CCW Report, Vol. 12, No. 4
CCW Meeting Made Informal Due to Russia's Objections to Civil Society
21 November 2024
By Laura Varella
From 13–15 November 2024, the High Contracting Parties to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW) met in Geneva for their annual meeting. The meeting was held in informal mode, after Russia took the conference hostage by agreeing to confirm the Rules of Procedure only if certain restrictions were imposed upon the participation of observers in the meeting. This move by Russia is not new, as its delegates have tried to place obstacles in the way of participation by civil society in previous meetings of the CCW, as well as in other disarmament fora. But Russia’s actions highlighted, once again, how consensus is being used to block progress on important issues, including autonomous weapons systems (AWS), incendiary weapons, and more. Overall, the move to informal mode demonstrated that at a time when conventional weapons are being used to cause death and destruction around the world, the CCW’s failure has dire consequences not only for diplomacy and the credibility of the Convention, but for the people facing direct harm from these weapons.
The following report provides an overview of key issues addressed in the meeting and is not an exhaustive accounting of all discussions or positions.
Confirmation of the Rules of Procedure
As at last year’s Meeting of High Contracting Parties, the first day was almost entirely spent discussing the Rules of Procedure. Russia said it would only agree to confirm the Rules under the understanding that “the participation of non-governmental entities referred to in Chapter 10 will be limited to their possibility to be present during official plenary meetings, to submit working documents, and to make statements in an informal manner—only once for each non-governmental entity—during a special segment of the meeting that will be dedicated to such statements, only after the states' parties conclude their discussion of all substantive agenda items on the agenda, and only in a nonpoliticized manner.” Russia argued that Chapter 10 of the Rules of Procedure, which establishes the participation of observers, is very vague, and that the CCW high contracting parties faced issues in the past with the politicisation of statements by observers.
Several delegations, including Austria, Canada, Finland, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Peru, Sweden, Ukraine, and the United States (US), rejected Russia’s proposal. Austria affirmed that states parties already have mechanisms in place to deal with potential issues politicisation, such as points of order, for example. Austria said that Russia was trying to expand a “very wide safety net” to address a very specific issue (potential politicisation), which was causing even more harm than the situation it was trying to fix. Austria further opposed arguments that Chapter 10 was unclear, affirming that there is a clear intention in the text that observers participate actively in the deliberations, also highlighting that the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) were instrumental in the creation of the CCW and its protocols.
Austria, Ireland, and others also noted that in this meeting, states are supposed to simply confirm the Rules of Procedure, not discuss them again. Germany questioned if the Meeting of High Contracting Parties would even have the authority or the power to take a decision that would alter or at least reinterpret the Rules of Procedure in a very significant way, which would be very close to an amendment. Peru echoed these remarks. Niger expressed deep concern with the situation, saying that as a country affected by the weapons covered by the Convention, it hoped to focus the discussion on substantial issues.
After several hours in informal, closed-door consultations, the Chair informed that states were not able to confirm the Rules of Procedure. The meeting proceeded in informal mode. Throughout the informal debates, many delegations, including Australia, Aotearoa New Zealand, Ireland, Germany, Latvia, Luxembourg, Mexico, Norway, Peru, Spain, Switzerland, and the US, expressed support for the participation of observers in the work of the CCW. Australia submitted a working paper on behalf of a group of states on the importance and value of observers to the work of the CCW.
Informal debate
On the second day, delegations rushed to deliver their statements on substantial issues, considering that most of the previous day was lost trying to confirm the Rules of Procedure. Below are some of the positions expressed by delegations.
Current use of conventional weapons
The High Representative for Disarmament Affairs, Ms. Izumi Nakamitsu, speaking in a video shown at the opening of the Meeting, highlighted the important role that CCW High Contracting Parties can play in preventing further suffering. “In a year that has been marked by humanitarian, political, and diplomatic crises, your commitment to the CCW, a key international humanitarian instrument, and your action in this forum, are essential,” she said.
Throughout the three days of the meeting, delegations highlighted several instances of use of conventional weapons and the extensive suffering resulting from it. The Arab Group, the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), Algeria, Iraq, Jordan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, Venezuela, and others, expressed concern with or condemned Israel’s attacks in the Gaza Strip and Lebanon. A few other delegations, including the European Union (EU), Germany, Luxembourg, the United Kingdom (UK), and the US, defended Israel’s alleged “right” to defend itself, but expressed concern with the humanitarian situation in Gaza.
