2nd Meeting, Preparatory Committee of the 7th Review Conference CCW

Okay, good afternoon, Excellencies, distinguished colleagues, distinguished delegates. The meeting is called to order.

Before moving on to agenda item 6, I've been told that one delegation still wanted to take the floor under agenda item 5, Colombia. May I ask the distinguished colleague of Colombia to kindly take the floor. You have the floor, madam.

Thank you very much indeed, Chair. May I start by commending you for taking up this significant responsibility and thank you for all the efforts that you, in fact, and your team are currently making to ensure that our upcoming review conference is a successful one. The fulfillment of the obligations of the Convention as a humanitarian disarmament treaty is a priority. And this, we are deeply committed to the obligation of protecting civilians against the effects of weapons and protect competence against the excessive or injurious suffering in connection with the need to achieving legitimate targets. We see the CCW as being complementary to other instruments, such as the CCM, APBMC and the WIPAC declaration. We also attach importance to universalization. We invite all those states who still have not ratified the Convention and its protocols to do so to strengthen the legal framework for the protection and regulation, which includes the Convention and its objective in the context of IHL. In particular, my country, hasn't acceded to Protocol 5, but we are discussing that as intensively internally to do so. Another of our priorities for the review conference is the issue of ERW, sorry, improvised explosive devices. In 2, amended, this is considered. These artifacts continue to be one of the main threat we face and call for common responses to be dealt with effectively. Finally, in the context of laws, we welcome the fact that the group on laws were able to agree on the final report in the final meeting a couple of days ago, three days ago. We thank the Ambassador of the Netherlands and his team for having done so, together with the support, thank the Secretary for their support in this preparatory meeting for the review conference. We hope that we'll be able to discuss the following steps and our process to adopt an instrument that properly regulates these systems. And we will elaborate on this issue under the relevant agenda item. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I thank the distinguished representative of Colombia for her statement, which means that we can now move on to agenda item number 6.

Agenda item 6, organization of the review conference, under which we will consider a number of key elements intended to lay the foundation for our work in November. As delegations are aware, under this agenda item, the Preparatory Committee is invited to consider and endorse several documents and arrangements relating to the Review Conference, namely provisional agenda, provisional programme of work, draft rules of procedure and nomination of officers. I now invite you to consider the provisional agenda of the Seventh Review Conference. The provisional agenda was initially recommended by the 2025 meeting of the High Contracting Parties. I suggested minimal adjustments in the draft of the provisional agenda, which was circulated by the Secretariat on 7 August 2026, ahead of informal consultation held in August. The provisional agenda of the Seventh Review Conference will be issued as document CCW/CONF.7/1 If there are no objections to this, I take it the Committee endorses the provisional agenda of the Seventh Review Conference. I recognize the distinguished representative of the Russian Federation. You have the floor, sir.

Thank you, distinguished Chair. During the first PrepCom session, we indicated some difficulties that we had with an understanding as to implementing chapter 10 of the Rules of Procedure. These problems, as we've understood it, continue to exist and need to require further discussion. as we seek a solution. And we would hope that seeking such a solution will be carried on with as we work to prepare for the Seventh Review Conference. Nevertheless, our delegation does not intend to change the rules of procedure. As we said many times, we are just seeking a common understanding as to how chapter 10 should be implemented. Related to this, we are prepared to agree to the recommendations as to the Seventh Review Conference, to examine the draft rules of procedure of the previous rules of procedure of the Sixth Review Conference of the CCW. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of the Russian Federation. Thank you for your intervention. And I underline that for the moment we are also, I mean, mainly examining the agenda. the provisional agenda of the Review Conference, but your intervention is noted. Any other remark concerning the provisional agenda of the Seventh Review Conference? I see no objection.

It is so decided.

