The United Nations Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons of 1980: its recent development and increasing significance

2003 ◽  
Vol 6 ◽  
pp. 345-365
Author(s):  
Steven A. Solomon

Efforts to regulate warfare, including the use of particular weapons, have a long history, dating back, according to some scholars, thousands of years. But international codification of the rules of war in binding multilateral legal instruments only began in the second half of the nineteenth century. Among the first such efforts was one devoted to the prohibition of the use of a particular weapon in wartime. The St. Petersburg Declaration of 1868 on exploding bullets banned the use of explosive projectiles under 400 grammes in weight and is generally recognised as constituting the first significant international instrument prohibiting a specific weapon. It also incorporated into the conventional law of armed conflict the customary principle prohibiting the use of weapons ‘of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering’ — a tenet of international humanitarian law and a touchstone for many important international agreements on the use of weapons that have since followed, including the Hague Declaration of 1899 on expanding bullets, the Geneva Gas Protocol of 1925 and, most recently, the United Nations Convention on Conventional Weapons of 1980 (hereafter, CCW).

1993 ◽  
Vol 33 (293) ◽  
pp. 94-119 ◽  
Author(s):  
Louise Doswald-Beck ◽  
Sylvain Vité

International humanitarian law is increasingly perceived as part of human rights law applicable in armed conflict. This trend can be traced back to the United Nations Human Rights Conference held in Tehran in 1968 which not only encouraged the development of humanitarian law itself, but also marked the beginning of a growing use by the United Nations of humanitarian law during its examination of the human rights situation in certain countries or during its thematic studies. The greater awareness of the relevance of humanitarian law to the protection of people in armed conflict, coupled with the increasing use of human rights law in international affairs, means that both these areas of law now have a much greater international profile and are regularly being used together in the work of both international and non-governmental organizations.


2018 ◽  
Vol 112 ◽  
pp. 111-114
Author(s):  
Siobhán Wills

In this Article, I argue that there is inconsistency and confusion at the heart of UN policy on use of deadly force by peacekeepers and that this lack of clarity has resulted in deaths and injuries to people that pose no threat to UN forces or anybody else and have not engaged in any violent activities or indeed in any type of crime. Such deaths and injuries are likely to recur if the United Nations continues to use the same rules of engagement for law enforcement operations as it does for operations aimed at curtailing violence by parties to an armed conflict. The problem would be greatly mitigated if the United Nations were to formally commit to applying customary international human rights law standards on use of force in all circumstances except those to which international humanitarian law applies.


1983 ◽  
Vol 23 (236) ◽  
pp. 246-254 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sylvie Junod

Human rights, particularly civil and political, have influenced the latest developments in international humanitarian law, especially 1977 Protocol II relating to non-international armed conflicts. At the Teheran Conference in 1968 the United Nations began to reconcile these two branches of international law; it was at this Conference that international humanitarian law was first called “human rights in periods of armed conflict”. This rapprochement was helped further by the adoption in the 1977 Protocols of some basic rules identical to those in the Human Rights Conventions; it helps strengthen the protection of human beings in situations of armed conflict.


1971 ◽  
Vol 11 (121) ◽  
pp. 193-206

On 1 March 1971, the Conference of Red Cross experts on the reaffirmation and development of international humanitarian law applicable in armed conflict opened at the Peace Palace in The Hague. The Conference, of which the significance was explained in our March issue, and which continued until 6 March, was convened by the International Committee of the Red Cross and organized with the valuable co-operation of the Netherlands Red Cross Society. Sixty-nine delegates, representing 34 National Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, participated in the session.The opening meeting, under the Chairmanship of the Jonkheer Kraijenhoff, President of the Netherlands Red Cross Society, took place in the main hall of the International Court of Justice, in the presence of H.E. Mr. C. H. F. Polak, Minister of Justice, Mr. V. G. M. Marijnen, Burgomaster of The Hague, Mr. Marcel A. Naville, President of the ICRC, Mr. Marc Schreiber, Director of the U.N. Human Rights Division, Mr. Nedim Abut, Under Secretary-General of the League of Red Cross Societies, and many diplomatic representativesA number of speakers took the floor. Mr. Marijnen bade the participants welcome; Mr. Schreiber presented the greetings and good wishes of the United Nations Secretary-General, underlining the excellent co-operation between the United Nations and the ICRC. The Presidents of the Netherlands Red Cross and of the ICRC each delivered an address, the main passages of which we reproduce below, not omitting to mention that Mr. Naville expressed the Geneva institution's gratitude to the Netherlands Red Cross which played a determining role in the organizing of the Conference.


