United Kingdom

Last Updated: 22 October 2010

Cluster Munition Ban Policy

Commitment to the Convention on Cluster Munitions

Convention on Cluster Munitions status

State Party as of 1 November 2010

Participation in Convention on Cluster Munitions meetings

Attended global conferences in Berlin in June 2009 and Santiago in June 2010

Key developments

Ratified on 4 May 2010; national implementation law took effect 25 March 2010

Policy

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland signed the Convention on Cluster Munitions in Oslo on 3 December 2008. The UK deposited its instrument of ratification with the UN on 4 May 2010. It will become a State Party on 1 November 2010.

On 25 March 2010, the Cluster Munitions (Prohibitions) Bill received Royal Assent and entered into force in UK law as the Cluster Munitions (Prohibitions) Act 2010.[1] The Act creates criminal offenses to enforce the prohibitions set out in Article 1 of the convention.[2]

A Foreign Office Minister welcomed the convention’s coming into effect on 1 August 2010, stating that the “Convention is one of the most significant disarmament treaties of recent years….  It sets new standards for disarmament and advances international humanitarian law. The Convention is an excellent example of what can be achieved by the international community working together effectively. With entry into force we are a step closer to a worldwide ban and ending the unacceptable suffering to civilians caused by these weapons.” The Minister pledged that the UK would continue its efforts “to promote the globalization of the Convention, working towards the goal of universal adherence,” and that the UK would continue to play a “leading role in this area at the first meeting of States Parties in November” in Lao PDR.[3]

In June 2010, the UK stated that its newly elected government was fully committed to an international ban on cluster munitions and reaffirmed its commitment to the universalization of the convention, saying it would work with civil society and seek partnerships with other countries to promote universalization.[4] In May 2010, the newly elected coalition government’s   Programme for Government singled out support for a universal ban on cluster munitions under its chapter on defense.[5]

During the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Trinidad and Tobago in November 2009, the UK launched a political initiative to encourage more Commonwealth countries to sign the convention, co-sponsoring with Australia a declaration that invited non-signatories to commit to signing the convention.[6] The UK government also undertook targeted lobbying work on the convention at the 14th African Union Summit in January 2010. It has instructed its embassies and consulates to lobby their host governments to support the convention.[7] In addition, the UK has mobilized its defense attachés to promote adherence to the convention in some of the more reluctant countries.[8]

The UK attended the Berlin Conference on the Destruction of Cluster Munitions in June 2009, where it noted that it possessed the largest stockpile of any signatory.[9] It also participated in the International Conference on the Convention on Cluster Munitions in Santiago, Chile, in June 2010, where it reaffirmed its existing funding commitment of £10 million (US$15.7 million) per year over 2010–2013 to affected states.[10] The UK also affirmed the importance of victim assistance, and stated that the new government was committed to provide funding to build the capacity of national health services in affected countries.[11]

In March 2010, the UK stated that it had “already destroyed nearly 13 million sub-munitions and will have destroyed the vast majority of stocks by 2013, well ahead of the eight-year deadline allowed under the Convention.”[12]

The UK participated actively throughout the Oslo Process, which led to the development of the convention, although it frequently expressed reservations about the process and did not support the notion of an immediate or comprehensive ban on cluster munitions. However, just two days prior to the conclusion of the negotiations in Dublin in May 2008, the UK Prime Minister issued a statement saying, “In order to secure as strong a Convention as possible in the last hours of negotiations we have issued instructions that we should support a ban on all cluster bombs, including those currently in service by the UK.[13] This change in the UK position was pivotal in influencing others’ support for the convention text. The UK’s position on cluster munitions evolved remarkably from 2006 to its adoption and signature of the convention in December 2008.[14]

National implementation legislation

The Cluster Munitions (Prohibitions) Bill was introduced into Parliament in the Queen’s Speech on 18 November 2009.[15] In the debates that followed, the Bill received support from across all the main political parties, including for the first time strong voices in support of the prohibition of cluster munitions from the benches of the Conservative Party[16] and from former military personnel in the House of Commons.[17] The Bill was introduced into the House of Lords for its first reading immediately after the debate on the Queen’s Speech, demonstrating the priority attached to it by the Labour government.