I would like now to invite you to consider the provisional agenda of Main Committee I of the Seventh Review Conference. The draft provisional agenda of Main Committee I was circulated by the Secretariat on 26 August 2026, ahead of informal consultations held in August. The provisional agenda of Main Committee I of the Seventh Review Conference will be issued as document CCW/CONF/2026/1. If there are no objections to this, I take it the Committee endorses the provisional agenda of Main Committee I of the Seventh Review Conference. I see no objection. It is so decided. I would like now to invite you to consider the provisional agenda of Main Committee II of the Seventh Review Conference. The draft provisional agenda of Main Committee II was initially circulated by the Secretariat on 26 August 2026, ahead of informal consultations held in August. The provisional agenda of Main Committee II of the Seventh Review Conference will be issued as document CCW/CONF/2026/1. MC.2/1. If there are no objections to this, I take it the Committee endorses the provisional agenda of Main Committee II of the Seventh Review Conference. I see no objection. It is so decided. We will now turn to the provisional programme of work of the Seventh Review Conference. Like the draft of the provisional agenda, the draft of the provisional programme of work of the Seventh Review Conference was first circulated by the Secretariat on 7 August 2026, ahead of informal consultations held in August. The proposed programme seeks to allocate sufficient time to both organizational and substantive matters. including dedicated consideration of issues falling under the mandates of Main Committee I and Main Committee II. It also contains annotations intended to facilitate consideration of the various agenda items. I would note in particular that the programme of work seeks to allocate equitable time to both Main Committee I and Main Committee II, and foresees that they operate in a staggered fashion from the second to the fourth day of the Review Conference. I would suggest that the programme of work is considered as an indicative document and that if a main committee completes its work early, and that it will be possible to use the time so freed to the benefit of the other committee. The provisional programme of work of the Seventh Review Conference will be issued as document CCW/CONF.7/2. If there are no objections, I take it that the Committee agrees to recommend the provisional programme of work of the Seventh Review Conference. I recognize the distinguished representative of the Russian Federation. You have the floor, sir.

Thank you, distinguished Chair. For the same reasons which were mentioned earlier, related to the need to work out the modalities for our future work during the Seventh Review Conference, the organization of observers, and the implementation of chapter 10 of the Rules of Procedure, we consider it to be important to continue our discussions and consideration of the proposed provisional programme of work that you have submitted to us. up until the very start of the review conference. Related to this, we would be prepared to recommend that the review conference examine the provisional programme of work as suggested by you. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of the Russian Federation. I took good note of his remarks. Are there other comments or remarks? So I see no objection.

It is so decided.

I see the distinguished representative of the Russian Federation.

Thank you, distinguished Chair. We have a question of clarification. Have we understood it correctly that, given this understanding of the provisional programme of work, that the Preparatory Committee will recommend to the Review Conference that it examines this draft Could this be reflected in the outcome report or document of the preparatory committee? Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of the Russian Federation. And yes, we could put in the report that the PrepCom, or the preparatory committee, does recommend the examination of the provisional program of work. If there is no other intervention, No objection. We will move forward.

It is so decided.

I would like now to invite you to consider the provisional programme of work of Main Committee I of the Seventh Review Conference. The draft provisional programme of work of Main Committee I was initially circulated by the Secretariat on 26 August 2026, ahead of informal consultations held in August. The provisional programme of work of Main Committee I will be issued as document CCW/CONF.7/MC.1/2. If there are no objections to this, I take it the Committee endorses the provisional programme of work of Main Committee I of the Seventh Review Conference. I see no objection. It is so decided. I would like now to invite you to consider the provisional programme of work of Main Committee II of the Seventh Review Conference. The draft provisional programme of work of Main Committee II was initially circulated by the Secretariat on 26 August 2026 ahead of informal consultations held in August. The provisional programme of work of Main Committee II of the Seventh Review Conference will be issued as document CCW/CONF.7/MC.2/2. If there are no objections to this, I take it the Committee endorses the provisional programme of work of Main Committee II of the Seventh Review Conference. I see no objection.

It is so decided.

