Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons which may be deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to have Indiscriminate Effects (and Protocols)

Concluded at Geneva on 10 October 1980

Declarations and Reservations
(Unless otherwise indicated, the declarations and reservations were made upon
ratification, acceptance, approval, accession or succession.)

Argentina

Reservation:

The Argentine Republic makes the express reservation that any references to the 1977 Protocols Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 that are contained in the [said Convention and its Protocols I, II and III] shall be interpreted in the light of the interpretative declarations in the instrument of accession of the Argentine Republic to the afore-mentioned additional Protocols of 1977.

canada

Declarations:

"1. It is the understanding of the Government of Canada that:

(a) The compliance of commanders and others responsible for planning, deciding upon, or executing attacks to which the Convention and its Protocols apply cannot be judged on the basis of information which subsequently comes to light but must be assessed on the basis of the information available to them at the time that such actions were taken; and

(b) Where terms are not defined in the present Convention and its Protocols they shall, so far as is relevant, be construed in the same sense as terms contained in additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions of August 12, 1949.

2. With respect to Protocol I, it is the understanding of the Government of Canada that the use of plastics or similar materials for detonators or other weapons parts not designed to cause injury is not prohibited.

3. With respect to Protocol II, it is the understanding of the Government of Canada that:

(a) Any obligation to record the location of remotely delivered mines pursuant to sub-paragraph 1 (a) of article 5 refers to the location of mine fields and not to the location of individual remotely delivered mines;

(b) The term `pre-planned', as used in sub-paragraph 1 (a) of article 7 means that the position of the minefield in question should have been determined in advance so that an accurate record of the location of the minefield, when laid, can be made.;

(c) The phrase `similar functions' used in article 8, includes the concepts of `peace-making, preventive peace-keeping and peace enforcement' as defined in an agenda for peace (United Nations document A/47/277 S/2411 of 17 June 1992).

4. With respect to Protocol III, it is the understanding of the Government of Canada that the expression `clearly separated' in paragraph 3 of article 2 includes both spatial separation or separation by means of an effective physical barrier between the military objective and the concentration of civilians."

china

Upon signature:

Statement

1. The Government of the People's Republic of China has decided to sign the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May be Deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects adopted at the United Nations Conference held in Geneva on 10 October 1980.

2. The Government of the People's Republic of China deems that the basic spirit of the Convention reflects the reasonable demand and good intention of numerous countries and peoples of the world regarding prohibitions or restrictions on the use of certain conventional weapons which are excessively injurious or have indiscriminate effects. This basic spirit conforms to China's consistent position and serves the interest of opposing aggression and maintaining peace.

3. However, it should be pointed out that the Convention fails to provide for supervision or verification of any violation of its clauses, thus weakening its binding force. The Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby Traps and Other Devices fails to lay down strict restrictions on the use of such weapons by the aggressor on the territory of his victim and to provide adequately for the right of a state victim of an aggression to defend itself by all necessary means. The Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons does not stipulate restrictions on the use of such weapons against combat personnel. Furthermore, the Chinese texts of the Convention and Protocol are not accurate or satisfactory enough. It is the hope of the Chinese Government that these inadequacies can be remedied in due course.

CYPRUS

Declaration:

france

Upon signature:

Declaration:

After signing the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects, the French Government, as it has already had occasion to state

- through its representative to the United Nations Conference on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons in Geneva, during the discussion of the proposal concerning verification arrangements submitted by the delegation of the Federal Republic of Germany and of which the French Government became a sponsor, and at the final meeting on 10 October 1980;

- on 20 November 1980 through the representative of the Netherlands, speaking on behalf of the nine States members of the European Community in the First Committee at the thirty-fifth session of the United Nations General Assembly;

Regrets that thus far it has not been possible for the States which participated in the negotiation of the Convention to reach agreement on the provisions concerning the verification of facts which might be alleged and which might constitute violations of the undertakings subscribed to.

It therefore reserves the right to submit, possibly in association with other States, proposals aimed at filling that gap at the first conference to be held pursuant to article 8 of the Convention and to utilize, as appropriate, procedures that would make it possible to bring before the international community facts and information which, if verified, could constitute violations of the provisions of the Convention and the Protocols annexed thereto.

Interpretative statement

The application of this Convention will have no effect on the legal status of the parties to a conflict.