The Bill entered into force on 25 March 2010, as the Cluster Munitions (Prohibitions) Act 2010. The Act prohibits the use, production, acquisition, stockpiling, and transfer of cluster munitions,[18] and applies the prohibitions to both cluster munitions and to explosive bomblets.[19] The Act establishes extra-territorial jurisdiction to apply its provisions to UK nationals, Scottish partnerships, and companies incorporated under UK law, regardless of whether violations occur on the territory of the UK or outside.[20]

Interpretive issues

The UK expressed its views on the interpretation and implementation of a number of key provisions in the convention during the process of preparing its national legislation, including the prohibition on foreign stockpiling, the prohibition on transit, the prohibition on investment in cluster munitions producers, and the prohibition on assistance with prohibited acts in joint military operations. A number of Ministerial Statements are on record clarifying the meaning of the UK’s national legislation on these issues and recognizing the positive obligations under the convention.

Foreign stockpiling

In June 2008, immediately after the adoption of the convention, the then-Minister of State for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Lord Malloch-Brown, stated that although the UK did not read the prohibition on foreign stockpiling as a legal requirement under the treaty, it would seek the removal of foreign stockpiles of cluster munitions from UK territories within the eight year period allowed for stockpile destruction in the convention.[21] The government later told parliamentarians that the United States had identified the cluster munitions on UK territory as “exceeding operational planning requirements” and that they would be “gone from the UK itself by the end of [2010]” and “gone from other UK territories, including Diego Garcia, by the end of 2013.”[22]

Transit

In March 2010, in debates on the Bill in the House of Commons, parliamentarians questioned whether the “transit” of cluster munitions through UK territory was prohibited under the UK’s legislation. A Minister stated that transit “would not in itself be prohibited, but a direct application would have to be made to the Secretary of State who would have to grant permission before it could happen. We would be reluctant to grant such permission.”[23]

Investment

The UK’s legislation does not explicitly include a prohibition on investment in, or the provision of financial services to, companies involved in the production of cluster munitions. However, in response to parliamentary questions, the government issued a Ministerial Statement on 7 December 2009 confirming that “under the current provisions of the Bill, which have been modelled upon the definitions and requirements of the convention, the direct financing of cluster munitions would be prohibited. The provision of funds directly contributing to the manufacture of these weapons would therefore become illegal.”[24]

While the legislation does not prohibit the indirect financing of cluster munitions, the government stated that it would work to develop a code of conduct for business on investment: “The convention does not prohibit so-called indirect financing of cluster munitions. Indirect financing is therefore not within the scope of the Bill’s provisions. As such, it would not become illegal to provide funds generally to companies that manufacture a range of goods, including cluster munitions. However, aware of the humanitarian suffering caused by cluster munitions and the threat they pose to development in post-conflict areas, the Government are keen to see a complete end to cluster munitions. Due to the complex nature of indirect financing, there is a need for thorough consultation to consider the impact of any measures, and to ensure that we develop the most appropriate and effective measures to end direct financing. The Government intends to work with the financial sector, non-governmental organisations and other interested parties, to promote a voluntary code of conduct to prevent indirect financing, and if necessary would use their right to initiate legislation. We shall also review public investment guidelines to the same end.”[25]

Interoperability

A lengthy debate took place on the issue of joint military operations, dealt with in Clause 9 of the UK’s national legislation,[26] in both Houses of Parliament during the legislative process. Many concerns were raised by parliamentarians that this clause would provide a loophole which would undermine the purpose of the convention and the UK’s legislation: the elimination of cluster munitions.[27] When pushed by members of parliament to clarify just exactly what activities this clause would permit UK troops engaged in joint military operations to carry out, the government responded that UK troops “would not be allowed to request use of [cluster] munitions where the choice of munitions was within their exclusive control,” but that “they could facilitate operations where [cluster munitions] might be used by a partner.”[28]