So, we move to agenda item 6C, Draft Rules of Procedure. The third matter under this agenda item is the Draft Rules of Procedure. I propose that following past practice, As according to following past practice, we recommend the Rules of Procedure as adopted by the Sixth Review Conference contained in document CCW/CONF.5/4 to be adopted mutatis mutandis by the Seventh Review Conference. Is this acceptable to the Committee? I see no objection.

It is so decided.

The fourth and final item under agenda item 6 is the nomination of office holders to be recommended to the Seventh Review Conference. In accordance with rule 6 of the rules of procedure, the Review Conference shall elect 10 vice presidents, as well as a chairperson and vice chairperson for each of the main committees, the drafting and the credential committee. In doing so, we need to ensure the representative character of the General Committee. For the 10 Vice-President positions, I have so far been informed of the nomination of the following: Ambassador Angel Bonchev, Permanent Representative of the Republic of Bulgaria to the United Nations Office and other international organizations in Geneva; Ambassador Li Xizhong, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary for Disarmament Affairs of the People's Republic of China. Japan, Mr. Daisuke Namioka, Deputy Permanent Representative of Japan to the Conference on Disarmament. Panama, Mrs. Grisel Rodriguez, Counsellor, Permanent Mission of Panama. Russian Federation, Mr. Denis Zhurikov, Senior Counsellor, Permanent Mission of the Russian Federation. And Spain, Ambassador Maria Bassols Delgado, Permanent Representative of Spain to the Conference on Disarmament. May I take it that the Committee agrees to recommend these nominations of the States Parties to serve as Vice-President at the Review Conference?

It is so decided.

On 13 August 2026, the Group of the Non-Aligned Movement has informed the CCW Implementation Support Unit by note verbal that Ambassador Elmer Chaleres Salcedo, Permanent Representative of Peru to the United Nations Office and other international organizations in Geneva, had been nominated by the Regional Group to hold the position as Chairperson of Main Committee II of the Seventh Review Conference. On 24 August 2026, the nomination of Ambassador Elmer Scheler Salcedo was endorsed via written silence procedures by the High Contracting Parties to the Convention. May I take it that the Committee agrees to recommend the nomination of Ambassador Elmer Scheler Salcedo as Chairperson of Main Committee II?

It is so decided.

As has been the case in the past, I, in my role of future President of the Review Conference, I will also assume the role of Chair for the Drafting Committee. May I take it that the Committee agrees to recommend this nomination? It is so decided. As per rule six of the rules of procedure, we shall elect a chairperson and a vice chairperson for the Credentials Committee. On the basis of the nomination received by the Eastern European Group, I would like to propose the nomination of Mr. Nikola Yakov of Bulgaria as chairperson of the Credentials Committee. And on the basis of a nomination received by the group of the Non-Aligned Movement of Mrs. Anna Zulaika Abubakar of the Philippines, as vice chairperson of the Credentials Committee. So, may I take it that the Committee agrees to recommend these nominations?

It is so decided.

For now, these are all the nominations received so far. Are there any other proposals for outstanding positions? I don't think so for the moment. Play all songs of the Kapil Sharma Show. Okay, let me then congratulate the office holders and express my gratitude and confidence that they will provide valuable support to the work of the Seventh Review Conference and further call on all delegations and regional groups to work towards filling all outstanding positions as soon as possible. In this regard, I wish to inform delegations that if I receive nominations for the outstanding positions over the next two days, I will share them with the Committee. I suggest we act on them this Wednesday. With your agreement, I will conduct informal consultation with the regional groups in the intersessional period on the recommendation for the nomination of remaining office holders for the Seventh Review Conference. I will keep the High Contracting Parties informed of the outcomes of this consultation in due course. Any such nominations will then be considered at the beginning of the Review Conference. May I take it that this is agreeable to the Committee? Thank you. It is decided. One final item is the nomination of the Secretary-General of the Review Conference. In accordance with Rule 14 of the Rules of Procedure, we shall appoint a Secretary-General who shall act in the capacity at all meetings. Mrs. Melanie Regimbald, Chief of Service of the Geneva Branch of the Office for Disarmament Affairs, has been nominated by the United Nations Secretary-General to serve as the Secretary of the Conference. May I take it that the Committee recommends Mrs. Regimbald to be appointed as the Secretary-General of the Seventh Review Conference.

