DYB2011-Part-II-web

United Nations Disarmament Yearbook 2011: Part II
90
agreed to “note the concerns raised during the discussions on Protocol III by
some High Contracting Parties about the offensive use of white phosphorous
against civilians, including suggestions for further discussion on this
matter”. 52 Another issue under Protocol III was the scope of reservations and
their compatibility with the object and purpose of Protocol III. This issue was
addressed by recalling “the basic principle that reservations to the Convention
or its protocols must be in accordance with the object and purpose of the
Convention or its protocols, respectively”. 53
Main Committee II was tasked with the consideration of proposals for
additional protocols to the Convention and the only subject before it was
the negotiations on cluster munitions. 54 The President submitted to Main
Committee II the report to the Review Conference, adopted by the GGE at its
third session, 55 for consideration. The Committee had before it the text of draft
protocol VI on cluster munitions, which further evolved. 56
Those delegations opposing the new draft protocol VI were concerned
that it would constitute a backward step for international humanitarian law,
undermine the Convention on Cluster Munitions and legitimize the use of
cluster munitions, which posed a serious humanitarian risk. On the other
hand, States supporting draft protocol VI stressed that it was important for
all States to be included in regimes that were either regulating or prohibiting
cluster munitions. It was indirectly acknowledged that some major States had
military doctrines in which cluster munitions played a significant role. Those
States preferred to put in place measures that would serve as intermediary
steps towards a longer-term and more comprehensive prohibition.
The final plenary session of the Fourth CCW Review Conference
determined the fate of a protocol on cluster munitions as Costa Rica, on behalf
of 50 States, made a statement underscoring that there was no consensus on the
draft protocol. As a result, draft protocol VI was withdrawn and the decisions
and review of the Convention and its protocols under Main Committee I were
adopted as the final outcomes of the Review Conference (see the text of the
Final Declaration in appendix IV).
52 CCW/CONF.IV/4/Add.1, para. 2 of the review on Protocol III on Prohibitions or
Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons.
53 Ibid., para. 2, to the Review of the Convention.
54 At its first meeting on 15 November, Main Committee II adopted its agenda
(CCW/CONF.IV/MC.II/1) and its programme of work (CCW/CONF.IV/MC.II/2).
55 CCW/GGE/2011-III/3, annex I.
56 The text of the draft protocol evolved from CCW/GGE/2011-III/3, annex I, to
CCW/CONF.IV/9 and subsequently CCW/CONF.IV/9/Rev.1.