Parliamentarians argued that there would likely be situations that, while not illegal under the Bill, would clearly be against the spirit and intention of the legislation and pressed the government on the need to develop proper guidelines and briefings for the UK military.[29] The government responded that “States Parties have to make sure that any other state with which they are working understands the basis on which their personnel will be engaged…. We have to make sure there is clear guidance for personnel, so they know exactly what they can and cannot do. That is already in hand.”[30]

A significant result of the parliamentary debates on interoperability and Clause 9 was the recognition by the government of the need to promote universal adherence to the convention. The government stated, “[I]f we can achieve a situation in which all our allies are operating without cluster munitions, we will be in a better world,”[31] and, “We certainly take seriously our obligations to try to persuade all other countries to move towards ratification. Key amongst those countries are those with which we work most closely in military operations—not least the United States of America, but also European Union countries such as Poland. I would refer to two other countries as key: Turkey and Brazil.”[32]

Convention on Conventional Weapons

The UK is party to the Convention on Conventional Weapons (CCW), but has not yet ratified Protocol V on explosive remnants of war. The UK participated in the CCW deliberations on cluster munitions in 2009 and the first half of 2010, but has not made a statement on its position on the process or the draft text under consideration. 

NGO activities

In 2009 and 2010, UK NGOs continued to work actively alongside parliamentarians from across the political spectrum to ensure the strongest possible national legislation to implement the convention and to encourage the government to take further measures to ensure the aims of the convention are achieved. UK NGOs have been particularly active on the issue of disinvestment, following the launch of the CMC Stop Explosive Investments campaign in London on 28 October 2009.[33] As of March 2010, two major banks, HSBC and Royal Bank of Scotland, had strengthened their policies on this issue.[34]

Use, production, transfer, and stockpiling

The UK used cluster munitions extensively in the past. It also produced, exported, and imported the weapon and had a sizable stockpile.

The UK used cluster munitions in the Falkland Islands in 1982, in Iraq and Kuwait in 1991, in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (including Kosovo) in 1999, and in Iraq in 2003.[35]

The UK has produced several variants the BL-755 with 147 submunitions, and has also produced the L20A1 artillery projectile with 49 M85 dual purpose improved conventional munition (DPICM) submunitions. 

BL-755 cluster bombs have been exported to, or otherwise ended up being possessed by, the following countries: Belgium, Ethiopia, Germany, India, Iran, Italy, Montenegro, the Netherlands, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Switzerland, Thailand, the United Arab Emirates, and the former Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.[36]

In 2009–2010, Amnesty International documented instances of UK registered ships transporting components of cluster munitions between Pakistan and South Korea.[37] This would appear to be a violation of UK legislation of October 2008 which prohibits UK individuals or corporations, including UK-registered companies, from doing “any act calculated to promote the supply or delivery” of a range of prohibited weapons, including cluster munitions and their components, “where that person knows or has reason to believe that such action or actions will, or may, result in the removal of those goods from one third country to another third country.”[38]

The UK purchased 59,364 L20A1 projectiles between 1996 and 2004. The L20A1 projectiles, 2,100 of which were used in the 2003 invasion of Iraq, were assembled by BAE Systems Royal Ordnance under license from Israel Military Industries.[39]

The UK also imported cluster munitions from the US: M483 155mm artillery projectiles; M26 rockets for Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS); M261 Multi-Purpose Submunition rockets used in the CRV-7 air-to-surface launchers; and CBU-87 cluster bombs.[40]

All UK stockpiles of cluster munitions have been removed from service and are now either in the process of being destroyed or contracts have been agreed for their destruction. The UK stockpiled 190,549 cluster munitions of five types that contained 38,757,267 submunitions. 