A group of 46 states expressed deep concern about reports of Russia's failure to comply with its obligations under the CCW during its ongoing aggression against Ukraine. The European Union (EU), Austria, Latvia, the Republic of Korea (ROK), the UK, the US, among others, condemned or expressed concern with Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine.
Some states, including Aotearoa New Zealand, Ireland, and the Netherlands, called for respect of international humanitarian law and the CCW and its protocols in all circumstances.
Autonomous weapon systems
The Chair of the Group of Governmental Experts on Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems (GGE on LAWS), Ambassador Robert in den Bosch of the Netherlands, delivered a presentation on the work carried out by the Group in the two sessions held earlier this year, as well as during the intersessional period. Several delegations, including the African Group, the Arab Group, the NAM, the EU, Albania, Argentina, Aotearoa New Zealand, Australia, Austria, Brazil, Bulgaria, Cuba, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Israel, Japan, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Luxembourg, Norway, Poland, ROK, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Switzerland, Türkiye, the UK, and the US, welcomed the discussions held by Group and the Chair’s efforts.
Looking ahead at the work of the Group next year, a few delegations thanked the Chair for the new revised rolling text. While China, India, the UK, and others expressed support for focusing the discussions on characterisations and definitions, Mexico stressed the need to further discussions on meaningful human control and the use of force. Human Rights Watch regretted that this year’s informal consultations were divided between High Contracting Parties and observer delegations, and both Ireland and Mexico urged that the GGE’s intersessional process ensure full inclusivity. Many delegations expressed their commitment in completing the mandate as soon as possible, preferably by 2025, in line with the call by the UN Secretary-General.
Ireland affirmed that while the GGE has been focused on international humanitarian law (IHL), there are other areas of significant concern which merit due consideration, including legal, technical, ethical, humanitarian, and security perspectives. The African Group, the Arab Group, the NAM, Austria, Brazil, and Mexico made similar remarks, highlighting the need to include these perspectives, as well as human rights concerns.
In this regard, Ireland noted that the recently adopted First Committee resolution on autonomous weapon systems (AWS) decided to establish informal consultations next year, which will be “an important opportunity to discuss the significant and rapidly evolving concerns beyond IHL considerations.” Stop Killer Robots regretted that significant efforts were made by a small number of states, most of whom have a vested interest in developing autonomous weapons, to drastically lower the ambition of the resolution (for more information, see the First Committee Monitor). Nevertheless, several delegations, including Aotearoa New Zealand, Ireland, the Philippines, Sri Lanka, Switzerland, Article 36, Human Rights Watch, the ICRC, and Stop Killer Robots, expressed support for the resolution. Aotearoa New Zealand and Austria highlighted that the consultations established by the resolution are complementary to the work of the GGE and will add momentum and inclusivity to these efforts.
In this regard, Argentina, Australia, China, France, Greece, India, Israel, Luxembourg, Poland, the ROK, Singapore, Türkiye, the UK, and the US said the CCW remains “the” or “the most” appropriate forum for discussions on AWS. The EU said it is the most relevant. Canada said the CCW remains “an appropriate forum,” while the Philippines said it is an important platform. Brazil reiterated that while the GGE possesses unequivocal advantages, such as the participation of all major stakeholders, this is not an absolute value and “should not be an excuse to defeat the purpose of regulating the issue of LAWS through indefinite delays.”
In line with positions expressed in previous GGE meetings, several delegations, including the African Group, the Arab Group, the NAM, Cuba, Kazakhstan, Pakistan, and the Philippines, supported a legally binding instrument with prohibitions and regulations under the Convention. In this regard, some states that are part of the Group of 16 recalled their proposal for a Protocol VI. China supported negotiating a “concise international legal instrument on the basis of common understanding of the defining characteristics of LAWS.” Russia said that existing norms of international law, including IHL, fully apply to LAWS and do not need to be adapted to the specific features of this category of weapon systems.
Australia acknowledged the broader work underway on the responsible use of artificial intelligence (AI) in the military domain. It expressed support for both the REIM Summit in September, organised by the Republic of Korea, as well as for the inaugural plenary session of the US’ Political Declaration on Responsible Military Use of AI in March. Israel also supported the US’ Political Declaration.
