The United Nations’ role in Implementing the Compliance Aspects of the
Ottawa Convention
By Angela Woodward
Verification Research, Training and Information Centre (VERTIC),
London[1]
Introduction
The Ottawa Convention seeks to encourage
compliance through mutual transparency and co-operation, rather than through an
intrusive and adversarial verification mechanism of the type established by
other disarmament treaties.[2]
The treaty does not have a standing secretariat or other standing compliance
body. As the treaty’s Depositary, it was the United Nations which was
given a central role in facilitating the gathering and exchange of information
about states parties’ compliance, as well as in pursuing questions related
to possible non-compliance. Article 7 of the treaty requires states parties to
submit declarations to the UN Secretary-General detailing their compliance
efforts under nine categories; the UN is in turn responsible for disseminating
such information to all states parties. Article 8 of the treaty contains
mechanisms for clarifying compliance which also rely on the assistance of the
UN. This paper will detail the mandated role of the UN in facilitating
compliance with the Ottawa Convention and examine the effectiveness in this role
to date.
The role of the United Nations in Regard to Article 7
Pursuant to Article 7, each state party must
submit to the UN Secretary-General reports detailing their activities pursuant
to the treaty.[3] Each state
party is required to update its initial report no later than 30 April each year.
The United Nations is responsible for collating the information and transmitting
it to the states parties.
Procedural aspects of implementing Article 7
The treaty does not stipulate the form or method of transmission of Article 7
reports to the UN, nor does it stipulate how the UN should transmit these to
states parties.
The First Meeting of States Parties, held in Mozambique in May 1999, adopted
standard forms for states parties reporting under Article
7.[4] The meeting also
recommended that states submit their reports electronically to the UN in order
to expedite their receipt and dissemination. Reports may be submitted in any of
the six authentic languages of the
Convention.[5] They are to be
entered into the database in the languages in which they are
submitted.[6]
The UN Department for Disarmament Affairs (UNDDA), the Department responsible
to the UN Secretary-General for handling his responsibilities under the Ottawa
Convention, created an ‘Article 7 Transparency Measures’ database to
receive and organise the information
received.[7] The UNDDA chose to
display the Article 7 reports on the database in full (by state party) and also
under each category being reported (by state party). The database is accessible
not just to states parties but also to the general public on the UN
website,[8] following a decision
at the First Meeting of States Parties to facilitate its use by other states and
organisations involved in mine action
activities.[9]
Effectiveness of Article 7 implementation
As of 3 May 2000, forty-three states parties had submitted Article 7
reports.[10] At that time
thirty-eight were late in submitting their
reports.[11] The remaining
states parties were not yet required to submit them since 180 days had not yet
elapsed since the treaty entered into force for them.
Among the states that have responded, most are from the Western European and
Others Group (WEOG) at the UN. The states late in reporting are all
mine-affected and/or developing countries. These states have been encouraged to
submit their overdue reports by other states parties and many pro-convention
organisations. The UNDDA does not see itself as having a role in requesting the
submission of overdue
reports.[12]
To date reports have been submitted in Arabic, English, French and
Spanish.[13] There is no funding
available at this stage to translate documents into all official languages of
the Convention.[14] However, it
was recommended at the First Meeting of States Parties that states parties
submit their report in more than one of the official languages, so that such
reports may be added to the UN
database.[15] While the UNDDA is
prepared to include such additional
documents,[16] multiple language
versions provided by states parties have not to date been posted on the
database.[17]
The standard forms were designed to elicit only the information that states
parties are legally required to submit under Article 7. A 'supplementary
information' category was included on each form to allow those states that
wished to do so to provide further
information.[18] While this is
entirely in line with the openness that the treaty promotes, few states have
chosen to use the opportunity. It has been proposed to include an additional
form to allow for further supplementary, voluntary reporting, with particular
emphasis on Article 6
obligations.[19]
As to the requirement for states to submit annual reports by each April, it
has not been decided whether this should involve a new report being submitted or
simply amendments to the previous report, thereby creating a 'rolling text'. As
of 3 May 2000, 12 states parties had submitted their annual reports under