Even prior to the entry into force of the convention, the UK had made substantial progress on the destruction of its stockpiles. As of March 2010, 14 million submunitions—more than one-third—of its original total of nearly 39 million stockpiled submunitions had been destroyed and contracts had been placed for the destruction of all remaining submunitions.[41] According to a government official, “We are very confident that we will beat by a considerable margin the target period of eight years and that we will have destroyed all our stocks by 2013.”[42] 

Types and quantities of cluster munitions stockpiled by the UK as of 2008

Type

Quantity

Submunitions per container

Total Submunitions

M26 rocket

43,692*

644

28,137,648

M483 projectile

82,900

88

7,295,200

L20A1 projectile

56,000

49

2,744,000

BL-755 series bombs

3,687

147

541, 989

M261 rockets

4,270

9

38,430

Total

190,549

N/A

38,757,267

* In the original source, this was cited as 7,282 M26 rocket pods, each pod contains six rockets; the number of individual rockets is reflected in this table.

N/A = not applicable

UK stockpile by type and quantity, as reported in 2008[43]

The following table provides a breakdown of the timeframe for destruction and associated costs for four of the five cluster munitions stockpiled by the UK. Costs for the ERBS L20A1 are not provided as the contract for its destruction had yet to be agreed upon and officially announced.[44]

UK stockpile destruction costs[45]

Munition

Disposal completion date

Destruction costs

(million)

Transportation/ storage/ security costs

(million)

Total disposal cost

(million)

M483 projectile

July 2008

£0.6 ($1.1)

£1.4 ($2.6)

£2 ($3.7)

BL-755 bomb

December 2008

€0.7 ($1)

€1.5 ($2.2)

€2.2 ($3.2)

M261 rocket

July 2009

£0.2 ($0.4)

£0.3 ($0.6)

£0.5 ($0.9)

M26 rocket

End 2013

£26 ($48.2)

£8 ($14.8)

£34 ($63.1)

In June 2010, the company NAMMO announced that it had recently signed a contract with the UK Ministry of Defence for the destruction of its remaining stockpiles of the L20A1 projectiles. The destruction is scheduled to begin in September 2010 at the NAMMO facility outside Berlin and that the contract is scheduled to be completed by 2013.[46]

The “Starstreak” missile

In relation to the Convention on Cluster Munitions, and the UK’s Cluster Munition (Prohibitions) Act, further clarification may be required regarding the “Starstreak” missile manufactured by Thales Air Defence Limited. 

The “Starstreak High Velocity Missile” employs three submunitions, each with a “high density penetrating explosive warhead.”[47] Although generally considered an air defense weapon, the manufacturer’s sales literature advertises the weapon’s utility against ground-based targets.  Brochures for the Starstreak state that “a variety of threats can be defeated including aerial targets such as Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) and helicopters and also surface targets such as Armoured Personnel Carriers (APCs), static installations or terrorist platforms.”[48]  With respect to “surface threats such as light armoured vehicles (LAVs) and fast inshore attack craft (FIAC)” brochures note that “Starstreak II has been designed to defeat these threats.”[49]

Both the Convention on Cluster Munitions and the UK Cluster Munitions (Prohibitions) Act provide an exclusion from their prohibitions for weapons “designed exclusively for an air defence role.” 

When the UK Ministry of Defence was asked, under the Freedom of Information Act, whether it had received any information suggesting that the Starstreak has “a capability” against ground-based targets it replied: “As far as we have been able to ascertain, we have received no information suggesting that the A5 missile, known by Thales Air Defence Ltd (TADL) as Starstreak II, has a capability against ground based targets.… We have, however, seen some articles in the trade press and on the internet reporting a ground based capability. Having discussed the matter with TADL, it is our understanding that confusion may have arisen from a briefing they gave, as it covered several different systems with differing capabilities.”[50]  

The Starstreak missile is manufactured in the UK and is in service with UK armed forces.

Cluster Munition Remnants

There are an unknown number of cluster munition remnants on the Falklands Islands/Malvinas as a result of use of BL-755 cluster bombs by the UK against Argentine positions during the 1982 armed conflict.

