early 2007 aimed at identifying the elements a treaty on cluster munitions would need; the meeting was subsequently held in Montreux in April. 372 By the end of the Review Conference, nearly 30 states had expressed support for a proposal to begin negotiations in the CCW on a “legally-binding instrument that addresses the humanitarian concerns posed by cluster munitions.” 373 However, the proposal was rejected by a number of other states, including China, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States, in favor of a weak mandate to continue discussions on explosive remnants of war, with a focus on cluster munitions. The anti-cluster munition states issued a declaration on the final day of the Review Conference calling for an agreement that would prohibit the use of cluster munitions “within concentrations of civilians,” prohibit the use of cluster munitions that “pose serious humanitarian hazards because they are for example unreliable and/or inaccurate,” and require destruction of stockpiles of such cluster munitions. 374 Norway then announced it would start an independent process outside the CCW to negotiate a treaty banning cluster munitions that cause unacceptable humanitarian harm. On February 23, 2007, in Oslo, 46 countries agreed to conclude a treaty banning cluster munitions that cause unacceptable harm to civilians by 2008. 375 It will “prohibit the use, production, transfer and stockpiling of cluster munitions that cause unacceptable harm to civilian” and include provisions on clearance, victim 372 ICRC, “Statement of Dr. Philip Spoerri to the Third Review Conference of the CCW,” Geneva, November 7, 2006. The meeting was held in Montreux, Switzerland, from April 18-20, 2007, with 32 governments, as well as <strong>Human</strong> <strong>Rights</strong> <strong>Watch</strong>, a small number of other NGOs, and UN agencies, participating. 373 “Proposal for a Mandate to Negotiate a Legally-Binding Instrument that Addresses the <strong>Human</strong>itarian Concerns Posed by Cluster Munitions,” presented by Austria, Holy See, Ireland, Mexico, New Zealand, and Sweden, CCW/CONF.III/WP.1, October 6, 2006. The proposal was also formally supported by Argentina, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Chile, Costa Rica, Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, Guatemala, Hungary, Italy, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Peru, Portugal, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Switzerland. 374 “Declaration on Cluster Munitions,” presented by Austria, Belgium, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Costa Rica, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, Holy See, Hungary, Ireland, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, Peru, Portugal, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden, and Switzerland, CCW/CONF.III/WP.18, November 17, 2006. 375 Ibid. The 94 current supporters are: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bangladesh, Belgium, Bolivia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Burundi, Cambodia, Canada, Chad, Chile, DR Congo, Costa Rica, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Holy See, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Lao PDR, Latvia, <strong>Lebanon</strong>, Lesotho, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macedonia (FRY), Malawi, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mexico, Montenegro, Mozambique, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Senegal, Serbia, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Slovakia, Slovenia, <strong>South</strong> Africa, Spain, St. Vincent & the Grenadines, Sudan, Sweden, Switzerland, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Thailand, Turkey, Uganda, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Venezuela, Yemen, and Zambia. 113 <strong>Human</strong> <strong>Rights</strong> <strong>Watch</strong> February 2008
assistance, risk education, and stockpile destruction. 376 At follow-on meetings in Lima, Peru, from May 23 to 25, 2007, and Vienna, Austria, from December 5 to 7, an additional 48 states joined the process. States discussed a draft treaty text and reached broad agreement on the framework for and essential elements of the treaty. They are still debating about what the definition of cluster munition should encompass. 377 <strong>Human</strong> <strong>Rights</strong> <strong>Watch</strong> and the Cluster Munition Coalition have stressed that the starting point should be that all cluster munitions cause unacceptable harm to civilians, and that the burden of proof must be on governments to demonstrate that any particular weapon should be exempted from the prohibition. Israel has not participated in this process, but <strong>Lebanon</strong> has been extremely active and supportive. Meetings to develop further and negotiate the treaty have been set for Wellington, New Zealand (February 18-22, 2008), and Dublin, Ireland (May 19-30, 2008), with a signing ceremony planned for Oslo later in the year. “We have given ourselves a strict timeline to conclude our work by 2008. This is ambitious but necessary to respond to the urgency of this humanitarian problem,” said Norway’s Foreign Minister Jonas Ghar Støre. 378 In the meantime, in November 2007, states parties to CCW rejected a European Union proposal to negotiate a new protocol banning cluster munitions that cause unacceptable harm to civilians, and instead only agreed to a weak, vague mandate to “negotiate a proposal to address urgently the humanitarian impact of cluster munitions, while striking a balance between military and humanitarian considerations.” The mandate does not specify that negotiations should lead to a new legally binding instrument or include any kind of prohibition. It also does not have a timeline. Given the CCW’s refusal to deal with this issue over the past five years, its consensus approach in which the lowest common denominator prevails, and the stated opposition to any prohibition by countries such as China, Russia, and 376 Oslo Conference on Cluster Munitions, “Declaration.” 377 A draft definition developed by <strong>Human</strong> <strong>Rights</strong> <strong>Watch</strong> and the Cluster Munition Coalition is available at: www.stopclustermunitions.org. 378 “Cluster Munitions to Be Banned by 2008,” Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs press release. <strong>Flooding</strong> <strong>South</strong> <strong>Lebanon</strong> 114
- Page 1 and 2:
Lebanon Flooding South Lebanon Isra
- Page 3 and 4:
Civilian Harm......................
