DOCSLIB.ORG

International-Treaties.Pdf

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
International-Treaties.Pdf NFHS Debate Topic Proposal New Orleans Topic Conference, July 31-Aug. 2, 2015 International Treaties Cort Sylvester, Nathan Wodarz, Rachel Baumann Rosemount High School, Minnesota The authors wish to acknowledge Tara Tate Carr of Glenbrook South High School, Illinois, who presented a version of this topic proposal at a previous conference. Introduction to Issues of Topic Area The United States is one of the most influential nations in the world and rightly considers itself a global leader. The modern geopolitical landscape has been shaped in large part by America's formal and informal relationships with other countries, regional groups and non-governmental organizations. One key element of U.S. foreign policy is treaty relations. Bilateral and multilateral treaties are an important alternative to unilateral American action. Treaties have historically played an important role in creating the modern world. There may be, for instance, no greater single force in uniting the Western world than the North Atlantic Treaty. The potential for war between NATO and the Warsaw Pact was the overriding consideration in world affairs for half a century. Similarly, the interlocking agreements of the Bretton Woods infrastructure continue to guide international finance and development. Although the U.S. unquestionably deserves its reputations as a superpower and a driving force toward global liberalization, its formal commitment to existing human rights and social justice treaties does not always match that image. Human Rights Watch has noted that the U.S. has not ratified any international human rights treaties since December 2002, when it ratified two optional protocols to the Convention on the Rights of the Child. (In fact, the U.S. has not ratified the underlying Convention on the Rights of the Child, joining Somalia and South Sudan as the only countries outside of the most widely and rapidly adopted human rights treaty ever.) America's failure to ratify a series of global treaties may undermine its influence and damages its credibility as an advocate for human rights and liberty. Even a cursory search on the subject identifies a number of environmental, arms control, human rights or social justice treaties the U.S. has either never signed, or has signed but not ratified: Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women; Convention on the Rights of the Child; Convention for the Protection of all Persons from Enforced Disappearance; Ottawa Treaty(Mine Ban Treaty); Convention on Cluster Munitions; Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities; Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture; Law of the Sea Treaty; Kyoto Protocol; Rome Statute (International Criminal Court); Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty; Convention on Biological Diversity. The factors motivating opposition to or reluctance to accept these various treaties touch on many of the central issues of geopolitics. For instance, opponents of international criminality and inspection regimes often cite America's "unique position" in the world, claiming that our prominence and global reach makes U.S. citizens and officials more likely to be unfairly targeted even when carrying out "benevolent" activity. This prompts a debate over American exceptionalism and between the ideologies of globalism and isolationism. Concerns of sovereignty are also central to the debate over treaty ratification. U.S. citizens and politicians are highly resistant to giving foreign nationals and organizations any power to regulate activities within our borders. This stems in part from another strain of exceptionalism, one that considers our legal system beyond reproach, especially in comparison to that of other signatories to these treaties. It also, however, arises from a commitment to democracy. International agreements that override domestic laws can in fact thwart the will of the populace. At the same time, respect for national sovereignty is a bedrock principle of the current international order. Ratifying an international treaty voluntarily sacrifices a measure of that sovereignty. Debaters would have the opportunity to discuss the concept of sovereignty and its consequences. Global arms control treaties raise a variety of significant issues for debate. American critics of multilateral arms control often cite the disproportionate impact treaties would have on a military superpower such as the U.S., because it makes more extensive use of the controlled weapons than smaller powers. A global military power may also have strategic need for a more flexible range of weapons options and thus may be significantly constrained when some are prohibited. (Of course, such constraints may be a legitimate goal of arms control.) The U.S. is understandably reluctant to accept limitations on weapons and tactics that may be useful in the types of asymmetric warfare that are increasingly dominating the military landscape. Domestic and international political considerations also play heavily in treaty battles. For instance, some Republican opposition to a series of UN treaties (Convention on the Rights of the Child, Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women) stems from fears that these treaties would limit the rights of parents to homeschool their children. Homeschool advocates form part of the conservative Republican voter base. Various treaties have encountered more readily anticipated objections from opponents of practices such as abortion