Reservation:

France, which is not bound by Additional Protocol I of 10 June 1977 to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949:

Considers that the fourth paragraph of the preamble to the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects, which reproduces the provisions of article 35, paragraph 3, of Additional Protocol I, applies only to States parties to that Protocol;

States, with reference to the scope of application defined in article 1 of the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons, that it will apply the provisions of the Convention and its three Protocols to all the armed conflicts referred to in articles 2 and 3 common to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949;

States that as regards the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, the declaration of acceptance and application provided for in article 7, paragraph 4 (b), of the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons will have no effects other than those provided for in article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions, in so far as that article is applicable.

israel

Declarations:

"(a) With reference to the scope of application defined in article 1 of the Convention, the Government of the State of Israel will apply the provisions of the Convention and those annexed Protocols to which Israel has agreed become bound to all armed conflicts involving regular armed forces of States referred to in article 2 common to the General Conventions of 12 August 1949, as well as to all armed conflicts referred to in article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949.

(b) Article 7, paragraph 4 of the Convention will have no effect.

(c) The application of this Convention will have no effect on the legal status of the parties to a conflict.

Understandings:

(a) It is the understanding of the Government of the State of Israel that the compliance of commanders and others responsible for planning, deciding upon, or executing attacks to which the Convention and its Protocols apply, cannot be judged on the basis of information which subsequently comes to light, but must be assessed on the basis of the information available to them at the time that such actions were taken.

(b) With respect to Protocol I, it is the understanding of the Government of Israel that the use of plastics or similar materials for detonators or other weapon parts not designed to cause injury is not prohibited.

(c) With respect to Protocol I, it is the understanding of the Government of Israel that:

(i) Any obligation to record the location of remotely delivered mines pursuant to sub-paragraph 1 (a) of article 5 refers to the location of mine fields and not to the location of individual remotely delivered mines;

(ii) the term pre-planned, as used in sub-paragraph 1 (a) of article 7 means that the position of the minefield in question should have been determined in advance so that an accurate record of the location of the minefield, when laid, can be made."

Holy See

Declaration:

"The Holy See, as a signatory of the [said Convention and annexed Protocols], in keeping with its proper nature and with the particular condition of Vatican City State, intends to renew its encouragement to the International Community to continue on the path it has taken for the reduction of human suffering caused by armed conflict.

Every step in this direction contributes to increasing awareness that war and the cruelty of war must be done away with in order to resolve tensions by dialogue and negotiation, and also by ensuring that international law is respected.

The Holy See, while maintaining that the above-mentioned Convention and Protocols constitute an important instrument for humanitarian international law, reiterates the objective hoped for by many parties: an agreement that would totally ban anti-personnel mines, the effects of which are tragically well-know.

In this regard, the Holy See considers that the modifications made so far in the second Protocol are insufficient and inadequate. It wishes, by means of its own accession to the Convention, to offer support to every effort aimed at effectively banning anti-personnel mines, in the conviction that all possible means must be used in order to build a safer and more fraternal world."

italy

Upon signature:

Declaration:

On 10 October 1980 in Geneva, the representative of Italy at the Conference speaking at the closing meeting, emphasized that the Conference, in an effort to reach a compromise between what was desirable and what was possible, had probably achieved the maximum results feasible in the circumstances prevailing at that time.

However, he observed in his statement that one of the objectives which had not been achieved at the Conference, to his Government's great regret, was the inclusion in the text of the Convention, in accordance with a proposal originated by the Federal Republic of Germany, of an article on the establishment of a consultative committee of experts competent to verify facts which might be alleged and which might constitute violations of the undertakings subscribed to.

On the same occasion, the representative of Italy expressed the wish that that proposal, which was aimed at strengthening the credibility and effectiveness of the Convention, should be reconsidered at the earliest opportunity within the framework of the mechanisms for the amendment of the Convention expressly provided for in that instrument.

Subsequently, through the representative of the Netherlands, speaking on behalf of nine States members of the European Community in the First Committee of the United Nations General Assembly on 20 November 1980, when it adopted draft resolution A/C.1/31/L.15 (subsequently adopted as General Assembly Resolution 35/153), Italy once again expressed regret that the States which had participated in the preparation of the texts of the Convention and its Protocols had been unable to reach agreement on provisions that would ensure respect for the obligations deriving from those texts.