In February 2009, in a letter to Landmine Action, the Ministry of Defence stated the following: “According to historical records either 106 or 107 Cluster Bomb Units (CBU) were dropped by British Harriers and Sea Harriers during the conflict. Each CBU contains 147 BL755 submunitions and using the higher CBU figure (107), a total of 15,729 sub-munitions were dropped. Using a 6.4% failure rate assessed during in-service surveillance over 15 years, we would estimate that 1,006 would not explode. Given that 1,378 BL 755s were cleared in the first year after the conflict and that a further 120 have been found and disposed of since (totalling 1,498), clearly there was a slightly higher failure rate. Even if the rate had been closer to 10% and 1,573 had failed, we can only estimate that some 70 remain but that due to the very soft nature of the peat found on the islands, many of these will have been buried well below the surface. We believe that the majority of those remaining are now contained within existing minefields and these will be cleared in due course.”[51]

Clearance of cluster munition remnants

The UK’s deadline for clearance of all unexploded submunitions will be 1 November 2020.

One BL-755 unexploded submunition was found and destroyed in the first month of operations. A second submunition was found in 2010.[52] According to information provided by the Ministry of Defence in 2009, no unexploded submunitions were cleared in 2008, but a BL-755 submunition was destroyed in November 2007.[53] At the Second Review Conference of the Mine Ban Treaty, the UK said that the three areas it was clearing contained unexploded submunitions and other ERW.[54] None were, however, found at the Fox Bay site (no. FB-008W) where part of a submunition had been found in 1983.[55]



[1] House of Lords, Hansard (London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, HMSO, 25 March 2010), Column 1057,  www.publications.parliament.uk.

[2] “Cluster Munitions (Prohibitions) Act 2010, 2010 Chapter 11,” www.opsi.gov.uk. A person guilty of an offense under this section is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years, or a fine, or both.

[3] Foreign and Commonwealth Office, “Minister welcomes the Convention on Cluster Munitions entering into force,” Press release, 30 July 2010, www.fco.gov.uk.

[4] Statement of the UK, International Conference on the Convention on Cluster Munitions, Santiago, 7 June 2010. Notes by AOAV/HRW.

[5] The Coalition, “Our Programme for Government: Defence,” undated, programmeforgovernment.hmg.gov.uk.

[6] “Port of Spain Declaration on Cluster Munitions,” Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, Trinidad and Tobago, 27–29 November 2009, centralcontent.fco.gov.uk. Three states associated themselves with the Port of Spain Declaration: Belize, Papua New Guinea, and Seychelles (which ratified the Convention on Cluster Munitions soon after).

[7] Baroness Glenys Kinnock, Written Answers, House of Lords, Hansard (London: HMSO, 7 April 2010), Column 427W, www.publications.parliament.uk.

[8] Statement by Chris Bryant, House of Commons Debate, Hansard (London: HMSO, 17 March 2010), Column 896, www.publications.parliament.uk.

[9] Statement of the UK, Berlin Conference on the Destruction of Cluster Munitions, 26 June 2010. Notes by HRW.

[10] Statement of the UK, International Conference on the Convention on Cluster Munitions, Santiago, 9 June 2010. Notes by AOAV/HRW. In late November 2008, the UK announced that it had pledged £30 million (US$55.6 million) for clearance of landmines and other unexploded ordnance,  including cluster munitions, from 2010–to 2013, a continuation of the existing annual funding for global mine action. Average exchange rates: 2009, £1=US$1.5661; 2008: £1=US$1.8545. US Federal Reserve, “List of Exchange Rates (Annual),” 4 January 2010.

[11] It gave Cambodia and the Democratic Republic of the Congo as examples of where it was currently undertaking such work. Statement of the UK, International Conference on the Convention on Cluster Munitions, Santiago, 8 June 2010. Notes by AOAV/HRW.

[12] Foreign and Commonwealth Office, “Cluster bombs ban moves a step closer,” Press release, 17 March 2010, www.fco.gov.uk.