Stop Killer Robots highlighted that weapons with concerning levels of autonomy are now being used in conflict, contributing to digital dehumanisation and erosion of meaningful human decision making and control. “Your diplomatic efforts will soon be outpaced, and a failure to deliver will result in devastating humanitarian consequences,” warned Stop Killer Robots. Similarly, Palestine recalled that it has warned in several GGE cycles that AI-powered systems would likely be used to commit international crimes, and to be tested on populations of the Global South. “Our pleas to stop this trend fell on deaf ears. We are now seeing the direct consequences of the failure to establish new international rules. We are now witnessing an automated genocide, an AI-powered genocide.” Palestine also underlined that the primary reason for the large number of civilians killed in Gaza is due to the widespread use of systems like Hasbora and Lavender. It also recalled Amnesty International’s report “Automated Apartheid” about the use of facial recognition in illegally occupied Palestine.
Israel, in turn, said that it is not using any AI system that autonomously choose targets, let alone engage them. Israel said that the intelligence-based procedures it employs for the identification of targets is handled by humans, and that it has been transparent about it.
Incendiary weapons
The EU and Latvia expressed concern about and condemned the use of incendiary weapons against civilians. In a joint statement, Austria, Belgium, Costa Rica, Ireland, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, Philippines, and Switzerland highlighted the severe humanitarian concerns around the use of incendiary weapons and uses of weapons with incidental incendiary effects. These states underlined that incendiary weapons can inflict excruciating burns and respiratory damage and also cause profound psychological trauma. They added that the burning of homes, infrastructure, and crops results in long-lasting socioeconomic harm and creates long-lasting legacy suffering.
The Arab Group denounced the use of white phosphorus and incendiary weapons in Gaza and Lebanon, underlining that it caused thousands of injuries, widespread destruction, and large-scale fires in farming areas, in violation of Protocol III to the CCW. Jordan and Palestine made similar remarks.
The EU called on all states not yet party to join Protocol III of the Convention and urged all states to fully comply with its provisions.
While incendiary weapons are covered by Protocol III of the CCW, the Convention no longer provides a dedicated space for the consideration of the implementation and universalisation of this Protocol. Russia blocked the creation of an agenda item during the Review Conference in 2021 and has opposed language on incendiary weapons in final reports of subsequent meetings of High Contracting Parties. In their joint statement, Austria, Belgium, Costa Rica, Ireland, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, Philippines and Switzerland expressed deep concern with this situation and called for informal consultations on Protocol III during the intersessional period, and for a specific item on Protocol III to feature in the agenda next year. The EU, Japan, Latvia, the UK, Article 36, Human Rights Watch, and the ICRC supported the call.
Russia, in turn, said that calls to revise Protocol III are counterproductive, and that it does not see any justification for separate discussions on this protocol. It said the Meeting should focus attention on more urgent matters, like the faithful and clear implementation of existing provisions of the Protocol.
The use of explosive weapons in populated areas (EWIPA)
The Arab Group highlighted that Israel has targeted densely populated areas in the Gaza Strip, including schools, places of worship, hospitals, and UN facilities, which have resulted in the death of more than 40,000 civilians, most of them women and children. The Group also condemned the attacks on Lebanon, which have resulted in the death of thousands of people and the displacement of over a million. Algeria, Palestine, Pakistan, and the OIC made similar remarks.
Mexico and Türkiye also expressed concern with the use of explosive weapons in Gaza. Additionally, Türkiye expressed concern about the continued export of weapons to Israel, in contradiction with the EWIPA Political Declaration commitments. The OIC also opposed the flow of arms and ammunition to Israel, saying that “these countries know fully well that their supplies are used in contravention of international humanitarian law. The results are obvious, and statistics are beyond alarming.” Palestine and Türkiye called for a halt to arms transfers to Israel.
In turn, Israel said that Hamas and Hezbollah have launched missiles, rockets, mortars, and explosive drones against Israeli population centres and civilians on a daily basis, and that Iran fired from its territory hundreds of ballistic missiles, uncrewed aerial vehicles (UAVs), and cruise missiles against Israel. It claimed it is committed to complying with international law and that it directs its attacks only at military objectives and employs lawful weapons and munitions.
Ireland and Norway expressed concern about the widespread use of explosive weapons in Ukraine, Gaza, Lebanon, Sudan, and other parts of the world. Sri Lanka and Switzerland also expressed concern about the ongoing use of explosive weapons in populated areas.
A joint statement by 46 states expressed concern about Russia’s attacks against densely populated areas, which have destroyed hospitals and medical facilities, schools, energy infrastructure, and water supply systems. The EU condemned the use of explosive weapons such as rockets, artillery shells, and improvised explosive devices directed against civilians in Ukraine by Russia.