It is so decided.

As set out in the Rules of Procedure, High Contracting Parties shall submit credentials in order to participate in the Seventh Review Conference, which is a change to the practice of the annual meeting of High Contracting Parties, which only requires the submission of a note verbale. To clarify this, I now wish to give the floor to Mr. Nikolay Yakov of Bulgaria, Chair of the Credentials Committee, to speak on this matter.

Thank you, Mr. Chairperson. Very briefly, in accordance with Rule 3 of the Rules of Procedure, High Contracting Parties are required to submit credentials for the Seventh Review Conference, which must be issued by Head of State or Government or by the Minister of Foreign Affairs. All High Contracting Parties are required to hand in credentials no later than 24 hours after the opening of the Review Conference and that's opening on Monday, 16th of November, 2026. Practically, this means that they should be submitted no later than 10:00 AM on Tuesday, 17th of November. For the signatory and observer states, credentials are not required and a not verbal will be sufficient. The credentials should include the names of representatives, alternate representatives, and advisors. Any later change in the composition of delegations shall also be submitted to the Secretary-General of the Conference. Credentials can be submitted in any of the six official languages of the United Nations. Inquiries on these matters can be directed to the Secretariat or the Credentials Committee members. The original credentials should be submitted in person to the Secretariat or sent in advance by mail to the CCW Implementation Support Unit. The full postal address is available on the Seventh Review Conference page at the UNODA Meetings Place portal. In addition, a digital copy of the credentials should be uploaded to e-delegate under the list of participants model as soon as possible and preferably no later than Friday 6th November 2026. Here I would like just to add that this date was mentioned already in the note verbale from the Secretary General convening the meeting and discussing with the Secretary, we might be flexible, but please stick to this already announced date. While the digital copy does not replace the requirement to submit the original credentials, its timely upload will facilitate their review by the Credential Committee. I wish to encourage delegations to initiate this process as early as possible, noting that internal process may take some time as it is imperative for us to achieve a quorum, meaning a majority of the high contracting parties to the Convention participating in the conference. And I thank you for your attention.

I thank you, Mr. Nikolay Yakov, for this information. Thank you very much. Well, we will turn now to item 7. preparation for the main committee one. As we do not yet have a nomination for the position of chair of this committee, I will lead our work on this agenda item. I take this opportunity to call on the Eastern European group and the non-aligned movement to inform us of nominations for the chair and vice chair positions as soon as possible. It is our joint responsibility to use the limited time we have as effectively as possible to best prepare the work of Main Committee I. In accordance with past practice and the agenda that has been recommended to the Seventh Review Conference, the tasks of Main Committee I are to review the scope and operation of the Convention and its annexed protocols, the consideration of any proposal for the Convention and its existing protocols, and to further the preparation and consideration of the final document for the review conference. I should underline that it is entirely appropriate to introduce new issues to Main Committee I, which fall under the scope and operation of the Convention and its protocols, as well as to reflect on issues that have previously been raised and are again worthy of consideration or where unfinished business remains. In order to inform our deliberations, I circulated on 26 August 2026 elements for the final declaration of the Review Conference, which will form part of the Conference final document. These elements build on the final declaration adopted by the Sixth Review Conference. Their circulation ahead of this Preparatory Committee is intended solely to facilitate reflection and to provide an initial basis for exchanges, particularly in support of preparations for the work of Main Committee I. I would like to emphasize that these elements are intended only as a tool to help to frame our discussions. They are indicative in nature and without prejudice to the positions of delegations. I remain fully open to the views suggestions and proposals of delegations regarding both the structure and substance of the final declaration. I would like now to invite the delegations to share their views on the key issues that should be addressed by Main Committee I. I also encourage delegations to offer concrete proposals and suggestions for the final declaration, including with respect to both the structure and the substantive content. Such contribution will help guide our preparation and inform the further development of the draft text as we move forward. With that, let me now open the floor to delegations wishing to make opening statements. In the interest of time, I will limit the intervention to three minutes, even though we might be flexible due to the time we have ahead. Okay. I see the distinguished representative of France. You have the floor. France.