In the same spirit, Italy - which has just signed the Convention in accordance with the wishes expressed by the General Assembly in its resolution 35/153 - wishes to confirm solemnly that it intends to undertake active efforts to ensure that the problem of the establishment of a mechanism that would make it possible to fill a gap in the Convention and thus ensure that it achieves maximum effectiveness and maximum credibility vis-à-vis the international community is taken up again at the earliest opportunity in every competent forum.

netherlands

"1. With regard to article 2, paragraph 4, of Protocol II: It is the understanding of the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands that a specific area of land may also be a military objective if, because of its location or other reasons specified in paragraph 4, its total or partial destruction, capture, or neutralization in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definitive military advantage;

"2. With regard to article 3, paragraph 3, under c, of Protocol II: It is the understanding of the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands that military advantage refers to the advantage anticipated from the attack considered as a whole and not only from isolated or particular parts of the attack;

"3. With regard to article 8, paragraph 1, of Protocol II: It is the understanding of the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands that the words `as far as it is able' mean `as far as it is technically able'.

"4. With regard to article 1, paragraph 3, of Protocol III: It is the understanding of the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands that a specific area of land may also be a military objective if, because of its location or other reasons specified in paragraph 3, its total or partial destruction, capture, or neutralization in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definitive military advantage."

romania

Upon signature:

2. Romania considers that the Convention and the three Protocols annexed thereto constitute a positive step within the framework of the efforts which have been made for the gradual development of international humanitarian law applicable during armed conflicts and which aim at providing very broad and reliable protection for the civilian population and the combatants.

3. At the same time, Romania would like to emphasize that the provisions of the Convention and its Protocols have a restricted character and do not ensure adequate protection either to the civilian population or to the combatants as the fundamental principles of international humanitarian law require.

4. The Romanian Government wishes to state on this occasion also that real and effective protection for each individual and for peoples and assurance of their right to a free and independent life necessarily presuppose the elimination of all acts of aggression and the renunciation once and for all of the use of force and the threat of the use of force, of intervention in the domestic affairs of other States and of the policy of domination and diktat and strict observation of the sovereignty and independence of peoples and their legitimate right to self-determination.

In the present circumstances, when a vast quantity of nuclear weapons has been accumulated in the world, the protection of each individual and of all peoples is closely linked with the struggle for peace and disarmament and with the adoption of authentic measures to halt the arms race and ensure the gradual reduction of nuclear weapons until they are totally eliminated.

5. The Romanian Government States once again its decision to act, together with other States, to ensure the prohibition or restriction of all conventional weapons which are excessively injurious or have indiscriminate effects, and the adoption of urgent and effective measures for nuclear disarmament which would protect peoples from the nuclear war which seriously threatens their right to life - a fundamental condition for the protection which international humanitarian law must ensure for the individual, the civilian population and the combatants.

united kingdom of great britain and northern ireland

Upon signature:

"The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland will give further consideration to certain provisions of the Convention, particularly in relation to the provisions of Protocol I additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and may wish to make formal declarations in relation to these provisions at the time of ratification."

Upon ratification:

(i) The term "armed conflict" of itself and in its context denotes a situation of a kind which is not constituted by the commission of ordinary crimes, including acts of terrorism, whether concerted or in isolation.

(ii) The United Kingdom will not, in relation to any situation in which it is involved, consider itself bound in consequence of any declaration purporting to be made for the purposes of article 7 (4), unless the United Kingdom shall have expressly recognised that it has been made by a body which is genuinely and authority representing a people engaged in an armed conflict of the type to which that paragraph applies.

(iii)The terms "civilian" and "civilian population" have the same meaning as in article 50 of the 1st Additional Protocol of 1977 to the 1949 Geneva Conventions. Civilians shall enjoy the protection afforded by this Convention unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities.

(iv) Military commanders and others responsible for planning, deciding upon, or executing attacks necessarily have to reach decisions on the basis of their assessment of the information from all sources which is reasonably available to them at the relevant time.

A specific area of land may be a military objective if, because of its location or other reasons specified in this article, its total or partial destruction, capture or neutralisation in the circumstances ruling at the time offers a definite military advantage.

In the view of the United Kingdom, the military advantage anticipated from an attack is intended to refer to the advantage anticipated from the attack considered as a whole and not only from isolated or particular parts of the attack.