Ireland underlined that the Political Declaration on EWIPA, adopted in Dublin two years ago and endorsed by 87 states so far, complements the CCW and its goals through the promotion of IHL and best practices. Austria, Costa Rica, Greece, Japan, Norway, and the ICRC also supported the Declaration.
Aotearoa New Zealand called on all states to endorse the Political Declaration and give it practical effect in their policies and practices. Similarly, Luxembourg said that the declaration should not be an end to itself, while Mexico recalled that the declaration commits states to promote policies that limit or eliminate the use of EWIPA. Article 36 said that a meaningful contribution from states would be a clear commitment to refrain from using EWIPA when they have wide area effects and restricting all other use of explosive weapons in cities and towns.
Russia argued that introducing in the CCW questions of the use of EWIPA is not relevant because the use of explosive weapons is already regulated by existing norms of IHL and is not part of the scope of the Convention.
Mines, improvised explosive devices (IEDs), and explosive remnants of war (ERW)
The ICRC warned that civilian casualties from improvised and manufactured landmines have spiked dramatically in recent years. The African Group, Australia, Bulgaria, and many others expressed concern that anti-personnel mines continue to cause indiscriminate death, displace populations, and hinder sustainable development in several parts of the world. The ICRC urged all those who continue to use anti-personnel mines to cease immediately, and those who use other types of landmines, booby traps, or other devices to strictly comply with the requirements of Amended Protocol II and its annex.
The EU condemned Russia’s use of anti-personal mines and cluster munitions. The joint statement by 46 states underlined that over six million people in Ukraine continue to be at risk due to Russia's use of dangerous explosive devices, including mines, IEDs, and booby traps, inflicting casualties, terrorizing the population, and restricting the free movement of people. They expressed support for initiatives aimed at clearing territories contaminated as a result of Russia's use of mines and explosive ordnance against Ukraine. Many of these countries also highlighted these points in their national statements.
Russia, in turn, confirmed its respect for Amended Protocol II, which provides “for an effective mechanism against the inappropriate use of landmines, which are, for many states, a necessary way of ensuring national security.” It also referenced the working paper submitted regarding its military operation in Ukraine.
Several delegations, including the EU, Australia, Germany, Greece, and the Philippines, expressed concern about the continued severe global impact of IEDs and their indiscriminate use and effects. The African Group also recognised the devastating humanitarian, security, and economic impact of IEDs on civilian populations, peacekeepers, and national security forces, and welcomed the ongoing efforts within the UN General Assembly First Committee on this issue. India, Türkiye, and Russia supported the continuation of discussions on IEDs within the CCW. Brazil supported strengthening cooperation and information sharing around IEDs, and Jordan informed that it has been taking additional security measures to deal with the problem of IEDs and dual use materials that are hazardous.
Switzerland expressed concern with increasing attacks on civilian populations and infrastructure and the contamination that comes from the use of mines, cluster munitions, and other ERW. The Arab Group, Palestine, and Pakistan expressed concern with the ERW lying among the debris in Gaza as a result of Israel’s bombing campaign. Sierra Leone said that ERW are of grave concern also in African rural areas and urged that it is imperative that the international community provide sustained support in the form of technical assistance, capacity building, and resources. Brazil, China, India, Italy, Japan, Pakistan, and Russia, among others, said they have provided support to states in removing mines and other unexploded ordinance.
France, Iraq, and Tunisia reiterated their commitment to Amended Protocol II. Iraq, Spain, and Russia also reiterated their commitment to Protocol V, as well as the UK, which has recently ratified it. France, Italy, Ukraine, and the US regretted that discussions of substance could not take place on the meetings held earlier that week on Amended Protocol II and Protocol V.
The EU highlighted the humanitarian impact and heavy consequences on socioeconomic development caused by mines other than anti-personnel mines (MOTAPM). It called on parties to further discuss how to ensure compliance with Amended Protocol II and with respect to MOTAPM. Ireland reiterated that expert discussions on (MOTAPM) within the CCW would benefit all states and contribute to reduced humanitarian harm. Austria, Germany, and Japan supported the inclusion of MOTAPM in the agenda of the CCW. Similarly, Switzerland expressed concern that the work of the Convention on MOTAPM remains incomplete, underlining that states need to ensure progress on this issue.
In contrast, Greece said that while it takes note of the humanitarian concerns arising from the indiscriminate use MOTAPM, they are a “legitimate” weapon necessary for its national defence planning. Russia also said that MOTAPM are a legitimate means of defence and that “any attempts to present their use as a separate special humanitarian threat are simply separated from reality.”
