Download PDF - Landmine and Cluster Munition Monitor

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Cluster Munition Monitor 2012 Initial reports As of 31 July 2012, 44 States Parties had submitted an initial transparency report as required by Article 7 of the convention, as detailed in the table below. This represents three-quarters of States Parties for which the obligation applied at that time. States Parties that have submitted initial transparency reports Albania Austria Belgium BiH Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Croatia Denmark Ecuador France Germany Ghana Grenada Guatemala Holy See Ireland Japan Lao PDR Lebanon Lesotho Lithuania Luxembourg Macedonia FYR Malawi Malta Mexico Monaco Moldova Montenegro Mozambique New Zealand Netherlands Nicaragua Norway Portugal Saint Vincent and the Grenadines San Marino Sierra Leone Slovenia Spain UK Uruguay Zambia Late initial reports Seventeen States Parties were late in submitting their initial transparency reports, as listed in the table below. Thirteen of these states had submission deadlines in 2011. State Parties with overdue initial Article 7 reports (as of 31 July 2012) Antigua and Barbuda 31 July 2011 Botswana 29 May 2012 Cape Verde 28 October 2011 Chile 28 November 2011 Comoros 30 June 2011 Cook Islands 30 July 2012 Costa Rica 29 March 2012 El Salvador 28 December 2011 Fiji 30 April 2011 Guinea-Bissau 28 October 2011 Mali 30 May 2011 Niger 28 January 2011 Panama 28 October 2011 Samoa 30 March 2011 Senegal 30 July 2012 Seychelles 30 April 2011 Tunisia 28 August 2011 30
Cluster Munition Ban Policy Pending deadlines for initial reports Fourteen States Parties have deadlines due for their initial reporting obligations, as listed in the table below. State Parties with pending initial Article 7 report deadlines Trinidad and Tobago 28 August 2012 Swaziland 28 August 2012 Afghanistan 28 August 2012 Czech Republic 28 August 2012 Italy 28 August 2012 Dominican Republic 28 November 2012 Mauritania 28 January 2013 Cote d’Ivoire 28 February 2013 Honduras 28 February 2013 Sweden 30 March 2013 Togo 29 May 2013 Hungary 30 June 2013 Cameroon 30 June 2013 Switzerland 30 June 2013 Annual updated reports After submitting their initial transparency report, States Parties are required to provide annual updated reports for the previous calendar year by 30 April every year. A cover page can be used to indicate no change and only the forms containing new information need to be submitted. Ten of the States Parties that have submitted initial Article 7 reports have not yet provided an annual updated report for 2011: Albania, Ecuador, Ghana, Lesotho, Malawi, Malta, Montenegro, Nicaragua, Sierra Leone, and Uruguay. Voluntary reports States not party to the convention may submit voluntary reports as an interim step towards ratification or accession. As of 31 July 2012, three signatories had submitted voluntary initial transparency reports: Canada, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), and Palau. Canada and the DRC have submitted two voluntary reports. The CMC encourages states to meet their reporting submission deadlines and to provide complete information. 171 A small number of states are not providing definitive statements throughout their reports. 172 Similarly, only a small number of states used voluntary Form J to report on universalization and other implementation matters. 173 National Implementation Legislation Article 9 of the Convention on Cluster Munitions requires States Parties to take “all appropriate legal, administrative and other measures to implement this Convention, including the imposition of penal sanctions….” 174 Comprehensive national legislation is the strongest means of fulfilling this obligation because it enshrines the convention’s provisions at the domestic level and provides binding, enduring, and unequivocal rules that are less subject to interpretation. National implementation legislation by States Parties As of 31 July 2012, a total of 18 states had enacted specific legislation to implement the convention, as listed in the table below. All these states are now States Parties, but most enacted legislation prior to ratifying, often combining the approval process for both legislation and ratification. 171 Statement by the CMC, Convention on Cluster Munitions Intersessional Meetings, Geneva, 18 April 2012. http://www.clusterconvention.org/ files/2012/04/CMCStatement_Transparency.pdf. 172 Notably, some simply submit “not applicable” in response to particular information requests. States should, for example, include a short narrative statement on Form E on conversion of production facilities, i.e., “Country X never produced cluster munitions,” instead of simply putting “N/A” in the form. 173 For example, actions to promote universalization and to discourage use of cluster munitions by states not party, and cooperation and assistance, or to report on other important matters such as positions on interpretative issues. Austria, Belgium, DRC, France, Guatemala, Ireland, Japan, Lao PDR, Lebanon, New Zealand, Norway, Spain and Zambia have utilized Form J in their initial transparency reports. 174 For recommendations of best practice in this field, see HRW and Harvard Law School’s International Human Rights Clinic, “Fulfilling the Ban: Guidelines for Effective National Legislation to Implement the Convention on Cluster Munitions,” June 2010; and ICRC, “Model Law, Convention on Cluster Munitions: Legislation for Common Law States on the 2008 Convention on Cluster Munitions.” 31
Page 3 and 4: Cluster Munition Monitor 2012 Edito
Page 5: Cluster Munition Coalition The Clus
Page 8 and 9: Cluster Munition Monitor 2012 A fiv
Page 10 and 11: Cluster Munition Monitor 2012 Abbre
Page 13 and 14: Table of Contents Table of Contents
Page 15 and 16: © HRW, March 2012 Major Findings S
Page 17 and 18: Major Findings Victim Assistance
Page 19 and 20: © CMC, November, 2011 Cluster Muni
Page 21 and 22: Cluster Munition Ban Policy Convent
Page 23 and 24: Cluster Munition Ban Policy been no
Page 25 and 26: Cluster Munition Ban Policy convent
Page 27 and 28: Cluster Munition Ban Policy Article
Page 29 and 30: Cluster Munition Ban Policy User st
Page 31 and 32: Cluster Munition Ban Policy Date Lo
Page 33 and 34: Cluster Munition Ban Policy Informa
Page 35 and 36: Cluster Munition Ban Policy current
Page 37 and 38: Cluster Munition Ban Policy In June
Page 39 and 40: Cluster Munition Ban Policy No stoc
Page 41 and 42: Cluster Munition Ban Policy • In
Page 43: Cluster Munition Ban Policy • Fra
Page 47 and 48: Cluster Munition Ban Policy • Can
Page 49 and 50: Cluster Munition Ban Policy • A D
Page 51 and 52: Cluster Munition Ban Policy to the
Page 53 and 54: Cluster Munition Ban Policy • The
Page 55 and 56: © Mary Wareham/HRW, September 2011
Page 57 and 58: Contamination and Clearance State/a
Page 59 and 60: Contamination and Clearance in Kata
Page 61 and 62: Contamination and Clearance Clearan
Page 63 and 64: Contamination and Clearance • In
Page 65 and 66: © Mary Wareham/HRW, September 2011
Page 67 and 68: Casualties and Victim Assistance Re
Page 69 and 70: Casualties and Victim Assistance Ev
Page 71 and 72: Casualties and Victim Assistance Na
Page 73 and 74: Casualties and Victim Assistance
Page 75 and 76: Casualties and Victim Assistance Ge
Page 77 and 78: © Xavier Bourgois/HI, February 201
Page 79 and 80: Funding Support Of the 21 donor sta
Page 81 and 82: © Weapon Zero, 1 August 2012 Conve
Page 83 and 84: Convention on Cluster Munitions Art
Page 91 and 92: Convention on Cluster Munitions 4.

Download PDF - Landmine and Cluster Munition Monitor

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?