The United Kingdom accepts the provisions of article 2 (2) and (3) on the understanding that the terms of those paragraphs of that article do not imply that the air-delivery of incendiary weapons, or of any other weapons, projectiles or munitions, is less accurate or less capable of being carried out discriminately than all or any other means of delivery.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Upon signature:

"The United States Government welcomes the adoption of this Convention, and hopes that all States will give the most serious consideration to ratification or accession. We believe that the Convention represents a positive step forward in efforts to minimize injury or damage to the civilian population in time of armed conflict. Our signature of this Convention reflects the general willingness of the United States to adopt practical and reasonable provisions concerning the conduct of military operations, for the purpose of protecting noncombatants.

"At the same time, we want to emphasize that formal adherence by States to agreements restricting the use of weapons in armed conflict would be of little purpose if the parties were not firmly committed to taking every appropriate step to ensure compliance with those restrictions after their entry into force. It would be the firm intention of the United States and, we trust, all other parties to utilize the procedures and remedies provided by this Convention, and by the general laws of war, to see to it that all parties to the Convention meet their obligations under it. The United States strongly supported proposals by other countries during the Conference to include special procedures for dealing with compliance matters, and reserves the right to propose at a later date additional procedures and remedies, should this prove necessary, to deal with such problems.

"In addition, the United States of course reserves the right, at the time of ratification, to exercise the option provided by article 4 (3) of the Convention, and to make statements of understanding and/or reservations, to the extent that it may deem that to be necessary to ensure that the Convention and its Protocols conform to humanitarian and military requirements. As indicated in the negotiating record of the 1980 Conference, the prohibitions and restrictions contained in the Convention and its Protocols are of course new contractual rules (with the exception of certain provisions which restate existing international law) which will only bind States upon their ratification of, or accession to, the Convention and their consent to be bound by the Protocols in question."

Upon ratification:

Reservation:

"Article 7 (4) (b) of the Convention shall not apply with respect to the United States.

Declaration:

The United States declares, with reference to the scope of application defined in article 1 of the Convention, that the United States will apply the provisions of the Convention, Protocol I, and Protocol II to all armed conflicts referred to in articles 2 and 3 common to the Geneva Conventions for the Protection of War Victims of August 12, 1949.

Understandings :

The United States understands that article 6 (1) of the Protocol II does not prohibit the adaptation for use as booby-traps of portable objects created for a purpose other than as a booby-trap if the adaptation does not violate paragraph (1)(b) of the article.

The United States considers that the fourth paragraph of the preamble to the Convention, which refers to the substance of provisions of article 35 (3) and article 55 (1) of additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions for the Protection of War Victims of August 12, 1949, applies only to States which have accepted those provisions.

NOTES:

1 The protocols concerned are:

- Protocol on non-detectable fragments (Protocol I);

- Protocol on prohibitions or restrictions on the use of mines, booby-traps and other devices (Protocol II);

- Protocol on prohibitions or restrictions on the use of incendiary weapons (Protocol III).

Each participant must consent to be bound by any two or more of the Protocols. Acceptance of a Protocol is denoted by an "X". Unless otherwise indicated, acceptance was notified upon ratification, acceptance, approval of, accession or succession to the Convention.

2 Czechoslovakia had signed and ratified the Convention accepting Protocols I, II and III, on 10 April 1981 and 31 August 1982, respectively. See also note in chapter I.2.

3 The German Democratic Republic had signed and ratified the Convention on 10 April 1981 and 20 July 1982, respectively, accepting all three Protocols. See also note in chapter I.2.

4 A signature was affixed on behalf of the Lao People's Democratic Republic on 2 November 1982, i.e. after the time-limit of 10 April 1982 prescribed by article 3 of the Convention, as a result of an administrative oversight. The signature was cancelled; the Government of the Lao People's Democratic Republic subsequently acceded (on 3 January 1983) to the Convention, accepting the three Protocols.