and capital punishment. Internationally, concerns about human rights treaties are often voiced by ardent defenders of Israel, which is frequently accused of violating the human rights of Palestinians. The ratification process is more extensive than many people recognize and it provides ample opportunity for agent and process debates. Debaters and commentators frequently use the terms "ratify" or "ratification" to refer only to approval of a treaty by the U.S. Senate. That is not entirely accurate. Technically, ratification is the entire process of an individual nation formally approving and binding itself to a treaty. The primary steps in ratification by the United States include: Negotiation of treaty terms, usually conducted by executive branch diplomats; Signature by the President or authorized State Department representatives; Presentation of the treaty by the State Department to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and subsequent Committee action to forward to full Senate; Advice and consent of full Senate via consent resolution (pursuant to U.S. Constitution, treaties must be approved by a two-thirds vote in the Senate), with or without conditions or reservations; Final ratification signature by President and deposit of ratification instruments with treaty depositary. Highlights of the procedural status and issues surrounding some of the most interesting treaties for debate are set forth below. Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women The Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women is an international treaty that seeks to ensure gender equality in the domestic laws in all nations that have ratified the convention. The Convention is commonly abbreviated as the CEDAW. The CEDAW was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on December 18, 1979. It became effective on September 3, 1981. Currently, CEDAW has been ratified by 188 UN member nations. The United States and Palau have signed, but not yet ratified the treaty. The Holy Sea, Iran, Somalia, South Sudan and Tonga are not signatories to CEDAW. Additionally, CEDAW has one optional protocol related to procedural concerns about evaluating the competence of the Committee on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women. The basic provisions of the CEDAW include a common definition of discrimination against women. For the purposes of the CEDAW, discrimination is defined as “Any distinction, exclusion or restriction made on the basis of sex which has the effect or purpose of impairing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment or exercise by women, irrespective of their marital status, on a basis of equality of men and women of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural, civil or any other field.” (CEDAW, Part 1, Article 1,). The goal of the CEDAW is to end gender-based discrimination, eliminate traditional gender-based stereotypes, promote and protect the fundamental rights of all women throughout the world. The CEDAW also focuses on protecting maternity leave, the right to be safe from abuse, neglect and exploitation, and education. The United States Federal Government has opted not to ratify the CEDAW for over 30 years. The most consistent, and significant, reason is that the CEDAW replicates most existing American laws related to gender discrimination and that the CEDAW is too overreaching when concerned with family law. Additionally, most arguments against CEDAW focus on the weak implementation and enforcement in current ratified nations. Legally, there are concerns about state sovereignty, federalism, cultural and religious stereotypes, abortion rights, decriminalization of prostitution and forcing western style feminism on non-western cultures. Convention on the Rights of the Child The Convention on the Rights of the Child is an international treaty which seeks to protect the rights of children in the following areas: civil rights, economic rights,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on Their Destruction
    The Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction (Also known as the Ottawa Treaty, the Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention and the Mine Ban Treaty) Canada’s ratification of the treaty through domestic legislation was registered upon signature, 3 December 1997. Adoption: The Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction was first open for signature on 3 December 1997. The treaty came into effect on March 1, 1999, six months after forty ratifications were confirmed. Entry into force: 1 March 1999. Number of signatories and ratifications/accessions: As of June 2016, there are 164 State Parties to the Convention, (32 states have not signed and remain outside the treaty, one state (the Marshall Islands) has signed but not ratified. The ratification option closed on 1 March 1999 for states that did not sign by that date. States can still accede to (join) the Treaty. Summary Information The purpose of the convention is to eliminate the humanitarian impact of antipersonnel mines through prohibition of their use, possession, transfer and production. The treaty also obliges signatories to remove mines from the ground and to destroy stockpiles. History An international civil society campaign organized by the International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL) was established in 1992 to advance progress towards a treaty banning landmines. While at first the ICBL was comprised of a handful of non- governmental organizations, it quickly grew to a campaign of more than two thousand groups from around the world.
