Feakes, D.

Kenyon, I.R.

English

Bradford Scholars

 The University of Bradford Institutional Repository  This work is made available online in accordance with publisher policies. Please refer to the repository record for this item and our Policy Document available from the repository home page for further information.       Author(s): Feakes, D. and Kenyon I.R.        Title: The CWC Paris Resolution: Unresolved Issues       Project: Bradford Project on Strengthening the Biological and Toxin Weapons       Convention (BTWC) Publication year:  2000 BTWC Briefing Papers: 1st Series: No. 31 Series Editor(s): Pearson, G.S. and Dando, M.R. Publisher: University of Bradford (http://www.brad.ac.uk)  Publisher’s repository:  http://bradscholars.ac.uk:8080/dspace  Copyright statement: © 2000 University of Bradford. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/uk/).  1THE CWC PARIS RESOLUTION: UNRESOLVED ISSUESby Daniel Feakes* and Ian R. Kenyon#Introduction1.  In Briefing Paper No 301 it was recognized that the next stage after the completion of thenegotiation of the Protocol is to consider the language for the resolution establishing thePreparatory Commission for the Organization for the Prohibition of Biological Weapons.   Asa proposed complete text was presented in Evaluation Paper No. 172 in March 2000 andupdated in Evaluation Paper No. 183 in July 2000, Briefing Paper No 30 analysed the ParisResolution4 adopted by the Signatory States to the Chemical Weapons Convention on 13 to15 January 1993 and the comparable Resolution5 establishing the Preparatory Commissionfor the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty Organization which was adopted on 19November 1996 in order to develop language for a draft resolution establishing thePreparatory Commission for the Organization for the Prohibition of Biological Weapons.2.  The draft resolution in paragraph 12 has the following language:12.  The Commission shall develop, inter alia, the following draft agreements,arrangements and guidelines for approval by the Conference of the States Parties inaccordance with the Protocol:a) Guidelines on detailed procedures for verification and for the conduct ofvisits, in accordance with [...]b) Guidelines on detailed procedures for the conduct of investigations, inaccordance with [...]c) The Headquarters Agreement with the Host Country pursuant to Article[...]                                                          * Daniel Feakes is a researcher for the Harvard Sussex Program and has spent the last 3 years working in theExternal Relations Division of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) TechnicalSecretariat located at The Hague, The Netherlands.# Ian R. Kenyon is Visiting Fellow at the Department of Politics, University of Southampton, UK,.  He waspreviously Executive Secretary of the Preparatory Commission for, and Head of the Provisional TechnicalSecretariat of, the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, The Hague, Netherlands.1Ian R. Kenyon & Nicholas A. Sims, Draft Resolution Establishing the Preparatory Commission for theOrganization for the Prohibition of Biological Weapons, Briefing Paper No. 30, Department of Peace Studies,University of Bradford, July 2000. Available on http://www.brad.ac.uk/acad/sbtwc2Graham S. Pearson, Nicholas A. Sims, Malcolm R. Dando & Ian R. Kenyon, The BTWC Protocol:  ProposedComplete Text  for an Integrated Regime, Evaluation Paper No. 17, Department of Peace Studies, University ofBradford, March 2000. Available on http://www.brad.ac.uk/acad/sbtwc3Graham S. Pearson, Nicholas A. Sims, Malcolm R. Dando & Ian R. Kenyon, The BTWC Protocol:  RevisedProposed Complete Text  for an Integrated Regime, Evaluation Paper No. 18, Department of Peace Studies,University of Bradford, July 2000. Available on http://www.brad.ac.uk/acad/sbtwc4Paris Resolution in Lisa Tabassi (ed), OPCW: The Legal Texts, T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague, 1999, pp.523-530.5Resolution establishing the Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban TreatyOrganization, Meeting of States Signatories, New York, 19 November 1996, CTBT/MSS/RES/1, 17 October1996. Available at http://www.ctbto.org2together with the comment that a full list of draft agreements, arrangements and guidelineswill need to be developed when the Protocol is complete.3.  This Briefing Paper examines the comparable listing of draft agreements, provisions andguidelines specified in the Paris Resolution which established the Preparatory Commission(PrepCom) for the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) andidentifies the extent to which these were successfully resolved by the PrepCom.  It thenconsiders how the unresolved issues -- which included additional unresolved issues identifiedby the PrepCom -- have subsequently been addressed by the OPCW.  It is concluded thatmany of the issues which appear to still be unresolved have been resolved de facto, either onan ad-hoc basis with States Parties or by the Technical Secretariat implementing its ownapproach with tacit acceptance from States Parties.The Unresolved Issues4.  In addition to a number of organisational and financial matters (in paragraphs 9, 10 and11), the Paris Resolution also included (in paragraph 12) a list of 23 draft agreements,provisions and guidelines which were to be drafted by the PrepCom for approval by the FirstSession of the Conference of the States Parties. Of those 23 issues, a total of 10 were indeedresolved by the PrepCom and adopted by the First Session of the Conference. In additionmost of the organisational and financial matters in paragraphs 9, 10 and 11 were also resolvedby the PrepCom and adopted by the First Session of the Conference.5.  However, 13 issues from paragraph 12 of the Paris Resolution remained unresolved afterthe First Session of the Conference. In addition, during its four years of deliberations from1993-97 the PrepCom had elaborated upon some of the remaining 13 issues, splitting themdown into separate sub-issues and had also come up with another 46 issues requiringresolution.6 Only two of these additional issues were resolved by the First Session of theConference.6.  