Adopted by the Conference of the States Parties to the Convention at its 8th Plenary Meeting of the State Parties
on 13 October 1995

Argentina 21 Oct 1998

Australia 22 Aug 1997

Austria 27 Jul 1998

Belgium 10 Mar 1999

Bulgaria 3 Dec 1998

Cambodia 25 Mar 1997

Canada 5 Jan 1998

Cape Verde 16 Sep 1997

China 4 Nov 1998

Costa Rica 17 Dec 1998

Czech Republic 10 Aug 1998

Denmark 30 Apr 1997

Finland 11 Jan 1996

France 30 Jun 1998

Germany 27 Jun 1997

Greece 5 Aug 1997

Holy See 22 Jul 1997

Hungary 30 Jan 1998

Ireland 27 Mar 1997

Italy 13 Jan 1999

Japan 10 Jun 1997

Latvia 11 Mar 1998

Liechtenstein 19 Nov 1997

Lithuania 3 Jun 1998

Mexico 10 Mar 1998

Mongolia 6 Apr 1999

Netherlands 2 25 Mar 1999

New Zealand 8 Jan 1998

Norway 20 Apr 1998

Panama 26 Mar 1997

Peru 3 Jul 1997

Philippines 12 Jun 1997

South Africa 26 Jun 1998

Spain 19 Jan 1998

Sweden 15 Jan 1997

Switzerland 24 Mar 1998

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland 11 Feb 1999

Uruguay 18 Aug 1998

Uzbekistan 29 Sep 1997

Declarations and Reservations
(Unless otherwise indicated, the declarations and reservations were made upon acceptance.)

Australia

Declaration:

"It is the understanding of the Government of Australia that the provisions of Protocol IV shall apply in all circumstances."

Austria

Declaration:

[Same declaration, mutatis mutandis, as the one made by Ireland.]

belgium

Declaration:

It is the understanding of Belgium that the provisions of the Protocol IV which by their contents or nature may also be applied in peacetime, shall be observed at all times.

canada1

19 October 1998

Declaration:

[Same declaration, mutatis mutandis, as the one made by Ireland.]

germany

Declaration:

[Same declaration, mutatis mutandis, as the one made by Ireland.]

greece

Declaration:

[Same declaration, mutatis mutandis, as the one made by Ireland.]

ireland

Declaration in relation to article 1:

"It is the understanding of Ireland that the provisions of the Additional Protocol which by their contents or nature may also be applied in peacetime, shall be observed at all times."

italy

Declaration:

[Same declaration, mutatis mutandis, as the one made by Ireland.]

liechtenstein

Declaration:

[Same declaration, mutatis mutandis, as the one made by Ireland.]

netherlands

Declaration:

With regard to Article 1 of Protocol IV:

"The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands takes the view that the provisions of Protocol IV which, given their content or nature, can also be applied in peacetime must be observed in all circumstances."

south africa

Declaration:

[Same declaration, mutatis mutandis, as the one made by Australia.]

sweden

Declarations:

"- Sweden intends to apply the Protocol to all types of armed conflict;

- Sweden intends to pursue an international agreement by which the provisions of the Protocol shall be applicable to all types of armed conflict;

- Sweden has since long strived for explicit prohibition of the use of blinding laser which would risk causing permanent blindness to soldiers. Such an effect, in Sweden's view is contrary to the principle of international law prohibiting means and methods of warfare which cause unnecessary suffering."

swiTzerland

Declaration:

[Same declaration, mutatis mutandis, as the one made by Australia.]

united kingdom of great britain and northern ireland

Declaration:

"In relation to Protocol IV, the Government of the United Kingdom declare that their application of its provisions will not be limited to the situations set out in Article 1 of the [1980] Convention."

Notes:

1 In keeping with the depositary practice followed in similar cases, the Secretary-General proposed to receive the declaration for deposit in the absence of any objection on the part of the Contracting States, either to the deposit itself or to the procedure envisaged, within a period of 90 days from the date of its circulation (i.e. 21 July 1998). None of the Contracting Parties to the Protocol having notified the Secretary-General of an objection within the 90 days period, the declaration was deemed to have been accepted for deposit upon the expiration of the 90 day period in question, i.e. on 19 october 1998.