    [Show full text]
  • 1997 Convention on the Prohibition of Anti-Personnel Mines and on Their Destruction
    ADVISORY SERVICE ON INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW ____________________________________ 1997 Convention on the Prohibition of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction The Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-personnel Mines and on their Destruction ("the Ottawa treaty") is part of the international response to the widespread suffering caused by anti-personnel mines. The Convention is based on customary rules of international humanitarian law applicable. to all States. These rules prohibit the use of weapons which by their very nature do not discriminate between civilians and combatants or which cause unnecessary suffering or superfluous injury. The Convention was opened for signature in Ottawa on 3 December 1997 and entered into force on 1 March 1999. Why a ban on anti-personnel Which mines are affected by this the entry into force. Pending such mines? treaty? destruction, every effort must be made to identify mined areas and to Anti-personnel mines cannot Anti-personnel mines are designed have them marked, monitored and distinguish between soldiers and to be placed on or near the ground protected by fencing or other means civilians and usually kill or severely and to be "detonated by the to ensure the exclusion of civilians. mutilate their victims. Relatively presence, proximity or contact of a If a State cannot complete the cheap, small and easy to use, they person". It was the understanding of destruction of emplaced mines have proliferated by the tens of the negotiators that "improvised" within 10 years it may request a millions, inflicting untold suffering devices produced by adapting other meeting of the States Parties to and wreaking social and economic munitions to function as anti- extend the deadline and to assist it havoc in dozens of countries personnel mines were also banned in fulfilling this obligation.
    [Show full text]
  • Walking Together Or Divided Agenda? Comparing Landmines and Small-Arms Campaigns
    Walking Together or Divided Agenda? Comparing Landmines and Small-Arms Campaigns STEFAN BREM & KEN RUTHERFORD* Center for International Studies, Zurich, Switzerland, and Department of Political Science, Southwest Missouri State University, Springfield, MO, USA Introduction UST AS THE 19TH CENTURY closed with the 1899 Hague Peace Confer- ence, where 26 governments were represented, the 20th century ended with Jthe 1999 Hague Appeal for Peace (HAP) Conference, where the delegates represented more than 1,000 nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). The HAP Conference delegates took special pride in the entry into force on 1 March 1999 of the NGO-inspired Ottawa Treaty banning anti-personnel landmines (APMs). During the conference (11–15 May 1999), the International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA) was launched, a coalition of interna- tional NGOs calling for the prevention of ‘proliferation and unlawful use of light weapons’.1 The IANSA and other NGO campaigns that started in The Hague held up the International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL), a coali- tion of more than 1,300 NGOs from 70 countries, as an example of how to work with medium-sized states on security issues – even in opposition to ma- jor powers, such as the United States, China, and Russia. With the ICBL’s encouragement and support, the Canadian government and other pro-ban states called for the creation of a new regime, to be negotiated outside the consensus-based format of UN multilateral arms control fora. The main distinguishing features of the negotiations begun as a result of this were that they were guided by majority-voting procedures, and NGOs were welcome participants.
    [Show full text]
  • The Silent Menace: Landmines in Bosnia and Herzegovina
    The Silent Menace: Landmines in Bosnia and Herzegovina Document printed from older version the website of the ICRC. URL: http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/57JP32 International Committee of the Red Cross Archived page (may contain outdated information) 1-02-1998 The Silent Menace: Landmines in Bosnia and Herzegovina Here is a reproduction of the brochure, certain maps are missing, please refer to the printed version. Contents: Executive Summary I. Introduction II. Background (a) JNA doctrine (b) Mine-laying during the conflict (c) Types of mines used during the conflict (d) The use of improvised mines The use of mines during the conflict The rules of international humanitarian law governing the use of mines Mines and the peace settlement The current landmine problem in Bosnia and Herzegovina (a) The number of mines and mined areas (b) The location of minefields (c) Mapping (d) Demarcation (e) The use of mines since the advent of peace Conclusions III. The human impact Groups at risk (a) Vulnerable groups during the war (b) Vulnerable groups after the war (c) Trends and observations (d) The particular vulnerability of refugees Mine-laying to prevent returns Minority returns and the “Open Cities Initiative” The dilemma faced by UNHCR The psychological and socio-economic impact The victims of mines Conclusions IV. The impact of mines on living standards The cost in terms of health care (a) The health-care sector before the war (b) The health-care sector after the war (c) The impact of mine injuries on the health-care system as a whole The impact on agriculure The economic impact Conclusions V.