2002 ◽  
Vol 96 (4) ◽  
pp. 922-936 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Kaye ◽  
Steven A. Solomon

The United Nations Convention on Conventional Weapons (CCW) of 1980 regulates the use in armed conflict of certain conventional arms deemed to cause excessive suffering to combatants or indiscriminate harm to civilian populations. In December 2001, CCW high contracting parties concluded a Second Review Conference of the Convention in Geneva. Unlike the First Review Conference of 1995-1996, which focused on land mines and blinding laser weapons, the Second Review Conference attracted modest public and media attention. This difference was due in part to the fact that the conference principally focused on an improvement of the Convention thatwasjuridicalin nature, lacking an “optical” quality typically associated with proposals to restrict particular weapon systems. Even so, the conference generated substantial governmental interest and a remarkable development in international humanitarian law: expansion of the scope of application of the Convention, previously limited to conflicts between sovereign states, to noninternational armed conflicts. This expanded scope, if widely observed, should influence the use of particular weapons in internal armed conflicts. More important, the expansion reinforces the trend toward reducing the distinction between international and noninternational armed conflicts for purposes of the rules governing the conduct of hostilities. This trend carries implications both for which weapons are used in warfare and how, and for the international criminalization of violations of the rules of noninternational armed conflict.


2016 ◽  
Vol 20 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 313-341 ◽  
Author(s):  
Damian Lilly

As the role of United Nations peacekeeping operations has evolved in recent decades so too has the legal interpretation of the way in which international humanitarian law (ihl) is viewed as applying to its peacekeepers. While it has been understood that the un could become a party to armed conflict, the organization has never publicly acknowledged this until the establishment of the Intervention Brigade of the of the United Nations Organization Stabilization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (monusco) pursuant to Security Council resolution 2098 of March 2013. This article addresses the legal consequences of the Intervention Brigade as a party to armed conflict and the insights it provides into the legal status of un peacekeeper under ihl. In particular, it will argue that the established legal framework for un peacekeeping operations as having the protected status of civilians under ihl has proved ill-suited for the Intervention Brigade and its experience has highlighted the inconsistencies and gaps in the rules that have been developed.


2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 347
Author(s):  
Joelle A. Martin ◽  
Robert M. Young

During its 1999-2000 term on the United Nations Security Council, Canada helped launch the Council’s “Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict” agenda. This aimed to reduce civilian war casualties through better respect for international humanitarian law [IHL]. This article reviews the agenda’s origins and evolution ten years on. The authors focus on Canada’s contributions in increasing the Council’s efforts to protect civilians, with three main assertions. First, Canada had a key role in creating and promoting the agenda, an important IHL initiative. Second, the agenda is well established in the Council’s work, but needs further effort to ensure greater impact in specific situations. Third, Canada could develop the agenda and improve respect for IHL if it joins the Security Council for the 2011-2012 term, picking up its “unfinished business” from its last Council term.Pendant son mandat de 1999-2000 au Conseil de Sécurité de l’ONU, le Canada a aidé à lancer le programme « La protection des civils dans les conflits armés » du Conseil. Le but était de réduire le nombre de victimes civiles de la guerre en faisant respecter davantage le droit international humanitaire [DIH]. Cet article passe en revue l’origine du programme et son évolution après dix années. Les auteurs portent leur attention sur les contributions du Canada pour augmenter les efforts du Conseil en vue de la protection des civils, en faisant trois affirmations principales. D’abord, le Canada a joué un rôle-clé dans la création et la promotion du programme, une initiative importante de DIH. Deuxièmement, le programme est bien établi au sein du travail du Conseil, mais nécessite des efforts additionnels afin d’assurer plus d’impact dans des situations particulières. Troisièmement, le Canada pourrait développer le programme et améliorer le respect du DIH s’il devient membre du Conseil de Sécurité pour 2011- 2012 lui permettant de reprendre ses « affaires inachevées » lors de son dernier mandat au Conseil.


2020 ◽  
Vol 102 (913) ◽  
pp. 235-259
Author(s):  
Frank Sauer

AbstractThis article explains why regulating autonomy in weapons systems, entailing the codification of a legally binding obligation to retain meaningful human control over the use of force, is such a challenging task within the framework of the United Nations Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons. It is difficult because it requires new diplomatic language, and because the military value of weapon autonomy is hard to forego in the current arms control winter. The article argues that regulation is nevertheless imperative, because the strategic as well as ethical risks outweigh the military benefits of unshackled weapon autonomy. To this end, it offers some thoughts on how the implementation of regulation can be expedited.


1978 ◽  
Vol 18 (206) ◽  
pp. 274-284 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yves Sandoz

The events in Lebanon and the despatch of a UN armed force to keep the peace there brings into focus a problem which cannot be ignored, the application of international humanitarian law in armed conflicts. This problem has two aspects:— What is the nature of the armed forces which the UN commits or can commit at the present time?— To what extent are these armed forces obliged to apply humanitarian law?


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document