2 For the Kingdom in Europe.

Adopted by the Conference of the States Parties at Geneva on 3 May 1996

Argentina 21 Oct 1998

Australia 22 Aug 1997

Austria 27 Jul 1998

Belgium 10 Mar 1999

Bulgaria 3 Dec 1998

Cambodia 25 Mar 1997

Canada 5 Jan 1998

Cape Verde 16 Sep 1997

China 4 Nov 1998

Costa Rica 17 Dec 1998

Czech Republic 10 Aug 1998

Denmark 30 Apr 1997

Finland 3 Apr 1998

France 23 Jul 1998

Germany 2 May 1997

Greece 20 Jan 1999

Hungary 30 Jan 1998

Ireland 27 Mar 1997

Italy 13 Jan 1999

Japan 10 Jun 1997

Liechtenstein 19 Nov 1997

Lithuania 3 Jun 1998

Monaco 12 Aug 1997

Netherlands 2 25 Mar 1999

New Zealand 8 Jan 1998

Norway 20 Apr 1998

Pakistan 9 Mar 1999

Peru 3 Jul 1997

Philippines 12 Jun 1997

Portugal 31 Mar 1999

South Africa 26 Jun 1998

Spain 27 Jan 1998

Sweden 16 Jul 1997

Switzerland 24 Mar 1998

United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Northern Ireland 11 Feb 1999

Uruguay 18 Aug 1998

Declarations and Reservations
(Unless otherwise indicated, the declarations and reservations were made upon acceptance.)

Austria

Declaration in respect of article 1:

[Same declaration, mutatis mutandis, as the one made by Ireland.]

Declaration in respect of article 2 (3):

[Same declaration, mutatis mutandis, as the one made by Ireland.]

belgium

Declaration:

[Waiting for translation]

canada1

19 October 1998

Reservation:

"Canada reserves the right to transfer and use a small number of mines prohibited under this Protocol to be used exclusively for training and testing purposes. Canada will ensure that the number of such mines shall not exceed that absolutely necessary for such purposes.

Statements of Understanding:

1. It is understood that the provisions of Amended Protocol II shall, as the context requires, be observed at all times.

2. It is understood that the word "primarily" is included in Article 2, paragraph 3 of Amended Protocol II to clarify that mines designed to be detonated by the presence, proximity or contact of a vehicle as opposed to a person, that are equipped with anti-handling devices, are not considered anti-personnel mines as a result of being so equipped.

3. It is understood that the maintenance of a minefield referred to in Article 10, in accordance with the standards on marking, monitoring and protection by fencing or other means set out in Amended Protocol II, would not be considered as a use of the mines contained therein."

china

Declaration:

I. According to the provisions contained in Technical Annex 2 (c) and 3 (c) of the Amended Protocol II, China will defer compliance with 2 (b), 3 (a) and 3 (b);

Declaration in respect of article 2 (3):

[Same declaration, mutatis mutandis, as the one made by Ireland.]

DENMARK

Declarations:

[Same declarations, mutatis mutandis, as those made by Ireland.]

finland

Declarations:

[Same declarations, mutatis mutandis, as those made by Ireland.]

france

Declaration concerning the scope of amended Protocol II:

[Same declaration, mutatis mutandis, as the one made by Ireland in regard to article 1 and 2 of the Protocol.]

Article 4:

France takes it that article 4 and the Technical Annex to amended Protocol II do not require the removal or replacement of mines that have already been laid.

Declaration concerning standards on marking, monitoring and protection:

The provisions of amended Protocol II such as those concerning the marking, monitoring and protection of zones which contain anti-personnel mines and are under the control of a party, are applicable to all zones containing mines, irrespective of the date on which those mines were laid.

germany

Declarations in respect of articles 1 and 2:

[Same declarations, mutatis mutandis, as those made by

Ireland.]

Declaration:

Article 5 paragraph 2 (b):

It is understood that article 5, paragraph 2 (b) does not preclude agreement among the states concerned, in connection with peace treaties or similar arrangements, to allocate responsibilities under paragraph 2 (b) in another manner which nevertheless respects the essential spirit and purpose of the article.

greece

Declaration in respect of article 1:

"It is understood that the provisions of the protocol shall, as the context requires, be observed at all times."

Declaration in respect of article 2 (3):

[Same declaration, mutatis mutandis, as the one made by Ireland.]