    [Show full text]
  • Time to Change Course – Angola and the Ottawa Treaty
    ISSUE BRIEF TIME TO CHANGE COURSE Angola and The Ottawa Treaty April 2017 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Twenty years ago, Diana Princess of Wales walked in Angola’s minefields. In doing so, she captured the conscience of states, civil society and the public. This helped inspire the final successful push to achieve the ground breaking Ottawa Treaty banning landmines in 1997. As a result, Angola holds an iconic status for the mine ban movement. It continues to symbolise the commitments and spirit of the treaty and its cause – to end, for all time, the suffering caused by anti-personnel landmines. As long as people live at risk and in daily fear from landmines, the cause and commitments of the Treaty must remain alive. Yet 20 years on, in spite of progress made, Angola’s minefields and the people who fear them risk being forgotten. The legacy of contamination remains a lasting blight on their lives. It is also an obstacle to Angola regaining sustainable agricultural productivity, a goal that is more important now than ever. The collapse of the Angolan oil-based economy means that agriculture must play an increasing role in building shared prosperity. There is an opportunity for change. With renewed commitment and support, international governments can help Angola be landmine free by 2025. It is an achievable goal that could release thousands of men, women and children from fear, and unlock enormous development potential in a country where poverty is still rife and misunderstood. CONTENTS Introduction....................................................................3
    [Show full text]
  • Landmine Monitor 2019 Advan
    LANDMINE MONITOR 2019 21ST ANNUAL EDITION Monitoring and Research Committee, ICBL-CMC Governance Board DanChurchAid Danish Demining Group Human Rights Watch Humanity & Inclusion Mines Action Canada Research team leaders · ICBL-CMC staff experts ©November 2019 by International Campaign to Ban Landmines – Cluster Munition Coalition (ICBL-CMC). All rights reserved. ISBN: 978-2-9701146-6-6 Cover photograph ©Gilles Lordet/Humanity & Inclusion (HI), May 2019 Back cover ©CCCM, 2019 Cover design by Lixar I.T. Inc. Landmine and Cluster Munition Monitor provides research and monitoring for the International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL) and the Cluster Munition Coalition (CMC). 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 publishing all our research reports online. This report is available online. Detailed country profiles are available online at www.the-monitor.org/cp INTERNATIONAL CAMPAIGN TO BAN LANDMINES The International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL) is committed to the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty (or “Ottawa Convention”) 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); Fulfillment of the rights and needs of all landmine and ERW victims.
    [Show full text]
  • LANDMINE EMERGENCY Twenty Years on from the Ottawa Treaty the World Is Facing a New Humanitarian Crisis
    ISSUE BRIEF LANDMINE EMERGENCY Twenty years on from the Ottawa Treaty the world is facing a new humanitarian crisis January 2017 SUMMARY Twenty years on from the historic Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Treaty, the world is facing a new landmine emergency. The regional conflict in Iraq and Syria has resulted in a scale of contamination not seen for decades. Global deaths and injuries from landmines hit a ten-year high in 2015 – a staggering 75% increase on those recorded in 2014. This trend is set to continue unless urgent action is taken and more funding provided to respond to this new emergency, as well as to legacy contamination from the latter part of the 20th Century. Every day in Iraq and Syria, people are losing lives, limbs and livelihoods from indiscriminate weapons that have no place in modern warfare. The legacy of the treaty must mean more than this: the world must respond and say, once again, that use of these weapons is not acceptable. Action must be taken to remove these indiscriminate killers once and for all. CONTENTS 3 Introduction 4 The New Landmine Emergency 6 The Legacy Landmine Issue 7 Conclusion WHAT IS A LANDMINE? An anti-personnel mine is an explosive munition that is deployed to explode by the presence, proximity or contact of a person and which is placed under, on or near the ground. Anti-personnel mines are ‘dumb’ weapons, meaning they cannot tell the difference between a solider and a civilian and they keep functioning long after a conflict has ended. Above: Landmines cleared by MAG in Mosul and awaiting destruction.