[13] Statement by Prime Minister Gordon Brown, “Breakthrough on cluster bombs draws closer,” 28 May 2008, webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk.

[14] For more details on the UK’s cluster munition policy and practice through early 2009, see Human Rights Watch (HRW) and Landmine Action, Banning Cluster Munitions: Government Policy and Practice (Ottawa: Mines Action Canada, May 2009), pp. 173–180.

[15] “Queen’s Speech,” House of Lords, Hansard (London: HMSO, 18 November 2009), Column 1, www.publications.parliament.uk.

[16] House of Lords Debate, Hansard (London: HMSO, 19 November 2009), Column 116; and House of Commons Debate, Hansard (London: HMSO, 19 November 2009), Column 210, www.publications.parliament.uk.

[17] The ban had long been supported by former military personnel in the House of Lords, but now saw significant support voiced from former military personnel in the House of Commons as well.

[18] “Cluster Munitions (Prohibitions) Act 2010, 2010 Chapter 11,” www.opsi.gov.uk.

[19] Ibid, Section 1(3).

[20] Ibid, Section 4.

[21] Statement by Lord George Mark Malloch-Brown, Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, House of Lords Debate, Hansard (London: HMSO, 3 June 2008), Column 79, www.publications.parliament.uk.

[22] Statement by Baroness Glenys Kinnock, House of Lords Debate, Hansard (London: HMSO, 8 December 2009), Column 1020; and statement by Chris Bryant, House of Commons Debate, Hansard (London: HMSO, 17 March 2010), Column 925, www.publications.parliament.uk.

[23] Statement by Chris Bryant, House of Commons Debate, Hansard (London: HMSO, 17 March 2010), Column 925, www.publications.parliament.uk.

[24] Statement by Chris Bryant, House of Commons Debate, Hansard (London: HMSO, 7 December 2009), Column 2WS, www.publications.parliament.uk.

[25] Ibid.

[26] The clause states: “It is a defence for a person charged with an offence specified in any of  paragraphs 1 to 6 of Schedule 2 [the prohibitions of the convention] to show that the person’s conduct took place in the course of, or for the purposes of, an international military operation or an international military co-operation activity.” Members in the House of Commons went to great lengths to seek clarification on the scope of this clause.

[27] See for example, statement by William Cash, House of Commons Debate, Hansard (London: HMSO, 23 March 2010), Column 160; statement by Jo Swinson, House of Commons Debate, Hansard (London: HMSO,  17 March 2010), Column 906; and statements by John Redwood and William Cash, House of Commons Debate, Hansard (London: HMSO,  17 March 2010), Columns 902–903, www.publications.parliament.uk.

[28] Statements by John Redwood and Chris Bryant, House of Commons Debate, Hansard (London: HMSO, 23 March 2010), Column 162, www.publications.parliament.uk.

[29] Statement by John Redwood, House of Commons Debate, Hansard (London: HMSO, 23 March 2010), Column 163, www.publications.parliament.uk.

[30] House of Commons Debate, Hansard (London: HMSO, 23 March 2010), Columns 161–164,

www.publications.parliament.uk.

[31] Statement by Chris Bryant, House of Commons Debate, Hansard (London: HMSO, 17 March 2010), Column 895, www.publications.parliament.uk.

[32] Statement by Chris Bryant, House of Commons Debate, Hansard (London: HMSO, 23 March 2010), Column 162, www.publications.parliament.uk.

[33] As part of the campaign efforts, Amnesty International UK targeted UK banks investing in cluster munition producers in an email action in which over 7,000 messages were sent. In May 2010, UK NGOs delivered a written briefing to the newly elected coalition government, which lauded the UK’s ratification and ban on direct financing of cluster munitions production, and urged the government to take further measures on indirect financing. CMC, “Stop Explosive Investments Campaign Update,” 1 February 2010; CMC, “CMC Newsletter May 2010,” www.stopclustermunitions.org.