Article 7(2).[20] The Second
Meeting of States Parties needs to specify whether or not it is satisfied with
the manner of reporting and whether or not future reports should be submitted in
a different form.[21] The UNDDA
does not envisage changing the structure of the database presentation until it
receives such
clarification.[22]
Despite the fact that states parties are encouraged to submit their reports
electronically, only 30% of reports submitted to date have been
electronic.[23] This increases
the work of the UNDDA in entering the information and inevitably delays its
availability on the database. Bilateral and multilateral assistance needs to be
coordinated and regularised to ensure that all states have access to the
necessary technology. Some states parties may still mistrust the authenticity of
the reports on an electronic database, since these reports do not have the
standard diplomatic attestations of printed official documents. The UNDDA is
attempting to encourage confidence among states parties by reproducing the
information exactly as received. Future development of the database may allow
states parties to input their own
information.[24]
While the database is fulfilling the letter of the UN’s mandate to
transmit Article 7 information to all states parties, its effectiveness from the
states parties’ perspectives will be learned at the Second Meeting of
States Parties. The cost-effectiveness and accessibility of electronic means
were factors in the decision to promote the use of an electronic database over
traditional hard copy document circulation. However, the technology required for
states to access the database effectively is more advanced than is
required to submit documents
electronically.[25]
It has been suggested that the Article 7 database might be integrated into
the Information Management System for Mine Action (IMSMA) developed by the
Geneva International Centre for Humanitarian Demining (GICHD) at the behest of
the United Nations Mine Action Service (UNMAS). There would clearly be
political, financial and technical issues to be considered in any potential
integration. The official status of the Article 7 reports would need to be
maintained on any database outside the UN. Integration of the database into
IMSMA would necessitate further development and implementation of both database
systems.[26] Moreover, IMSMA is
not yet being widely used by states parties for its existing purposes.
The Second Meeting of States Parties should discuss the issue of the costs of
implementing Articles 7 and 8 by the UN. Article 14 states that costs will be
borne by states parties.[27]
However, the cost of developing and implementing the Article 7 database was not
factored into the initial scale of
assessment.[28] The UN has
simply absorbed the cost of the necessary technology and human
resources,[29] despite the fact
that its own budget is under severe pressure. Funding for Articles 7 and 8
implementation cannot continue to be sourced from general UNDDA funds, as these
are assessed from all UN member states, including non-states parties to the
Ottawa Convention. Yet the UN has reportedly not sought extra resources from
states parties in fulfilling its obligations under Article 7, even though some
states parties may have been prepared to assist unilaterally had they been aware
of funding problems. Funding for future maintenance and development of the
database needs to be addressed by states parties. They may wish to consider
funding a dedicated UNDDA staff member who would be responsible solely for
collating and disseminating Article 7 reports.
Problems in State Reporting
The existence of a standard form for reporting has not resulted in
standardised reports being submitted by all states parties. Some states are
experiencing difficulty acquiring and determining the necessary information to
include in their reports. Resource and personnel shortages, lack of clarity as
to the submission procedure, combined with competing reporting requirements of
many other treaties can delay the compilation and submission of reports. Some
information required, such as the location of areas that are mined or suspected
of being mined, simply has never been accurately determined in some states
before. Information held by militaries concerning numbers and types of
anti-personnel mines owned, possessed, stockpiled or destroyed is not always
available to those compiling the report. This may be due to several factors,
including bureaucratic ineptness or secrecy. The culture of secrecy that often
surrounds landmine capabilities needs to be addressed: the Convention was
intended to usher in a new mode of transparency and openness in landmine
disarmament that needs to be recognised by all involved with the treaty. As many
states are obliged to report on mine action under various multilateral
agreements, it would be helpful in those states parties which have not already
done so, to appoint a specific person or section within an appropriate
government ministry to be responsible for compiling and submitting the necessary
information, as is required, for instance, under the Chemical Weapons
Convention.