Chair, my statement shall concentrate on protocol, amending protocol 2, which made a priority for France. In many regions of the world, IEDs are a constant menace, a threat to peace and security and sustainable development. France is determined to maintain our priority on this issue, given the increasing number of victims of these weapons year upon year. The work of the GGE on IEDs under amended Protocol II is of particular relevance. It allows for substantive exchanges on best practice of States for detection, destruction and victim assistance. These exchanges must continue and evolve given the evolving threats. We would hope that the review conference will be able to act on the progress achieved in the GGE and the annual conference of the amended protocol II. Work should focus on compiling best practice and guidelines against the diversion of material which allow for the production of IEDs, a compilation of best practice and guidelines for education and awareness raising amongst the civilian population about the threat of IEDs and the questionnaire on national capacities to mitigate the threat of IEDs. This review conference would also be the right time to review progress achieved over the last five years by the GGE. Finally, we hope that the Conference will be able to reassert the political declaration on IEDs and renew the mandate of the Group of Experts. Thank you.

I would like to thank the distinguished representative of France. And I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of the Russian Federation.

Distinguished Chair, The Russian Federation confirms its unwavering commitment to the CCW and its protocols, and we are in favour of a full, unbiased implementation of its provisions, with no exceptions. In the context of the review of the conference, we submit our annual accounting and reporting on the CCW, and protocols 2 and 5. And also, we ensure active participation of the Russian delegations in the annual events under the CCW and its protocols. We consider amendment 1 as vital, and we call for all member states of the UN to accede to it, and we call for unwavering strict compliance with Protocol II. This is a vital mechanism to make sure that anti-personnel landmines are not misused, because they are used by many States to ensure the national security, and also Protocol V on ERWs. The Russian Federation makes a considerable contribution to the implementation of the provisions of the convention and its protocols, including in demining activities and in clearing land from any explosive devices within its own territory as well as abroad. We are prepared for an exchange of experience on progress made in humanitarian demining and in furthering cooperation along those lines. We are in favour of continuing to consider the discussion of the issue of IEDs under amended protocol 2 and to take account of other international initiatives and approaches in that field as is required by these specialized resolutions of the UNGA and Security Council. We call for continuation of informal work on IEDs under the Group of Experts under AP2 and preparing a declaration on such devices for approval at the Seventh Review Conference. We feel it to be unacceptable to have an expanded interpretation of the mandate of the Convention on IEDs. We're convinced that establishing contact points on IEDs in the context of the Convention would lead to expanding access to the database on such devices and would create the probability that sensitive data would be diverted. Thank you.

I wish to thank the distinguished representative of the Russian Federation. Before we move to Giving the floor to observers, I'd just like to check if there are any other High Contracting Parties that would like to take the floor. Brazil, please. The distinguished representative of Brazil has the floor.

