29 May 2009
Standing Committee on the General Status and Operation of the Convention, 29 May 2009 - Delivered by Tamar Gabelnick, ICBL Treaty Implementation Director
Thank you for the floor, Co-Chair. Turning to the issue of compliance, the ICBL has for many years advocated that States Parties operationalize Article 8 (on Facilitation and Clarification of Compliance), and also that they develop informal mechanisms to ensure that, short of formally invoking Article 8, compliance concerns are addressed in a systematic and coordinated fashion.
In nearly every year of the treaty's existence, there have been confirmed instances or serious allegations of non-compliance that have merited special attention by other States Parties. This has included allegations of use and transfer of antipersonnel mines by States Parties, as well the sustained violation of Article 4 on stockpile destruction. In the past, these compliance concerns were almost always addressed in an ad hoc fashion by whatever States Parties happened to take an interest.
More recently, the welcome practice has developed of Presidents of Meetings of States Parties and co-chairs of relevant Standing Committees taking responsibility for initiating efforts to address compliance concerns. We strongly urge States Parties to recognize this development in the Cartagena review document, and to include in the Action Plan that in the case of alleged or known non-compliance with the treaty, the current and designate Presidents of the Meeting of States Parties or Review Conference, along with the co-chairs of the relevant Standing Committee, will proactively take steps to seek to resolve the matter expeditiously. This would be consistent with Article 8.1 of the treaty.