Assistance in reporting
Some states require technical assistance in carrying out their obligations
under the Convention, including the obligation to report. Any request made to
the UN for assistance is directed to UNMAS, which is responsible within the UN
system for co-ordinating the provision of assistance to all mine-affected
countries. However UNMAS' responsibility for assisting states in the preparation
of Article 7 reports is unclear. Article 7 reporting is viewed by UNMAS as an
issue for the UNDDA.[30] If a
request for assistance with Article 7 reporting is made by a Mine Action Centre,
UNMAS may send a technical expert to the state to assist in the collection of
information, for example by liasing with government ministries: this has not
happened to date.[31] Requests
for assistance may also be made to the GICHD, although, unlike the UN, they have
no treaty-mandated role in implementing the
Convention.[32] Some states
parties are prepared to offer assistance to others in compiling reports when
requested to do so. It is heartening that the Second Meeting of the Standing
Committee of Experts on the General Status and Operation of the
Convention[33] encouraged the
development of guidelines for completing Article 7
reports.[34]
The Role of the UN under Article 8
Article 8 details fact-finding procedures to be
followed if a state party requests clarification of compliance by another state
party. Should this article ever be invoked, the UN may be called on to
facilitate exchanges of information between states parties; exercise its good
offices; convene a Special Meeting of the States Parties to consider a question
relating to compliance; or facilitate a fact-finding mission. The UN is
required, in the meantime, to maintain a list of experts who may be called on to
conduct fact-finding missions and to communicate this list to all states
parties.
As in the case of Article 7, the UN’s role in implementing Article 8
has also required some clarification of procedures which were not made clear in
the treaty itself. The Standing Committee of Experts on the General Status and
Operation of the Convention has agreed that the list of experts for fact-finding
missions should only be transmitted to states
parties.[35] The Committee
recommended that this Article be operationalized shortly ‘in order to have
all structures and the necessary methodology in place for a smooth execution
whenever needed’.[36]
The UNDDA requested all fifty-five states parties as of April 1999 to submit
the names of experts to be included on this list. As of 3 May 2000 only twelve
states have made such
submissions.[37]
It is essential to have the necessary infrastructure in place to facilitate
any requests for clarification or fact-finding missions which may be instituted,
if only as a continuing reminder that such missions are possible. Canada’s
draft recommendations[38] in
this regard are a useful starting point, and it has been agreed that they will
be discussed at the Second Meeting of States Parties. These will focus on, inter
alia, the standards of evidence to be used for initiating “requests for
clarification”; encouraging states parties to submit lists of experts;
procedures for ensuring an efficient and speedy deployment of any fact-finding
missions; and issues related to the costs of any Special Meeting of States
Parties under Article 8 and of fact-finding missions.
It is important to recognise that ‘quiet diplomacy’ is also at
work in ensuring compliance with this convention. If a state party suspected of
acting against the treaty is persuaded to come into compliance through demarches
by another state party, then a more positive result may be achieved than by
using the Article 8 process. The politicisation of the issue and creation of an
adversarial situation is thus avoided. Whether this will be achieved in all
suspected cases of non-compliance would depend very much on the relationships
between the relevant states parties.
Conclusion
Implementation of the compliance mechanisms in the
Ottawa Convention has begun during this first year of reporting. Refinements and
improvements can now be made to achieve a system that is generally acceptable to
states parties.
Effective monitoring of compliance requires states to submit their Article 7
reports to the UN in a proper and timely manner. Assistance to states parties
that are having difficulty in obtaining, collating or submitting the required
information to the UN may need to be formalised so that effective remedies can
be instituted in these cases.
The UN’s Article 7 Transparency Measures database is currently a useful
tool in monitoring compliance, but its effectiveness should be enhanced. The
assessed contributions of states parties should be sufficient to cover such
improvements. If not, governments should consider making voluntary contributions
for this purpose. The amounts required are tiny compared to the costs of
implementing the treaty generally and compared to the compliance costs for other
treaties. In the absence of a standing secretariat for the Ottawa Convention,
the UN needs the support of all states parties to fulfil the tasks the treaty
has ascribed to it.