Declaration in respect of article 5, paragraph 2 (b):

[Same declaration, mutatis mutandis, as the one made by Germany.]

hungary

Declaration:

The Republic of Hungary

1) declines to observe the 9 year period of deferral on compliance as allowed for in Paragraphs 2 (c) and 3 (c) of the Technical Annex to Amended Protocol II, and even prior to the entry into force of Amended Protocol II intends to be bound by its implementation measures as stipulated therein, as well as the rules of procedure regarding record keeping, detectability, self-destruction and self-deactivation and perimeter marking as stipulated in the Technical Annex;

2) intends to eliminate and eventually destroy its entire stockpile of anti-personnel landmines by December 31, 2000 the latest, in addition to the already undertaken destruction of stockpiled landmines, as initiated in August of 1996 and completed in 40%;

3) refrains from the emplacement of anti-personnel landmines and, for the duration of their complete destruction, intends to designate a central storage facility to pool the remainder stock of anti-personnel landmines as a way to facilitate inspection by international monitors;

4) announces a total ban on the development, production, acquisition, export and transfer of all types of anti-personnel landmines;

5) refrains from the operational use of anti-personnel landmines, unless a policy-revision becomes necessitated by a significant deterioration in the national security environment of the country, in which case due attention shall be paid to compliance with laws governing international warfare;

6) stands ready to engage in implementing appropriate confidence building measures, as a way to be enabled to present the implementation of the measures announced unilaterally by the Republic of Hungary in the course of joint military, educational, and training and other cooperational activities conducted with other armed forces;

7) offers appropriate technical and training assistance to international organizations engaged in de-mining activities;

8) urges her neighbours and other countries in the region to seek unilateral or coordinated measures designed to achieve the total elimination of all types of anti-personnel landmines from the weapons arsenal of the countries in the region, and expresses her readiness to engage in further negotiations to advance this cause;

9) reiterates her commitment to promote the early conclusion of and wide adherence to an international convention stipulating a total and comprehensive ban on anti-personnel landmines, by reaffirming her determination to contribute actively to the success of international efforts furthering this goal.

ireland

Declarations:

Article 1 :

"It is the understanding of Ireland that the provisions of the amended Protocol which by their contents or nature may be applied also in peacetime, shall be observed at all times."

Article 2 (3):

"It is the understanding of Ireland that the word `primarily' is included in article 2, paragraph 3 of the amended Protocol to clarify that mines designed to be detonated by the presence, proximity or contact of a vehicle as opposed to a person, that are equipped with anti-handling devices, are not considered anti-personnel mines as a result of being so equipped."

italy

Declaration in respect of article 1:

[Same declaration, mutatis mutandis, as the one made by Ireland.]

Declaration in respect of article 2:

"Under article 2 of the amended Protocol II, in order to fully address the humanitarian concerns raised by anti-personnel land-mines, the Italian Parliament has enacted and brought into force a legislation containing a far more stringent definition of those devices. In this regard, while reaffirming its commitment to promote the further development of international humanitarian law, the Italian Government confirms its understanding that the word `primarily' is included in article 2, paragraph 3 of the amended Protocol II to clarify that mines designed to be detonated by the presence, proximity or contact of a vehicle as opposed to a person, that are equipped with anti-handling devices, are not considered anti-personnel mines as a result of being so equipped."

Declaration in respect of article 5, paragraph 2 (b):

"Under article 5 of the amended Protocol II, it is the understanding of the Italian Government that article 5 (paragraph 2 b) does not preclude agreement in connection with peace treaties and related agreements among concerned states to allocate responsibilities under this paragraph in another manner which reflects the spirit and purpose of the article."

liechtenstein

Declaration in respect of article 1:

[Same declaration, mutatis mutandis, as the one made by Ireland.]

netherlands

Declarations:

With regard to Article 1, paragraph 2, of the amended Protocol II:

"The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands takes the view that the provisions of the Protocol which, given their content or nature, can also be applied in peacetime, must be observed in all circumstances."

With regard to Article 2, paragraph 3, of the amended Protocol II:

"The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands takes the view that the word `primarily' means only that mines that are designed to be exploded by the presence, proximity or contact of a vehicle and that are equipped with an anti-handling device are not regarded as anti-personnel mines because of that device."

With regard to Article 2, paragraph 6, of the amended Protocol II:

"The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands takes the view that a specific area of land may also be a military objective if, because of its location or other reasons specified in paragraph six, its total or partial destruction, capture, or neutralization in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definitive military advantage."

With regard to Article 3, paragraph 8, under c, of the amended Protocol II:

"The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands takes the view that military advantage refers to the advantage anticipated from the attack considered as a whole and not only from isolated or particular parts of the attack.

