DYB2011-Part-II-web

Amended Protocol on Prohibitions and Restrictions on the Use of
Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices
Conventional weapons issues
Amended Protocol II Group of Experts
Discussions in the Group of Experts57 focused on the implementation
and universality of the Amended Protocol on Prohibitions and Restrictions
on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices (Amended Protocol
II), including the legal feasibility of terminating the original Protocol II.
To recall briefly, new developments, including the amendment to Protocol
II, 58 article 1 and a fifth additional protocol, made the structure of the
Convention even more complex and inflicts further confusion to potential new
adherents. Moreover, some new States have even opted to join the original
Protocol II instead of the amended version because it is still in force. These
developments prompted the idea of terminating Protocol II. The Coordinator
on the operation and status of Amended Protocol II59 presented two options
for the termination of legal instruments: (a) acceptance of termination by all
the States parties; or (b) application of the provisions of the framework law
for the Convention, i.e., article 59, paragraph 1, of the Vienna Convention
on the Law of Treaties, 60 which provides for the termination of a treaty upon
conclusion of a later treaty. Both options were still under consideration. In
the meantime, the Coordinator reported that he had contacted the remaining
12 States parties to the original Protocol II that had not yet declared their
intention to accede to Amended Protocol II to encourage them to facilitate the
collective denunciation of the original Protocol II. Ten States reported that
their respective authorities were in the process of considering accession to
Amended Protocol II. Two other States were not in a position to join Amended
Protocol II at this time for different reasons. One State argued that it had
joined the higher standards set out in the Convention on the Prohibition of
the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-personnel Mines and on
Their Destruction. The other State argued on national security grounds. On the
second topic of national reporting, the experts acknowledged that the rate of
reporting under the Protocol needed to be improved.
Reto Wollenmann (Switzerland), Coordinator on the problem of
improvised explosive devices (IED), concluded from the presentations
and subsequent discussions that incidents involving victim-activated IED
were increasing. The Group underscored the importance of clearance
of explosive remnants of war, improved storage control, reinforced
international cooperation and assistance to reduce incidents of IED use. It
57 The discussions were held at Geneva from 4 to 5 April 2011.
58 As Protocol II was unable to prevent the catastrophic humanitarian crises resulting from
the massive use of anti-personnel mines in the early 1990s, it was strengthened and
amended on 3 May 1996.
59 Abderrazzak Laassel (Morocco).
60 Available from http://untreaty.un.org/cod/avl/ha/vclt/vclt.html (accessed 2 June 2012).
91