Mr. President, Brazil attaches particular importance to the universalization of the Convention and its protocols. Universal adherence strengthens not only their legal authority, but also their practical capacity to protect civilians and combatants from weapons that may cause unnecessary suffering or have indiscriminate effects. Brazil also recognizes the valuable contribution of the sponsorship program. Broad and geographically representative participation is essential to the legitimacy and effectiveness of the Convention. We encourage states in a position to do so to continue supporting the program. Compliance and national implementation are equally fundamental. The effectiveness of the CCW ultimately depends upon the implementation of its obligations at the national level. Brazil therefore supports efforts to improve compliance reporting, enhance awareness about the convention and its protocols among armed forces and civilian populations, and strengthen international cooperation and assistance. At the same time, we cannot overlook the difficulties that have affected the functioning of the Convention in recent years. Procedural disagreements have prevented High Contracting Parties from conducting substantive discussions in the formal meetings of the CCW for three consecutive years. This situation should concern us all. While procedural questions deserve appropriate consideration, they should not prevent the Convention from carrying out its substantive work or undermine its ability to respond to the humanitarian challenges within its mandate. As is widely known, the meetings of the follow-up process of the Convention have traditionally taken decisions by consensus. This is not a rule, but a tradition. The tradition has helped ensure that the Convention enjoys universal support by its high contracting parties and has contributed to enhance its implementation. But it cannot be misconstrued as a veto power, and it cannot continue to serve as a vehicle for institutional paralysis. This risks undermining the Convention and putting its relevance in question. Mr. President, in view of this, my delegation will support your efforts to overcome the procedural impasses that have prevented substantive debates in the meetings of the Convention in previous years, and we trust that these efforts will enable the Review Conference to achieve a successful outcome and lay the basis for an effective review cycle in the upcoming five-year period. I thank you, Mr. President.

I thank the distinguished representative of Brazil. I don't see any other High Contracting Party which would like to take the floor at this point in time, so I shall give the floor to the distinguished representative of the Russian Federation.

Thank you, distinguished Chair. We apologise for being compelled to take the floor for a second time, but we wish to react to some of the proposals that have been made during the general exchange of views linked to the implementation and the review of the existing instruments that we have under the convention. In particular, as concerns amended protocol 2, We wish to declare that the Russian Federation considers mines other than anti-personnel mines as legally non-expensive, effective means to defend national security. We do not support the thesis that they are a particular humanitarian threat. That is motapem. It is our view that that is fabricated, that the threat from those mines is the same as those from other weapons. The current status of anti-personnel mines of Moatapa under the Convention, and that is the fact that there's no particular item on the agenda, reflects the realistic state of affairs. And in 2019, in the outcome document of the Conference of Parties to AP II, under other matters, identified the fact that There were differences as to the need for further consideration of the issue of motapim in the context of AP2. Given this, we are against renewing any kind of standalone expert work on motapim, including in the context of AP2. These kinds of mines are regulated sufficiently under Protocol II, and we consider that a good faith implementation of those provisions to a large extent would allay the humanitarian concerns as to these weapons. We also confirm that we support our responsibilities under AP on Protocol III. We consider it to be counterproductive to review the provisions of this document. It does not provide a complete prohibition. It strictly restricts the use, given the imperative needs and in compliance with the relevant norms of IHL. We see no grounds for separating out the discussions on Protocol III to other that forms under the CCW, and we believe that including an extra item into the agenda of the review conference or its main committees devoted to these kinds of weapons is not necessary, or to this protocol. It's important to focus our attention on more relevant issues today and the proper implementation of the provisions of the protocols. This would allay the concerns of certain States as to these kinds of weapons, and this would be possible under a general agenda item on implementation of the Convention and its protocols. We would also like to react to the statement on the principle of consensus. The principle of consensus is fundamental to this Convention. It is not only a tradition pursuant to which work is conducted in the context of this format, it is a fundamental rule on the basis of which decisions are taken in this forum. The Rules of Procedure clearly state that for all decisions in the context of the CCW, The decisions adopted as under the Convention itself, I would recall that the Convention was adopted by consensus. And so this is a fundamental principle underpinning our work in this forum and in all of the measures and events organized under this forum. The Russian Federation believes that this is vital to be strictly complied with. to comply with this rule and the rules of procedure that we have for this platform. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of the Russian Federation. I now give the floor to Japan, to be followed by Peru. The distinguished representative of Japan has the floor.

Well, thank you, Mr. Chairperson. Very brief. In my delegation's view, it is quite important that the CCW be more widely recognized as a framework that contributes to peace and stability in the international community through the appropriate use of conventional weapons in accordance with international law. In Spain, recognizing that the development of international humanitarian law has always gone hand in hand with efforts towards its universal acceptance and implementation. So Japan supports efforts to promote the universalization of the CCW so that more states join the CCW framework and its implementation is further advanced worldwide. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I thank the distinguished.