[1] This is the second report prepared for
Landmine Monitor by VERTIC. The first, on national ratification and
implementation legislation was published in Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward
a Mine-Free World as ‘Landmines in International Law: Ratification and
National Implementation’, pp. 1037-1046. A longer version was published by
VERTIC as Joe McGrath and David Robertson, ‘Monitoring the Landmine
Convention: Ratification and National Implementation Legislation’, VERTIC
Research Report no. 5, September 1999. See www.vertic.org for
details. [2] For example the
International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards agreements required by the Treaty
on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons allow for regular on-site
inspections. The Ottawa Convention is, however, a hybrid
humanitarian/disarmament treaty. For a detailed analysis of the verification
provisions of the Ottawa Convention see Trevor Findlay, ‘Verification of
the Ottawa Convention: Workable Hybrid or Fatal Compromise?’, Disarmament
Forum, UN Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR), Geneva, no. 4,
1999. [3] Items that shall be reported
on are detailed in Article 7(1)(a)-(i) Ottawa
Convention. [4] APLC/MSP.1/1999/1 p. 6.
The standard reporting forms are contained in APLC/MSP.1/1999/1 Annex
II. [5] Arabic, Chinese, English,
French, Russian and Spanish (Article 22 Ottawa
Convention). [6] APLC/MSP.1/1999/1,
Annex III, p. 25. [7] The UN is also
prepared to receive 'hard copy' reports from states parties not 'in a position
to use electronic communication means...'; APLC/MSP.1/1999/1, Annex III. p.
25. [8]
http://domino.un.org/Ottawa.nsf. [9]
APLC/MSP.1/1999/1, Annex III, p.
25. [10] States parties that had
submitted reports under Article 7 were: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Belize,
Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Denmark,
Ecuador, Fiji, France, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Germany, Holy
See, Honduras, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Malaysia, Mexico, the
Netherlands, New Zealand, Niue, Norway, Peru, Portugal, Senegal, Slovakia,
Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, United
Kingdom, Yemen and Zimbabwe. [11] States
parties that were late in submitting reports under Article 7(1) were: Andorra,
Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Barbados, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Chad, Costa Rica,
Djibouti, Dominica, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea,
Iceland, Jamaica, Lesotho, Malawi, Mali, Mauritius, Monaco, Mozambique, Namibia,
Nicaragua, Niger, Panama, Paraguay, Qatar, St Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia,
Samoa, San Marino, Solomon Islands, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkmenistan, Uganda
and Venezuela. [12] The UNDDA did,
however, present a report listing the due date of Article 7 reports to the
Second Meeting of the Standing Committee of Experts on the General Status and
Operation of the Convention (Geneva, 29-30 May 2000); APLC/MSP.2/2000/L._ . This
report will be continuously updated for submission to the Second Meeting of
States Parties, Geneva, September
2000. [13] As of 3 May 2000, only
Belgium and Canada had submitted in more than one
language. [14] The First Meeting of the
Standing Committee of Experts on the General Status and Operation of the
Convention (Geneva, 10-11 January 2000) recommended that a summary document
relating to the Article 7 reports be translated into all six authentic languages
for presentation to the Second Meeting of States Parties to be held in Geneva in
September 2000. Article 7 reports will be provided at that meeting in the
language of submission to the UN. [15]
First Meeting of States Parties document APLC/MSP.1/1991/1, p.
