DOCSLIB.ORG

Survey of Cluster Munition Policy and Practice

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Survey of Cluster Munition Policy and Practice February 2007 Number 1 Survey of Cluster Munition Policy and Practice I. Introduction .......................................................................................................... 1 II. Overview of State Practice....................................................................................2 International Actions...........................................................................................2 National Initiatives..............................................................................................4 International Humanitarian Law ..........................................................................5 III. Timeline of Cluster Munition Use........................................................................ 8 IV. Cluster Munition Country Profiles .....................................................................10 Algeria .............................................................................................................. 11 Angola .............................................................................................................. 11 Argentina.......................................................................................................... 11 Australia ........................................................................................................... 12 Austria.............................................................................................................. 13 Azerbaijan ........................................................................................................ 14 Bahrain............................................................................................................. 14 Belarus ............................................................................................................. 15 Belgium ............................................................................................................ 15 Bosnia and Herzegovina ...................................................................................16 Brazil ................................................................................................................ 17 Bulgaria............................................................................................................18 Canada .............................................................................................................18 Chile.................................................................................................................19 China................................................................................................................20 Croatia.............................................................................................................. 21 Cuba................................................................................................................. 21 Czech Republic .................................................................................................22 Denmark...........................................................................................................23 Egypt ................................................................................................................24 Eritrea...............................................................................................................25 Ethiopia ............................................................................................................25 Finland .............................................................................................................25 France...............................................................................................................26 Georgia.............................................................................................................28 Germany ...........................................................................................................28 Greece ..............................................................................................................30 Guinea.............................................................................................................. 31 Guinea-Bissau .................................................................................................. 31 Honduras.......................................................................................................... 31 Hungary ............................................................................................................32 India .................................................................................................................32 Indonesia .........................................................................................................33 Iran...................................................................................................................33 Iraq...................................................................................................................33 Israel ................................................................................................................34 Italy ..................................................................................................................35 Japan ................................................................................................................35 Jordan...............................................................................................................36 Kazakhstan.......................................................................................................36 North Korea.......................................................................................................37 South Korea......................................................................................................37 Kuwait ..............................................................................................................38 Libya.................................................................................................................38 Moldova ...........................................................................................................39 Mongolia ..........................................................................................................39 Morocco............................................................................................................39 Netherlands......................................................................................................39 Nigeria.............................................................................................................. 41 Norway ............................................................................................................. 41 Oman................................................................................................................43 Pakistan ...........................................................................................................43 Poland ..............................................................................................................44 Portugal............................................................................................................46 Romania ...........................................................................................................46 Russia...............................................................................................................47 Saudi Arabia .....................................................................................................49 Serbia...............................................................................................................49 Singapore .........................................................................................................50 Slovakia............................................................................................................ 51 South Africa ...................................................................................................... 51 Spain................................................................................................................52 Sudan...............................................................................................................53 Sweden ............................................................................................................53 Switzerland....................................................................................................... 55 Syria .................................................................................................................56 Thailand ...........................................................................................................57 Turkey...............................................................................................................57 Turkmenistan....................................................................................................57 Ukraine.............................................................................................................57 United Arab Emirates ........................................................................................58 United Kingdom ................................................................................................58 United States....................................................................................................61 Uzbekistan .......................................................................................................65
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Failure of UN Security Council Resolution 2286 in Preventing Attacks on Healthcare in Syria
    The Failure of UN Security Council Resolution 2286 in Preventing Attacks on Healthcare in Syria January 2017 SYRIAN AMERICAN MEDICAL SOCIETY C1 Contents Acknowledgements C3 Foreword 1 Background 2 Methodology 2 Executive Summary 3 Attacks on Healthcare, June–December 2016 4 Advanced and Unconventional Weaponry 7 All Forms of Medical Facilities and Personnel Targeted 7 Conclusion 8 Appendix: Attacks on Medical Personnel, June–December 2016 9 ABOUT THE SYRIAN AMERICAN MEDICAL SOCIETY The Syrian American Medical Society (SAMS) is a non-profit, non-political, professional and medical relief organization that provides humanitarian assistance to Syrians in need and represents thousands of Syrian American medical professionals in the United States. Founded in 1998 as a professional society, SAMS has evolved to meet the growing needs and challenges of the medical crisis in Syria. Today, SAMS works on the front lines of crisis relief in Syria and neighboring countries to serve the medical needs of millions of Syrians, support doctors and medical professionals, and rebuild healthcare. From establishing field hospitals and training Syrian physicians to advocating at the highest levels of government, SAMS is working to alleviate suffering and save lives. On the cover: Aftermath of an attack on a hospital in Aleppo, October 2016 Design: Sensical Design & Communication C2 The Failure of UN Security Council Resolution 2286 in Preventing Attacks on Healthcare in Syria Acknowledgements None of our work would be made possible without Syria’s doctors, nurses, medical assistants, ambulance drivers, hospital staff, and humanitarian workers. Their inspiring work amidst the most dire of circumstances con- tinues to inspire us to help amplify their voices.