[34] Amnesty International UK, “Stop your bank funding cluster bombs,” 3 March 2010, www.amnesty.org.uk.

[35] HRW, “Ticking Time Bombs: NATO’s Use of Cluster Munitions in Yugoslavia,” vol. 11, no. 6(D), June 1999; HRW, “Civilian Deaths in the NATO Air Campaign,” vol. 12, no. 1(D), February 2000; and HRW, Off Target: The Conduct of the War and Civilian Casualties in Iraq (New York: HRW, 2003), www.hrw.org. 

[36] Robert Hewson, ed., Jane’s Air-Launched Weapons, Issue 44 (Surrey, UK: Jane’s Information Group Limited, 2004), pp. 468–470; Colin King, ed., Jane’s Explosive Ordnance Disposal 2007–2008, CD-edition, (Surrey, UK: Jane’s Information Group Limited, 2008), entries for: Germany, 14 December 2007; Iran, 10 January 2008; Italy, 10 January 2008; Netherlands, 10 January 2008; Oman, 10 January 2008; Pakistan, 10 January 2008; Saudi Arabia, 3 December 2007; Thailand, 10 January 2008; and United Arab Emirates, 10 January 2008; and Landmine Action, Explosive remnants of war: unexploded ordnance and post-conflict communities (London: Landmine Action, 2002),  www.landmineaction.org. During the Berlin Conference on the Destruction of Cluster Munitions, Montenegro confirmed that it had 353 BL-755 in its stockpiles from the former Yugoslav People’s Army (JNA). Statement of Montenegro, Berlin Conference on the Destruction of Cluster Munitions, 25 June 2009.

[37] Amnesty International, “Deadly Movements: Transportation Controls in the Arms Trade Treaty,” July 2010, pp. 9–12. www.amnesty.org. Amnesty International documented a shipment of inert components for 155mm K-130 cluster munition artillery shells exported by South Korea’s Poongsan Corporation to Pakistan Ordnance Factories’ Sanjwal plant, transported on a UK-flagged ship, the MV Hyundai Baron, both registered and listed as operated by a UK-registered company, Zodiac Maritime Agencies Ltd., and owned by a related company, Tair Marine (UK) Ltd. Amnesty International contacted Zodiac Maritime Agencies Ltd. in December 2009 with concerns that one of the company’s ships may have transported cluster munitions in possible violation of UK legislation. However, in February 2010, revenue authority documents revealed another shipment of inert components for K-310 artillery shells from Poongsan Corporation transported to Karachi on another UK-flagged ship, MV Hyundai Emperor, listed with Zodiac Maritime Agencies Ltd. According to the report, Zodiac Maritime Agencies Ltd. “declined to disclose to Amnesty International further details of ‘cargoes our chartering clients may or may not have carried on our vessels,’ and stated that ‘these vessels were on charter to Hyundai Merchant Marine of South Korea who is obliged as the shippers under the terms of employment to comply with all relevant international law and convention. We have no reason to believe that the applicable laws and conventions were not complied with here.’”

[38] Amnesty International, “Deadly Movements: Transportation Controls in the Arms Trade Treaty,” July 2010, p. 11. www.amnesty.org.  UK Export Control Order 2008 (S.I. 2008, No. 3231).

[39] Adam Ingram, Written Answers, House of Commons, Hansard (London: HMSO, 17 November 2003), Columns 497W and 498W, www.publications.parliament.uk.

[40] The US supplied the UK with 1,008 CBU-87 cluster bombs at some point between 1970 and 1995, but they do not appear to be in service any longer. US Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense, “Cluster Bomb Exports under FMS, FY1970–FY1995,” obtained by HRW in a Freedom of Information Act request, 28 November 1995. The NATO Maintenance and Supply Agency (NAMSA) reported in June 2009 that it contracted the destruction 600 CBU-87 bombs for the UK. See, presentation by Peter Courtney-Green, Chief of the Ammunition Support Branch, NAMSA, “Technical Aspects of Cluster Munitions Stockpile Destruction,” Berlin Conference on the Destruction of Cluster Munitions, 25 June 2009, Slide 15.

