issue. The military operational value of cluster weapons made it difficult to devise operational guidelines for diminishing the creation of ERW.

Objectives

During the first PrepCom of the Second Review Conference the Dutch government had succeeded in guaranteeing that the issue of ERW would be put on the agenda for the second PrepCom (2-6 April 2001). The overall objective for 2001 was to proceed towards international consensus on a broadly formulated negotiation mandate, which entailed appointing a GGE to look at all relevant aspects of ERW and to make recommendations for a legal instrument. The government hoped that in December 2001 consensus would be reached on such a negotiation mandate.

With regard to the contents of the instrument, the Dutch government recognised two categories of measures to be taken: 1) measures on the prevention of the development of ERW and 2) measures on the clearance of existing ERW. As far as the Netherlands was concerned, a future protocol could comprise stipulations on specific munitions as well as general regulations addressing the problem of ERW.206 _{To address these measures,}

the Dutch government preferred the creation of a legally binding instrument within the context of the CCW, which would consist of two parts. The first part would be general, not weapons-specific and would deal with the applicability of existing principles of international humanitarian law on the creation of ERW. More particularly,

103