    [Show full text]
  • Project Manager Combat Ammunition Systems Product Manager Excalibur Product Manager Guided Precision Munitions and Mortar System
    AMMUNITION tem (GPS) precision-guidance technology mortar cartridge with 10 meters CEP accu - with an inertial measurement unit to pro - racy to rapidly defeat personnel targets The Program Executive Office for Am - vide accurate, first-round fire-for-effect ca - while minimizing collateral damage. APMI munition (PEO Ammunition) has the mis - pability in an urban setting with accuracy is compatible with U.S. dismounted 120 mm sion to continue being the best provider of better than 4 meters circular error probable weapons and fire-control system, and the conventional, leap-ahead munitions, mor - (CEP). Excalibur is approximately 1 meter Stryker double-V hull mortar carrier and tars, towed artillery systems and counter- in length and weighs 106 pounds. Its ex - fire-control system. It has been successfully improvised explosive device (IED) prod - tended range (up to 40 kilometers) and used in operations in OEF. ucts by fostering innovation and diversity high accuracy result in increased lethality The PGK is a GPS guidance kit with prox- for the warfighter. Project managers within with a decrease in required volume of fire imity and point detonating fuzing func - the PEO are Combat Ammunition Systems, per engagement. Excalibur Increment Ia is tions. It is compatible with existing high-ex - Maneuver Ammunition Systems, Joint Pro - currently completing the last of its full-rate plosive, 155 mm M549A1 and M795 cannon gram Manager Towed Artillery Systems, production, and Excalibur Increment Ib has artillery projectiles. The PGK corrects the Close Combat Systems, Project Director initiated low-rate initial production. ballistic trajectory of the projectile to reduce Joint Services and Project Director Joint delivery errors and improves projectile ac - Products.
    [Show full text]
  • Landmine Monitor 2014
    Landmine Monitor 2014 Monitoring and Research Committee, ICBL-CMC Governance Board Handicap International Human Rights Watch Mines Action Canada Norwegian People’s Aid Research team leaders ICBL-CMC staff experts I © December 2014 by International Campaign to Ban Landmines – Cluster Munition Coalition (ICBL-CMC). All rights reserved. ISBN: 978-2-8399-1160-3 Cover photograph © Jared Bloch/ICBL-CMC, June 2014 Back cover © Werner Anderson/Norwegian People’s Aid, November 2013 Cover design by Rafael Jiménez Landmine and Cluster Munition Monitor provides research and monitoring for the Cluster Munition Coalition (CMC) and the International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL). For more information visit www.the-monitor.org or email [email protected]. Landmine and Cluster Munition Monitor makes every effort to limit the environmental footprint of reports by pub- lishing all our research reports online. This report is available online at www.the-monitor.org. International Campaign to Ban Landmines The International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL) is committed to the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty (or “Ottawa Conven- tion”) as the best framework for ending the use, production, stockpiling, and transfer of antipersonnel mines and for destroying stockpiles, clearing mined areas, and assisting affected communities. The ICBL calls for universal adherence to the Mine Ban Treaty and its full implementation by all, including: • No more use, production, transfer, and stockpiling of antipersonnel landmines by any actor under any circumstances; • Rapid destruction of all remaining stockpiles of antipersonnel landmines; • More efficient clearance and destruction of all emplaced landmines and explosive remnants of war (ERW); and • Fulfillment of the rights and needs of all landmine and ERW victims.