Despite being burdened by this list of around 60 unresolved issues the OPCW was stillable to function from the entry into force of the CWC on 29 April 1997. The PrepCom hadprovided the basis for a functioning organisation and there was nothing which the OPCWcould not do from entry into force, even if only on an ad-hoc basis. States Parties begansubmitting their initial declarations in May and the Technical Secretariat launched its firstinspections in June, while at the same time taking on many extra staff members.7. The First Session of the Conference adopted a procedure for addressing the remainingunresolved issues7. This procedure remained essentially the same until the Fourth Session ofthe Conference in June/July 1999 when responsibility for resolving the issues passed from theCommittee of the Whole to the Executive Council8.                                                          6These additional issues are detailed in Section 4 Unresolved Issues of Preparatory Commission for theProhibition of Chemical Weapons, Final Report of the Preparatory Commission for the Organization for theProhibition of Chemical Weapons to the First Session of the Conference of States Parties of the Organisationfor the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons and to the First Meeting of the Executive Council of the Organisationfor the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, PC-XVI/37, 15 April 1997.  Available at http://www.opcw.org7Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, Conference of the States Parties, First Session, 6 - 23May 1997, Procedure for Addressing Unresolved Issues During the First Intersessional Period, C-I/DEC.70.8Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, Conference of the States Parties, Fourth Session, 28June - 2 July 1999, Procedure for Addressing Unresolved Issues During the Fourth Intersessional Period, C-IV/DEC.18, 2 July 1999. Available at http:www.opcw.org38.  As shown by the accompanying table, in the three years between the First and FifthSessions of the Conference, a large number of the unresolved issues have been successfullyresolved, either by the Committee of the Whole, or by the Executive Council. The Third andFourth Sessions of the Conference (in November 1998 and June/July 1999 respectively)between them resolved more than 10 unresolved issues. It was also decided that some issuesno longer required resolution and could be deleted from the list.   The references in thecolumn headed "Resolved" in the table indicate the decision resolving the issue by showingthe Conference of the States Parties (C-I through C-V) together with the Decision number(DEC) or the Executive Council reference (eg EC-XIX/6).  Most, but not all, of theConference of the States Parties decisions are available on the OPCW website athttp://www.opcw.org9.  Analysis of the information in the table demonstrates the impact which the practicalexperience being gained by the Technical Secretariat and by States Parties had on some of theunresolved issues. It was found that a number of issues which the PrepCom had spent yearsconsidering without reaching any consensus, could be quite easily resolved with the benefit ofthe ongoing implementation of the CWC. This practical experience also has had the effect ofdemonstrating that the OPCW could function perfectly well without the resolution of someissues and that others had simply been overtaken by events. It appears that some issues werebetter resolved on the ground during implementation than by diplomats during thepreparatory phase.10.  An overall appreciation -- although undue precision should not be ascribed to theindividual numbers -- can be gained from the following summary table:Issue ResolvedIssue identified No C-I C-II C-III C-IV C-V Fixed# Unresolved*Paris Resolution 36 19 1 1 12 3PrepCom Final Report 46† 2 2 4 3 1 10 24Issues since EIF 10 1 4 5# De facto resolution by the Technical Secretariat or by the Executive Council.* Has not been resolved by formal decision of the Conference of the States Parties.† This comprises the 46 further issues identified for resolution by the PrepCom.Thus, just over half of the Paris Resolution issues had been resolved by the First Session ofthe Conference and it is also evident that about 40% have been the subject of de factoresolution by the Technical Secretariat or have not been the subject of a formal decision bythe Conference of the States Parties.  Of the further issues identified by the PrepCom about75% have been the subject of de facto resolution by the Technical Secretariat or have notbeen the subject of a formal decision by the Conference of the States Parties.11.  While the number of original unresolved issues from the PrepCom and Paris Resolutionhave been steadily whittled down, the accompanying table shows that a number of new issueshave arisen during the implementation of the CWC, not all of which could be resolved easily.Interestingly, while many of the issues which the PrepCom was unable to resolved related tochemical weapons, many of the issues which have arisen since entry into force have beenrelated to the chemical industry.  These issues arose primarily due to the absence during thefirst three years of a chemical industry declaration from the USA and the consequential4focusing of the attention of the States Parties on the methodologies for selecting industrialsites for inspection.  It is unlikely that all of these issues would have arisen if the US industrydeclaration had not been delayed.12.  These new issues, together with the remaining unresolved issues, are now beingaddressed by working groups established under the Executive Council.  Other issues whicharise during the implementation of the CWC will be addressed by these working groups.  Theissues are categorized currently into four clusters: chemical weapons; chemical industry andother Article VI; administrative and financial; and legal, organizational and other.  Many ofthe issues which appear to still be unresolved have been resolved de facto, either on an ad-hocbasis with States Parties or by the Technical Secretariat implementing its own approach withtacit acceptance from States Parties.5Please print both of the files A. and B. below.  Follow the instructions toreproduce a hard copy of the following A3 size table.Click here to download File A.Click here to download file B.TABLE OF UNRESOLVED ISSUESARISING FROMTHE PARIS RESOLUTIONTHE PREPARATORY COMMISSIONANDAFTER ENTRY INTO FORCE6

The CWC Paris Resolution: Unresolved Issues

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Bradford Scholars