26. [16] VERTIC interview with Carolyn
Cooper and Tamara Malinova, UNDDA, New York, 14 January
2000. [17] As of 30 June
2000. [18] Form F ‘Status of
programs for destruction of APMs’ does not contain a supplementary
information category. Form I ‘Measures to provide warning to the
population’ seeks solely a narrative
response. [19] A decision on the
inclusion of ‘Form J’ (‘Other relevant matters’) will be
made at the Second Meeting of States Parties. Form J was proposed by Canada, at
the Standing Committee of Experts meeting on the Status and Operation of the
Convention, Geneva, 29-30 May 2000. [20]
Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Hungary, Japan, Mexico and
Switzerland Thailand and the United Kingdom. There is no consistency between
states parties reports on the time period that the Article 7(2) reports cover;
many overlap with the reports submitted under Article 7(1). If states parties
submit their Article 7(2) reports on time, by 30 April each year, the workload
of the UNDDA will increase dramatically at this
time. [21] VERTIC interview with Carolyn
Cooper and Tamara Malinova, UNDDA, New York, 14 January
2000. [22] VERTIC interview with Carolyn
Cooper and Tamara Malinova, UNDDA, New York, 14 January
2000. [23] Carolyn Cooper, UNDDA, verbal
report to the Second Meeting of the Standing Committee of Experts meeting on the
Status and Operation of the Convention, Geneva, 29-30 May 2000. These electronic
reports were transmitted either by email, or on computer
disk. [24] States involved in funding
mine action are encouraged to input their own information on the Mine Action
Investments database overseen by
UNMAS. [25] The receiving computer must
have its internet browser set to support advanced internet applications. In
particular, applets and the internet language ‘Java’. A high-speed
modem is also advisable given the large size of some of the reports. Reports
containing maps, photos or other graphic images, and reports submitted in
Arabic, take longer to download than text-only
reports. [26] The GICHD contracted the
development of IMSMA to the Centre for Security Policy at the Swiss Federal
Institute of Technology, Zurich, Switzerland. The UNDDA 'Article 7 Transparency
Measures' database was developed in-house at the
UN. [27] Article 14(2) Ottawa
Convention. [28] VERTIC interview with
Carolyn Cooper and Tamara Malinova, UNDDA, New York, 14 January
2000. [29] VERTIC interview with Carolyn
Cooper and Tamara Malinova, UNDDA, New York, 14 January
2000. [30] VERTIC interview with
Stéphane Vigié, Policy Advisor, UNMAS, New York, 19 January 2000.
The UNDDA is not mandated to assist states parties in compiling and transmitting
Article 7 reports, and in any event, does not currently have the resources to be
able to do so. [31] VERTIC interview
with Stéphane Vigié, Policy Advisor, UNMAS, New York, 19 January
2000. [32] In practice, the GICHD has
aided those states parties who have requested assistance with Article 7
reporting. [33] This is one of five
Intersessional working groups whose establishment was recommended by the First
Meeting of States Parties held in Maputo, Mozambique in May 1999. The meetings
have been hosted by the Geneva International Centre for Humanitarian Demining
(GICHD). The first meeting of this Standing Committee was held in Geneva, 10-11
January 2000. The other Intersessional Working Groups focus on mine clearance;
victim assistance, socio-economic reintegration and mine awareness; stockpile
destruction; and technologies for mine action. Further information about these
working groups is available on the GICHD website:
www.gichd.ch. [34] Draft Report of the
Second Meeting of the Standing Committee of Experts on the General Status and
Operation of the Convention, Geneva, 29-30 May 2000, p.
3. [35] Draft Report of the First
Meeting of the Standing Committee of Experts on the General Status and Operation
of the Convention, Geneva, 10-11 January 2000, p.
3. [36] Draft Report of the First
Meeting of the Standing Committee of Experts on the General Status and Operation
of the Convention, Geneva, 10-11 January 2000, p.
3. [37] Email from Carolyn Cooper,
UNDDA, 11 May 2000. [38] Draft
Recommendations with Respect to the Implementation of Article 8 of the Mine Ban
Convention, presented to the Second Meeting of the Standing Committee of Experts
meeting on the Status and Operation of the Convention, Geneva, 29-30 May 2000
(contained in that meeting’s Reference Documents at 6.1). These
recommendations were accepted by the Standing Committee of Experts.