    [Show full text]
  • United States / Afghanistan
    December 2002 Vol. 14, No. 7 (G) UNITED STATES / AFGHANISTAN FATALLY FLAWED: CLUSTER BOMBS AND THEIR USE BY THE UNITED STATES IN AFGHANISTAN Acronyms Used In Report........................................................................................................................................ iii I. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS.........................................................................................................1 Methodology ..........................................................................................................................................................3 Outline of Report....................................................................................................................................................3 Recommendations ..................................................................................................................................................4 To minimize the humanitarian harm of cluster bombs during strikes ................................................................4 To minimize the aftereffects of cluster bombs ...................................................................................................4 To improve clearance .........................................................................................................................................4 To develop better cluster bomb controls for the future ......................................................................................5 II. WHAT ARE CLUSTER BOMBS?.......................................................................................................................6
    [Show full text]
  • Cluster Weapons – Military Utility and Alternatives
    FFI-rapport/2007/02345 Cluster weapons – military utility and alternatives Ove Dullum Forsvarets forskningsinstitutt/Norwegian Defence Research Establishment (FFI) 1 February 2008 FFI-rapport 2007/02345 Oppdrag 351301 ISBN 978-82-464-1318-1 Keywords Militære operasjoner / Military operations Artilleri / Artillery Flybomber / Aircraft bombs Klasevåpen / Cluster weapons Ammunisjon / Ammunition Approved by Ove Dullum Project manager Jan Ivar Botnan Director of Research Jan Ivar Botnan Director 2 FFI-rapport/2007/02345 English summary This report is made through the sponsorship of the Royal Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Its purpose is to get an overview of the military utility of cluster munitions, and to find to which degree their capacity can be substituted by current conventional weapons or weapons that are on the verge of becoming available. Cluster munition roughly serve three purposes; firstly to defeat soft targets, i e personnel; secondly to defeat armoured of light armoured vehicles; and thirdly to contribute to the suppressive effect, i e to avoid enemy forces to use their weapons without inflicting too much damage upon them. The report seeks to quantify the effect of such munitions and to compare this effect with that of conventional weapons and more modern weapons. The report discusses in some detail how such weapons work and which effect they have against different targets. The fragment effect is the most important one. Other effects are the armour piercing effect, the blast effect, and the incendiary effect. Quantitative descriptions of such effects are usually only found in classified literature. However, this report is exclusively based on unclassified sources. The availability of such sources has been sufficient to get an adequate picture of the effect of such weapons.
    [Show full text]
  • Alternative Anti-Personnel Mines the Next Generations Landmine Action Consists of the Following Co-Operating Organisations
    Alternative anti-personnel mines The next generations Landmine Action consists of the following co-operating organisations: ActionAid International Alert Refugee Council Action for Southern Africa Jaipur Limb Campaign Royal College of Paediatrics & Action on Disability and Development Jesuit Refugee Service Child Health Adopt-A-Minefield UK MEDACT Saferworld Afghanaid Medical & Scientific Aid for Vietnam Laos & Save the Children UK Amnesty International UK Cambodia Soroptimist International UK Programme Action Committee CAFOD Medical Educational Trust Tearfund Cambodia Trust Merlin United Nations Association Campaign Against Arms Trade Mines Advisory Group United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) UK Child Advocacy International Motivation VERTIC Christian Aid Mozambique Angola Committee War Child Comic Relief Omega Foundation War on Want Concern Worldwide One World Action Welsh Centre for International Affairs Disability Awareness in Action Oxfam GB Women’s International League for Peace & Environmental Investigation Agency Pax Christi Freedom Global Witness Peace Pledge Union World Vision UK Handicap International (UK) People and Planet Hope for Children POWER Human Rights Watch Quaker Peace & Service The member organisations of the German Initiative to Ban Landmines are: Bread for the World Social Service Agency of the Evangelical Church Misereor Christoffel Mission for the Blind in Germany Oxfam Germany German Justitia et Pax Commission Eirene International Pax Christi German Committee for Freedom from Hunger Handicap International Germany
    [Show full text]
  • Explosive Weapon Effectsweapon Overview Effects
    CHARACTERISATION OF EXPLOSIVE WEAPONS EXPLOSIVEEXPLOSIVE WEAPON EFFECTSWEAPON OVERVIEW EFFECTS FINAL REPORT ABOUT THE GICHD AND THE PROJECT The Geneva International Centre for Humanitarian Demining (GICHD) is an expert organisation working to reduce the impact of mines, cluster munitions and other explosive hazards, in close partnership with states, the UN and other human security actors. Based at the Maison de la paix in Geneva, the GICHD employs around 55 staff from over 15 countries with unique expertise and knowledge. Our work is made possible by core contributions, project funding and in-kind support from more than 20 governments and organisations. Motivated by its strategic goal to improve human security and equipped with subject expertise in explosive hazards, the GICHD launched a research project to characterise explosive weapons. The GICHD perceives the debate on explosive weapons in populated areas (EWIPA) as an important humanitarian issue. The aim of this research into explosive weapons characteristics and their immediate, destructive effects on humans and structures, is to help inform the ongoing discussions on EWIPA, intended to reduce harm to civilians. The intention of the research is not to discuss the moral, political or legal implications of using explosive weapon systems in populated areas, but to examine their characteristics, effects and use from a technical perspective. The research project started in January 2015 and was guided and advised by a group of 18 international experts dealing with weapons-related research and practitioners who address the implications of explosive weapons in the humanitarian, policy, advocacy and legal fields. This report and its annexes integrate the research efforts of the characterisation of explosive weapons (CEW) project in 2015-2016 and make reference to key information sources in this domain.
