Transferencia y uso del conocimiento

perspectives on the verification issue could not be reconciled. In June, the Belgian government organised an international conference: the formal follow-up to the Ottawa Conference. The result of this conference was the signing of the ‘Brussels declaration’ by 97 of the 156 attending governments. In this declaration, the essential ingredients of a treaty were formulated: a total ban on the use, stockpiling, production and transfer of anti-personnel mines; the destruction of stockpiles and cleared anti- personnel mines; and international cooperation and assistance concerning mine clearance.

In September 1997, the Oslo Diplomatic Conference was held, with the aim of achieving the signing of a treaty. Only the signatories of the Brussels declaration were entitled to vote. The UN, ICRC, International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, and the ICBL were present as observers to the negotiation process. Notable absentees among the states were China, India, Russia and Pakistan. On the one hand, many issues were still unresolved at the beginning of the conference: important issues were whether exceptions would be permitted to a total ban or whether transitional provisions would be added to the convention text. On the other hand, there was immediate agreement about the articles regarding the definitions, the use of anti-personnel mines for training purposes as well as the consultative structure of the convention. In the second week of the Oslo conference, agreement was reached on a deadline of four years for stockpile destruction. On September 12 the chair circulated a draft convention text, which was accepted by all participating delegations, except that of the United States. The United States was only willing to be party to the convention if granted exceptional status relating to Korea. A few days later, on 16 September, the US delegation requested the negotiations be adjourned, in order to be able to formulate some compromise proposals. However, this action came too late. On 17 September, the Plenary Meeting approved of the convention text and the Ottawa Convention was born. The US delegation decided to withhold its vote and did not become party to the Ottawa Convention which entered into force on March 1, 1999, six months after the date on which the fortieth country ratified the treaty.

Content

The main objective of the treaty is ‘to put an end to the suffering and casualties by anti- personnel mines, that kill or maim hundreds of people every week, mostly innocent and defenceless people and especially children, obstruct economic development and reconstruction, inhibit the repatriation of refugees and internally displaced persons, and have other severe consequences for years after emplacement’.34 _{The convention}

aims at universalisation; it aspires to achieving that all nation states in the world eventually become signatories to it. The universalisation efforts of the convention in 1999-2004 resulted in a total of 143 countries becoming States Parties, while another nine countries signed but did not yet ratify, leaving 43 _{countries that did not sign the}

36

treaty. By the end of 2006, the total number of States Parties amounted to 152 (see also chapter 4, table 4.2).

The Ottawa Convention puts a total ban on anti-personnel mines. It prohibits the use of anti-personnel mines in all situations. It also forbids the development, production, stockpiling and transfer of these devices, and assisting, encouraging or inducing anyone in any way to engage in any activity prohibited under the convention. In addition, it requires the destruction of anti-personnel mines, whether held in

stockpiles or already emplaced in the ground. The convention is an internationally and legally binding agreement. Each country adhering to it is obliged never, under any circumstances, to use anti-personnel mines. This includes all situations of an armed conflict, from international armed conflict to internal armed conflict, internal unrest and civil disturbances. The convention also stipulates that a country cannot deploy anti-personnel mines during peacetime, for instance as a means to protect its military installations or to protect its borders from unwanted trespassing.

The convention only prohibits anti-personnel mines. For that reason a clear distinction is made in the treaty between anti-personnel mines and Mines Other Than Anti- Personnel Mines (MOTAPM); also referred to as Anti-Vehicle Mines or Anti-Tank Mines. An anti-personnel mine is defined as a mine ‘designed to be exploded by the presence, proximity or contact of a person and that will incapacitate, injure or kill on or more persons’ (Article 2). Mines designed to be detonated by the presence, proximity or contact of a vehicle as opposed to a person, and that are equipped with anti-handling devices, are not classified as anti-personnel mines. Thus, the convention is not applicable to MOTAPM, even when these mines contain anti-handling devices that may explode when someone is trying to disable them. The definition of anti-personnel mine in the Ottawa Treaty is much stricter than that in Amended Protocol II of the CCW. In the CCW Protocol an anti-personnel mine is defined as ‘a mine primarily designed to be exploded by the presence, proximity or contact of a person and that will incapacitate, injure or kill one or more persons’, the use of the word ‘primarily’ being one of the Protocol’s significant weaknesses.35

The Ottawa Convention comprises far-reaching obligations for States Parties to address the anti-personnel mine problem. First, it obliges each State Party to clear all anti- personnel mines from mined areas (areas which are dangerous due to the actual or suspected presence of mines) under its jurisdiction or control within a period of ten years (Article 5). An area is deemed to be mined if it is thought to contain either anti- personnel mines or MOTAPM. There is no obligation in the convention to remove or destroy the MOTAPM. With respect to the MOTAPM, the convention refers to the relevant provisions of Amended Protocol II, which merely require that all mined areas be cleared, marked, fenced or monitored as soon as possible after active hostilities

37