- Page 6 and 7:
Acronyms BLU CBU CCW COI DPICM ICRC
- Page 8 and 9:
Summary The Israel Defense Forces (
- Page 10 and 11:
Israel’s strikes in 2006 were the
- Page 12 and 13:
leaving behind vast numbers of haza
- Page 14 and 15:
compensate for the cluster rockets
- Page 16 and 17:
immediately before a negotiated cea
- Page 18 and 19:
knowingly or recklessly indiscrimin
- Page 20 and 21:
production, transfer and stockpilin
- Page 22 and 23:
numerous men, women, and children w
- Page 24 and 25:
To the Secretary-General of the Uni
- Page 26 and 27:
Cluster Munitions and International
- Page 28 and 29:
At least 14 states and a small numb
- Page 30 and 31:
• Refraining from launching attac
- Page 32 and 33:
This does not just mean immediate c
- Page 34 and 35:
Israel is a major producer and expo
- Page 36 and 37:
Types of Cluster Munitions and Subm
- Page 38 and 39:
An unexploded M77, a US-made dual p
- Page 40 and 41:
This CBU-58B cluster bomb casing, s
- Page 42 and 43:
likely that the MZD-2s found in Leb
- Page 44 and 45:
contaminated by submunitions. 89 Ho
- Page 46 and 47:
Timing and Targets: When and How Cl
- Page 48 and 49:
with 500-pound bombs. The increase
- Page 50 and 51:
Human Rights Watch field research c
- Page 52 and 53:
percent, and dismissed the problem
- Page 54 and 55:
A UNIFIL deminer holds an Israeli-m
- Page 56 and 57:
Civilian Harm Cluster munitions hav
- Page 58 and 59:
51 Human Rights Watch February 2008
- Page 60 and 61:
submunition causing it to explode.
- Page 62 and 63:
Dr. `Abdel Nasser Farran told Human
- Page 64 and 65:
Agriculture Perhaps the most danger
- Page 66 and 67:
exploded, and a young woman was pic
- Page 68 and 69:
from the war. 180 Tragedy struck wh
- Page 70 and 71: injured in my legs. I still can’t
- Page 72 and 73: in operation for many years, includ
- Page 74 and 75: 67 Human Rights Watch February 2008
- Page 76 and 77: 69 Human Rights Watch February 2008
- Page 78 and 79: the grove of fruit trees. Though sh
- Page 80 and 81: of the fighting. Although no one is
- Page 82 and 83: oad to visit his cousin when his br
- Page 84 and 85: Four-year-old `Ali Muhammad Yaghi w
- Page 86 and 87: place.” 237 Assessing the monetar
- Page 88 and 89: especially because we needed to irr
- Page 90 and 91: conflict interrupted existing clear
- Page 92 and 93: An engine from a US-made M26 Multip
- Page 94 and 95: duds around villages. 268 With the
- Page 96 and 97: Various reasons exist as to why com
- Page 98 and 99: Lack of Israeli Assistance Perhaps
- Page 100 and 101: checkpoints. Similarly, UNIFIL has
- Page 102 and 103: Israel’s Statements on the Use of
- Page 104 and 105: This statement followed the finding
- Page 106 and 107: investigations into Israel’s appa
- Page 108 and 109: that would confirm that these weapo
- Page 110 and 111: specific to the weapons. When conce
- Page 112 and 113: disregard of that character, they g
- Page 114 and 115: employed, the way that they were us
- Page 116 and 117: are antipersonnel, area denial weap
- Page 118 and 119: emain to take care of elderly or si
- Page 122 and 123: the United States, there is little
- Page 124 and 125: Conclusion Israel’s use of cluste
- Page 126 and 127: kidnapped IDF soldiers, and so aver
- Page 128 and 129: Proportionality A further legal req
- Page 130 and 131: In practice, this requires that the
- Page 132 and 133: neutralization offers a definite mi
- Page 134 and 135: it is more brutal. If Hizbullah had
- Page 136 and 137: Another issue of humanitarian conce
- Page 138 and 139: Acknowledgements This report was wr