The OIC, Pakistan, and Türkiye condemned the attack of pagers and hand-held radios in Lebanon in September 2024, underlining that this was a violation of Article 7 of Amended Protocol II. Article 36 also said it was deeply disturbed by these events, also stressing that it appears to be a violation of the provisions in CCW’s Amended Protocol II. Lebanon submitted a working paper affirming that the attack resulted in the death of around 40 people, including children, and injuring, maiming, and blinding thousands. It underlined that these attacks were war crimes that violate IHL as well as Amended Protocol II of the CCW .
Gender
Ireland expressed full support for inclusive gender participation in the CCW. The Netherlands also highlighted the need to ensure the full, equitable, and meaningful participation of women and people of diverse sexual orientations, including in leadership positions.
Germany said the CCW remains an important forum to assess the impact of armed conflict on women, men, boys, and girls. It welcomed the GGE’s discussions on unintended biases in relation to AWS, including biases related to gender, and said it looks forward to continuing this important debate. Luxembourg, Mexico, and the Netherlands underlined the importance of including a gender perspective in the work of the CCW.
Despite these positive remarks, the meeting was forced to hear, once again, the misogynistic remarks by the representative of Russia, who kept its yearly tradition of requesting a change in the date of the GGE’s March session due to commemoration of International Women’s Day (IWD). Russia, which has consistently objected to the inclusion of gender perspectives or gender diversity in a range of disarmament forums and initiatives, made the following sarcastic remarks:
Every year we run up against this issue. In the Russian Federation, International Women’s Day is celebrated very widely. This is indeed a state holiday in the Russian Federation and falls on March 8th. Without any doubt, on this day, because it is a family holiday, our delegation would prefer to find themselves amongst their loved ones back home. Therefore, we ask about the proposal to hold the first meeting of the Group of Governmental Experts on Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems on 3–7 March to be the only option or if there are other alternatives. If there are alternatives, our delegation would prefer to use those alternative slots, so that on the 8th of March we can find ourselves amongst our families and congratulate our beloved mothers, wives, grandmothers, and not be in airplanes on our way back home.
Russia’s remarks are far from sincere; disguised as support for IWD, the Russian delegation’s intention seems instead to be geared toward provoking delegations that support the inclusion of gender perspectives and increasing the participation of women and gender non-conforming people in CCW discussions. RCW’s Director has written about how certain delegates use patriarchal tools such as gaslighting and victim blaming to discredit or undermine those that advocate for disarmament; in this case, Russia’s insincere comments about honouring IWD are clear from its rejection of gender perspectives in the work of the CCW. In a sense, Russia is mocking states and organisations that advocate for gender perspectives and diversity in the CCW, which is another example of patriarchal tools being used in disarmament discourse to discredit progressive voices.
Additionally, these remarks demonstrate a condescending attitude that strips IWD of its original purpose, which is to honour the struggle of feminist movements. Not to mention that Russia’s claim that this is a “family holiday” reinforces patriarchal notions of gender, in which the role of women is confined to the domestic sphere as “beloved mothers, wives, and grandmothers.”
These remarks are highlighted in this report not to draw more attention to them, but rather to put on record how misogyny is present in disarmament discourse. This is the perfect example of the importance in understanding how gender norms influence the work of the CCW, and why it is important to address militarised masculinities, including in the conference room.
Adoption of the final report
The last day of the meeting was dedicated to the consideration and adoption of the final report. Despite it being a mere procedural report, the text was extensively debated, in particular paragraph 18. The main disagreement was on how to describe the decision to move to informal mode that had been taken in the morning of the first day of the Conference. Russia wanted the paragraph to clearly state that the High Contracting Parties decided to move to informal mode, while the majority of speakers stressed it was a practical arrangement proposed by the Chair due to the lack of consensus in confirming the Rules of Procedure. After several proposals, the final text adopted in paragraph 18 was the following:
The High Contracting Parties were not able to confirm the Rules of Procedure contained in CCW/CONF.V/4 as no consensus on this matter was reached. In the absence of a confirmation of the Rules of Procedure, the Chair, guided by the discussions in this Meeting, proposed to continue the work of the Meeting in an informal mode without the use of UN Web TV and with the use of all other standard conferences services. This proposal was not objected to and thus accepted by the High Contracting Parties, without setting a precedent for the future.
The Meeting also decided that the GGE on LAWS will meet next year from 3–7 March 2025—thus clashing with the Third Meeting of States Parties to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons—and from 1–5 September 2025, and that the Meeting of the High Contracting Parties will take place from 12–14 November 2025.
[PDF] ()