With regard to Article 12, paragraph 2, under b, of the amended Protocol II:

"The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands takes the view that the words `as far as it is able' mean `as far as it is technically able'."

pakistan

Declarations/interpretative statements:

Article 1:

"- It is understood that for the purposes of interpretation the provisions of article 1 take precedence over provisions or undertakings in any other article.

- The rights and obligations arising from situations described in article 1 are absolute and immutable and the observance of any other provision of the Protocol cannot be construed, either directly or indirectly, as affecting the right of peoples struggling against colonial or other forms of alien domination and foreign occupation in the exercise of their inalienable right of self-determination, as enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations and the Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among states in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.

- The provisions of the Protocol must be observed at all times, depending on the circumstances.

Article 2 (Paragraph 3):

- In the context of the word "primarily", it is understood that such anti-tank mines which use anti-personnel mines as a fuse but do not explode on contact with a person are not anti-personnel mines.

Article 3 (Paragraph 9):

- It is understood that an area of land can itself be a legitimate military objective for the purposes of the use of landmines, if its neutralisation or denial, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage.

Sub-paras 2(c) and 3(c) of Technical Annex:

- It is declared that compliance with sub-paras 2(b) and 3(a) and (b) is deferred as provided for in sub-paras 2(c) and 3(c), respectively."

south africa

Declarations in respect of articles 1 and 2 (3):

[Same declarations, mutatis mutandis, as those made by Ireland.]

Article 5 paragraph 2 (b):

"It is understood that Article 5 (2) (b) does not preclude agreement among the States concerned, in connection with peace treaties or similar arrangements, to alloctate responsibilities under this paragraph in another manner which nevertheless respects the essential spirit and purpose of the Article."

sweden

Declarations in respect of articles 1 and 2:

"Sweden intends to apply the Protocol also in time of peace."

Declaration in respect of article 2 (3):

[Same declaration, mutatis mutandis, as the one made by Ireland.]

Declaration in respect of article 5, paragraph 2:

"Sweden is of the opinion that the obligations ensuing from article 5, paragraph 2 shall not be interpreted to the effect that the High Contracting Parties or parties in a conflict are prevented from entering into an agreement allowing another party to conduct mine clearance."

swiTzerland

Declaration in respect of article 2 (3):

Switzerland interprets the definition of "anti-personnel mine" as excluding any mine designed to explode in the presence or proximity of, or upon contact with, a vehicle, when such mine is equipped with an anti-handling device.

united kingdom of great britain and northern ireland

Declarations:

"(a) the [declaration conveying consent to be bound by Protocols I, II and III to the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons which may be Deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to have Indiscriminate Effects, concluded at Geneva on 10 October 1980], in so far as it applies to Protocol II to the [1980] Convention, continues to apply to Protocol II as amended;

(b) the [declaration dated 28 January 1998 accompanying the United Kingdom's ratification of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 relating to the Protection of Victims of Armed Conflict, opened for signature at Geneva on 12 December 1977], in so far as it is relevant, also applies to the provisions of Protocol II as amended;

(c) nothing in the present declaration or in Protocol II as amended shall be taken as limiting the obligations of the United Kingdom under the [Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction concluded at Oslo on 18 September 1997 (the "Ottawa Convention")] nor its rights in relation to other Parties to that Convention;

(d) Article 2(14) is interpreted to have the same meaning as Article 2(3) of the "Ottawa Convention";

(e) the references in Article 12(2) to "force" and "mission" are interpreted as including forces and missions authorised by the United Nations Security Council under Chapter VII or Chapter VIII of the Charter of the United Nations which are deployed by a regional arrangement or agency. This applies to all such forces or missions, whether or not they include contingents contributed by non-member States of the regional arrangement or agency."

Notes:

1 In keeping with the depositary practice followed in similar cases, the Secretary-General proposed to receive the declaration for deposit in the absence of any objection on the part of the Contracting States, either to the deposit itself or to the procedure envisaged, within a period of 90 days from the date of its circulation (i.e. 21 July 1998). None of the Contracting Parties to the Protocol having notified the Secretary-General of an objection within the 90 days period, the declaration was deemed to have been accepted for deposit upon the expiration of the 90 day period in question, i.e. on 19 october 1998.

2 For the Kingdom in Europe.