    [Show full text]
  • Pax Christi Colombia Best Practice Study
    THE CLUSTER MUNITION COALITION 2003-2009 Georg Frerks IKV PAX CHRISTI BEST PRACTICE STUDY NO. 4 November 2009 2 INDEX INDEX ........................................................................................................................................ 3 ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................................................................... 5 NOTE ......................................................................................................................................... 5 ABOUT THE AUTHOR ........................................................................................................... 6 1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 7 Goals of best practice studies ................................................................................................ 7 Lobby and advocacy campaigns by IKV Pax Christi ............................................................. 7 The selection of CMC as the object of a best practice study and research questions ......... 8 Definitions of advocacy and lobby ......................................................................................... 8 Evaluating advocacy and lobby ............................................................................................. 9 Lessons learned from the ICBL ........................................................................................... 10 Evaluative framework ..........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Status Update of the New 155 Mm Lightweight Howitzer
    United States General Accounting Office Washington, DC 20548 April 10, 2001 The Honorable Lane Evans House of Representatives Subject: Status Update of the New 155 mm Lightweight Howitzer Dear Mr. Evans: In July 2000, we issued a report to you and several other members of Congress describing problems with the new 155 mm Lightweight Howitzer program.1 The new 155 mm Lightweight Howitzer is expected to replace the M-198 towed howitzer. The Army-Marine Corps Lightweight Howitzer Joint Program Office is directing this program’s development, with BAE SYSTEMS (BAE), a British company, as the prime contractor. This correspondence responds to your request of December 2000 that we continue to monitor and report on this program due to your continued concerns about its schedule, cost, and technical difficulties. RESULTS IN BRIEF Since our July 2000 report, all key milestones except one have continued to slip. For example, acceptance of the first developmental howitzer slipped an additional 5 months from June to November 2000, and delivery of the remaining 7 developmental howitzers was delayed an additional 5 to 10 months. The production decision has slipped from March 2002 to September 2002 and the initial fielding of the new howitzer by the Marine Corps has slipped another 8 months to July 2004 or 28 months from the date set at the original contract award. The initial fielding of the howitzer to the Army remains unchanged at March 2005. Since July 2000, total program cost estimates have increased from $1,129.9 million to $1,250.2 million, an increase of $120.3 million.2 This increase is principally the result of restructuring the developmental contract which added $20.2 million and an approximately $100 million increase for an electronic aiming system.
    [Show full text]
  • Poongsan South Korea
    Poongsan South Korea Sectors: Arms Industry and Trade On record This profile is no longer actively maintained, with the information now possibly out of date Send feedback on this profile By: BankTrack Created before Nov 2016 Last update: Mar 29 2016 Sectors Arms Industry and Trade Headquarters Ownership Subsidiaries Website http://www.poongsan.co.kr About Poongsan Poongsan, a leading defense company in South Korea which was founded in 1968, develops military and sporting ammunition. It is the second South Korean cluster munitions company, after Hanwha. The company produces items which fall under the following three categories: fabricated nonferrous metal; defense products; and precision products. The fabricated nonferrous metal division produces a range of copper products such as: strips, tubes, rods, and alloy sheets. This division is also active in expanding its overseas production base in China, the United States, Southeast Asia, and the pan-pacific belt. The company's defense division has been instrumental in helping South Korea become self-reliant in terms of national protection. Poongsan led the defense industry in the early 1970s, and it helped to improve the army's power via the mass production and localization of ammunitions. The company has also focused on exporting sporting and hunting ammunition, thus spearheading its reputation as a leading sporting ammunition manufacturer. Some products created by this division include ammunition parts; military ammunition; sporting ammunition; and propellant powder. The precision products division is responsible for producing new copper alloy materials for semiconductor and electronic parts. Products include: precision dies; multiguage cooper strips; and connector parts for electric an electronic industries.
    [Show full text]
  • Fish Terminologies
    FISH TERMINOLOGIES Monument Type Thesaurus Report Format: Hierarchical listing - class Notes: Classification of monument type records by function.
    [Show full text]
  • Rapport Sous-Munition
    Observatoire des transferts d’armements CENTRE DE DOCUMENTATION ET DE RECHERCHE SUR LA PAIX ET LES CONFLITS Les sous-munitions et l’Union européenne Production Commercialisation Éléments pour une interdiction Juin 2005 O B S E R V A T O I R E des transferts d’armements Vivre debout S OMMAIRE Les systèmes à sous-munitions .................................................................................. 3 Production et commercialisation des systèmes à sous munitions ................................................................................. 7 Les systèmes à sous-munitions en France ............................................ 12 Informations de l’état-major des armées ....................................... 12 Informations de source industrielle ..................................................... 14 Les exportations de sous-munitions françaises ........................ 21 Les systèmes à sous-munitions des États de l’Union européenne ................................................................. 23 Allemagne .................................................................................................................... 23 Belgique ......................................................................................................................... 25 Espagne .......................................................................................................................... 26 Grèce ................................................................................................................................. 28
    [Show full text]