Representative of Japan for that statement, and I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Peru. You have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. Peru thanks the way in which this committee has been conducting its work, and I'd like to make a few brief comments on the scope and operation of the Convention and its related protocols. We reaffirm the fact that the CCW is fully in force and relevant today as part and parcel of IHL, and it's important that we promote its universalization and the full implementation of its provisions. With regards to two, amended protocol two, AP2, we'd like to highlight in particular the importance of the work developed on IED, on improvised explosive devices, IEDs. It was on a four pro to be coordinator on IEDs, together with the regulation of France, during 2023, 2024, 2025. This experience enabled us to see how this challenge is ongoing and evolving as a target of the CCW. The CCW is the framework for the exchange of good experiences and the design of measures designed to prevent and mitigate the humanitarian consequences of the use of IEDs. In this context, Peru considers that it is particularly important that we should be able to head towards the updating of the guidelines, best practices, and other recommendations pertaining to us tackling the diversion of and the illicit and unlawful use of material that can be used for the making of IEDs. An update of these instruments such as the guidelines I just referred to, would enable us to reflect experience accumulated over the last few years and strengthen the capacity of states to prevent and to respond to this phenomenon of IEDs. We attach significant importance to the implementation, effective implementation of AP5 on ERWs, explosive remnants of war. As we are in the period leading up to the seventh review conference, Peru hopes that we'll be able to restate the commitments shouldered in the context of these protocols, and in particular, to ensure that the mechanisms and tools associated therewith continue to effectively respond to the current challenges on the ground. You can rely on the constructive participation of the delegation of Peru in all of this work. Thank you very much.

I thank the distinguished representative of Peru. I recognize the United States. The distinguished representative of the U.S. has the floor.

Thank you, Chair. The second review conference provides an opportunity to address our common goals of ensuring that the commitments made under the existing five protocols remain effective. Under the auspices of the Main Committee I, the United States continues to support the need for continued work of the experts group of the Additional Protocol II and Protocol V. The expert meetings for the Additional Protocol II have provided practical information, important insights, and fruitful discussions into how to address the humanitarian issues posed by landmines, booby traps, and other devices, and to better coordinate our humanitarian assistance efforts with international partners. Additionally, the experts' meetings of Protocol V have improved implementation efforts, including the marking, clearance, removal, and destruction of explosive remnants war, which is crucial in reopening lands for post-conflict economic development, restoring critical infrastructure, and allowing displaced communities to return to their own homes. The United States has actively participated in the experts meeting for both protocols, submitting our annual reports, sharing best practices, reporting mechanisms and standards to help build capacity among the HCPs. We also view these meetings as an important opportunity to bring experts together to further the universalization of CCW and its five protocols. Chair, we have been listening with interest to the general ideas from other delegations on potential work for MAiD Committee 2. We hope specific proposals will be shared as soon as possible, as an early opportunity to consider specific proposals and get input from our capital will be necessary, given the number of important topics the conference will have to tackle this November in a relatively short period of time. have heard with interest from delegates to have more focused work on areas beyond AP II, including mines other than anti-personal mines and Protocol III. The United States takes the humanitarian impact of all explosive remnants of war seriously and supports robust implementation of existing CCW instruments. We remain committed to clearing landmine contamination and supporting demining assistance worldwide. While we would note that amended Protocol II does establish clear technical and operational requirements for landmines, to include metapins in the area of detectability and responsible use near civilian areas. We heard with interest the desire of other states to discuss this topic, which has some history here. The United States could support such work of metapin discussions. However, if such discussions are called for, in our view, it would be helpful to clarify the goals that such discussions might take from the outset. Additionally, regarding Protocol III, the United States takes note of delegation's desire to have discussions on incinerator weapons. However, the United States has strong reservations against reopening or renegotiating Protocol III's definitional scope at this time. Thank you, Chair.