[41] Statement by Chris Bryant, House of Commons Debate, Hansard (London: HMSO, 23 March 2010), Column 187 www.publications.parliament.uk.

[42] Ibid.

[43] House of Commons Debate, Hansard (London: HMSO, 6 October 2008), Column 249W, www.publications.parliament.uk.

[44] Letter 07-04-2010-105556-002 from the Ministry of Defence to Portia Stratton, Advocacy Manager, Action On Armed Violence (AOAV), 28 April 2010.

[45] Disposal began in April 2005 and was completed in July 2008. Bob Ainsworth, Written Answers, House of Commons, Hansard (London: HMSO, 6 October 2008), Column 248W, www.publications.parliament.uk. The contract for this was let under the NAMSA in conjunction with the Dutch Ministry of Defense and was awarded to an Italian company, Esplodenti Sabino. Adam Ingram, Written Answers, House of Commons, Hansard (London: HMSO, 12 March 2007), Column 51–52W, www.publications.parliament.uk. The contract for disposal was placed on 22 January 2007. Statement by Adam Ingram, House of Commons, Hansard (London: HMSO, 1 February 2007), Column 504W, www.publications.parliament.uk. Stocks were shipped to Germany for destruction, which was expected to be completed in 2009. Bob Ainsworth, Written Answers, House of Commons, Hansard (London: HMSO, 6 October 2008), Column 248W, www.publications.parliament.uk. On 6 October 2008 it was stated in Parliament that a contract had been placed for the disposal of the M261 rockets and that it was due to be completed in 2009. Statement by Bob Ainsworth, House of Commons, Hansard (London: HMSO, n 22 January 2007; body text 10 site,  a typo.isions are also called " in fn. in cases where the numbers matched a6 October 2008), Column 248W, www.publications.parliament.uk. In March 2009, the UK said destruction was underway and expected to be completed in 2009. Letter from Nick Packard, Head, Security Policy Group, International Security and Institutions Directorate, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, 11 March 2009. Disposal began in September 2007 at the NAMMO Buck facility in Germany and should be completed by the end of 2013; and statement by Bob Ainsworth, House of Commons, Hansard (London: HMSO, 6 October 2008), Column 248W, www.publications.parliament.uk. Average exchange rates for 2008: £1=US$1.5661; €1=US$1.3935. US Federal Reserve, “List of Exchange Rates (Annual),” 4 January 2010.

[46] “Nammo to Demil Cluster Munitions for the UK MOD,” Defence Professionals, 23 June 2010, www.defpro.com; and NAMMO AS “Nammo to Demil Cluster Munitions for the UK MOD,” Press release, undated.

[47] TADL, “Starstreak High Velocity Missile (HVM),” May 2005.

[48] This is repeated in brochures for Starstreak Armoured Vehicle System (AVS)” and “Starstreak Lightweight Multiple Launcher (LML).”

[49] TADL, “Next-generation Starstreak provides enhanced force protection,” Press release, 11 September 2007, www.thales-electrondevices.com.

[50] Letter 29-01-2010-152831-002 from the Ministry of Defence to Richard Moyes, Policy and Research Director, AOAV, 29 March 2010.

[51] Letter from Lt.-Col. Scott Malina-Derben, Ministry of Defence, 6 February 2009.

[52] Statement of the UK, Standing Committee on Mine Clearance, Mine Risk Education and Mine Action Technologies, Geneva, 22 June 2010.

[53] Letter from Lt.-Col. Scott Malina-Derben, Ministry of Defence, 6 February 2009.

[54] Statement of the UK, Mine Ban Treaty Second Review Conference, Cartagena, 2 December 2009.

[55] Statement of the UK, Standing Committee on Mine Clearance, Mine Risk Education and Mine Action Technologies, Geneva, 22 June 2010.