    [Show full text]
  • The Ottawa Convention Banning Antipersonnel Landmines: an Arms Control Treaty with a Vision for Human Security
    DIPARTIMENTO DI SCIENZE POLITICHE The Ottawa Convention Banning Antipersonnel Landmines: An Arms Control Treaty with a Vision for Human Security RELATORE Prof. ROBERTO VIRZO CANDIDATO GIORGIO TRICHILO Matr. 078872 CORRELATORE Prof. GIORGIO BRIOZZO ANNO ACCADEMICO 2017-18 Acknowledgements I would like to thank my advisor, Roberto Virzo for guiding me through my dissertation since the summer of last year. You have set an example of excellence as a mentor and instructor. Furthermore, I will always cherish your dynamic and interesting International Law lectures which drove me to further appreciate academically and intellectually this discipline. If I chose to write this thesis it is out of the passion for the subject that you have been able to transmit to myself and my peers. I would especially like to thank my family for the love and support I have received over the years. My father Paolo has and will always be my role model. He has continuously guided, assisted and been present for me in every situation, including this thesis. I also thank: my mother Laura, for her constant encouragement and patience, Wilma, for always being there to cook great meals and, last but not least, my brother Giulio for his unique sense of affection and logistical support. I am grateful to you all. A heartfelt appreciation also goes to the staff members of ITF-Enhancing Human Security, especially my supervisor Katerina for her availability in answering my queries. I personally thank former director Ambassador Damjen Bergant for accepting me as an intern in the summer of last year and giving me the opportunity to visit demining operations in Bosnia Herzegovina.
    [Show full text]
  • The Hague and Ottawa Conventions: a Model for Future Weapon Ban Regimes?
    Ken Rutherford THE HAGUE AND OTTAWA CONVENTIONS: A MODEL FOR FUTURE WEAPON BAN REGIMES? 1 by Ken Rutherford Ken Rutherford is a University Fellow and Ph.D. candidate in the Department of Government, Georgetown University. “In the history of the world, it will be the first time, “I welcome you to this historic conference. For I think, that representatives of almost every civi- the first time, the majority of the nations of the lized country are seen to meet peacefully, without world will agree to ban a weapon which has been a dispute to settle, without complaints to be re- in military use by almost every country in the dressed, without any thought of personal advan- world.” tage, and this in the two-fold and liberal purpose Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien, on the of perpetuating harmony and softening the evils occasion of the Treaty-Signing Conference for of war, or of regulating it for the day when it can- the Global Ban on Anti-Personnel Landmines, not be avoided.” December 3, 1997. President of the First Commission Plenary Meeting of the First Hague Peace Conference, May 26, 1899.2 ust as the 19th century closed similar processes: each lacked the ian effects of high levels of war. The with the 1899 First International support of many major state pow- Hague conventions augmented and JPeace Conference, held in The ers, each was negotiated by major- further codified and strengthened Hague, the Netherlands, calling for ity voting, and each was achieved in previous existing international hu- a ban on certain weapons, such as a very short time frame.
    [Show full text]
  • Dealing with the Risks and Responsibilities of Landmines and Their Clearance
    Fordham International Law Journal Volume 25, Issue 5 2001 Article 4 Dealing with the Risks and Responsibilities of Landmines and their Clearance Michael Polkinghorne∗ James Cockayney ∗ y Copyright c 2001 by the authors. Fordham International Law Journal is produced by The Berke- ley Electronic Press (bepress). http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ilj Dealing with the Risks and Responsibilities of Landmines and their Clearance Michael Polkinghorne and James Cockayne Abstract Part I of this Essay addresses the issues of State responsibility for landmine removal. Part II discusses the various legal issues that landmine removal programs present. It does so by exam- ining: (1) the international obligations that exist; (2) the domestic legal considerations; and (3) some of the issues facing governments who wish to remove landmines by the common measure of contracting out such work to third parties. The central question Part II considers is whether and how States can transfer the risks associated with landmine clearance to contractors. DEALING WITH THE RISKS AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF LANDMINES AND THEIR CLEARANCE Michael Polkinghorne* James Cockayne** Although international humanitarian law and traditional military doctrine have set clear requirements for the 'respon- sible' use of anti-personnel mines, too often these rules have not been implemented. Research conducted on behalf of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) by military experts has shown that in 26 conflicts since the beginning of the Second World War, anti-personnel mines have only rarely been deployed in accordance with the existing legal and mili- tary requirements.' INTRODUCTION The human, social, environmental, and psychological costs of anti-personnel landmines are well documented.
    [Show full text]
  • International Diplomacy: Arrangements for the Implementation of Mine Action Programs
    International Diplomacy: Arrangements for the Implementation of Mine Action Programs International Diplomacy: Arrangements for the Implementation of Mine Action Programs Working Collectively to Eliminate the Landmine Threat Contributors: Donald F. “Pat” Decades of persistent conflict The Convention on Conventional high number of civilian mine Patierno around the world have left a legacy Weapons (the CCW Convention)In casualties, many of which were Donald F. “Pat” Patierno is of destruction and mayhem in nearly 1980, the United Nations adopted occurring after the cessation of a graduate of the University of Maryland and the 90 countries, a legacy sown in the the Convention on Prohibitions or hostilities. Following a formal National Defense University. He has logged more than form of landmines intended not only Restrictions on the Use of Certain request by the French government thirty-one years of service for strategic purposes but also as Conventional Weapons That May Be in 1993, a Review Conference of the with the federal government, including a instruments of intimidation and Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious CCW opened in Vienna in four-year enlistment with the U.S. Navy. Currently he terror. Although this legacy is or to Have Indiscriminate Effects September 1995. Despite the serves as the director of unknown to most Americans, it goes (hereafter referred to as the CCW successful adoption of a number of Humanitarian Demining Programs at the U.S. to the heart of the humanitarian Convention), which the United other protocols, talks to strengthen Department of State. precepts of the U.S. national States ratified in 1995. Two of the restrictions on the production, security strategy.
    [Show full text]
  • The OSCE Secretariat Bears No Responsibility for the Content of This Document FSC.EMI/174/19 and Circulates It Without Altering Its Content
    The OSCE Secretariat bears no responsibility for the content of this document FSC.EMI/174/19 and circulates it without altering its content. The distribution by OSCE 31 May 2019 Conference Services of this document is without prejudice to OSCE decisions, as set out in documents agreed by OSCE participating States. ENGLISH only FSC.DEC/7/04 24 November 2004 OSCE QUESTIONNAIRE ON ANTI-PERSONNEL MINES To be submitted no later than 31 May of each year (starting in May 2005) Part I 1. Is your country a State Party to the 1996 Amended Protocol II on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices annexed to the 1980 Convention on Conventional Weapons (CCW)? YES. The Protocol II on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices as amended on 3 May 1996 was ratified and promulgated in the Czech Republic by Act No. 21/1999 of the Collection of Laws and entered into force on 10 February 1999. If yes: 2. Please attach the most recent annual report submitted by your country in accordance with Article 13 of the Amended Protocol or give the appropriate electronic address for the report. In the attached file you can find the latest Annual Report (ANNEX 1). Part II 7. Has your country ratified or acceded to the 1997 Convention on Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, producing and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on Their Destruction? YES. The Ottawa Treaty is in the Czech Republic implemented by the Act No. 305/1999 of the Collection of Laws, on Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti- Personnel Mines and on Their Destruction and entered into force on 3 December 1999.
    [Show full text]