I thank the distinguished representative of the United States. For the moment, I see no contracting parties wishing to take the floor, except that I do. I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Austria.

Thank you very much, Mr. President-designate, and sorry for being a little bit late with my flag. On the topic of discussion at the moment, during our general exchange, we underlined the importance of compliance with Protocol III, as well as strengthening the norm against incendiary weapons due to humanitarian concerns. We want to repeat the call towards all States who are not yet party to join this protocol. Its universalization requires additional efforts. In view of the insidious harm caused by these weapons, we need to strive for the full implementation of this protocol by all high contracting parties. Given the significance of these issues and the absence of any structured discussion within the convention responsible for the regulation of these weapons, CCW high contracting parties have a responsibility to take action. We deem the reintroduction of a dedicated agenda item appropriate. We also see room for additional efforts to strengthen the implementation and to provide for an appropriate review. To organize this exchange of views in a concrete and efficient manner, we would like to suggest appointing a specific office holder to seek views of high contracting parties through informal consultations and report back to the CCW. This will allow us to have a comprehensive view of high contracting parties on the implementation and universalization progress on the Protocol 3. as well as using the meeting time available to us more effectively. Another issue of concern is the humanitarian impact stemming from the indiscriminate and disproportionate use of mines other than anti-personal mines, Moutapan. And we've taken note of the positions expressed by delegations in this room just a moment ago. A discussion of their use in accordance with international humanitarian law in the CCW, for my delegation, seems more than appropriate. Regarding the future work on financial aspects, we already alluded to that, and we support the approach and all efforts to find a sustainable solution for the Convention. At the same time, we reiterate our previous call that this task should not overburden our agenda and leave sufficient time for the discussions of substantial issues. Mr. President-designate, you can be assured of the continued support of our delegation in the preparation for the review conference and continued engagement with other interested delegations on various issues raised. I thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Austria. I give the floor now to the distinguished representative of Panama. You have the floor.

Thank you very much indeed. will be fairly brief. We recognize the value of CCW and the value of the protocols thereof, and we therefore fully support the universalization of these instruments and their effective implementation. We support, therefore, every thing that can be done to ensure that the provisions thereof are strengthened and enforced. We'd like to reiterate what we said this morning in this connection during the general exchange of views, namely that we are in favor of us continuing talking about IEDs in the context of amended AP2. At the same time, we consider that it's important that we keep the the GGE's meetings under Protocol V. And like other delegations have also said before us, our opinion is that we should have structured debates about evaluating the implementation of AP3 on incendiary weapons and 4 on blinding laser weapons, beyond just looking at the implementation thereof, this would give us a chance to, as high contracting parties, share information about national policies, about operative operational practices in connection with these instruments. There are a number of options before us, including embodying a dedicated agenda item to these issues, be it in the meeting of the higher contracting parties, in the review conference itself, or by organizing meetings of experts to consider on an equal footing all of the protocols. To conclude, we'd also be in favor of this very constructive proposal made by Austria, namely to appoint an office holder to conduct consultations with the higher contracting parties on the way forward.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I thank the distinguished representative of Panama. I give the floor to observers at this stage, namely Mart for peace. You have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Chairperson. We all know that international humanitarian law imposes restrictions on the use of incendiary weapons, given the physical and psychological suffering they cause to victims, such as severe burns and respiratory damage. The Third Protocol to the Convention prohibits the use of airdropped incendiary weapons against civilians, but there are two legal loopholes that hinder the protection of civilians. First, the protocol's definition excludes certain multipurpose munitions, notably white phosphorus, which are not primarily designed to start fires or burn people, although they can cause similar effects. Second, the protocol differentiates between the means of delivery of these weapons, as it prohibits the use of airdropped incendiary weapons against civilian populations. But there are fewer restrictions on ground launched incendiary weapons, even though the effects of burns and destruction do not differ depending on the delivery method. Matt has documented the use of white phosphorus in several armed conflicts, including in the Gaza Strip, as well as artillery shells that exploded in the air, causing serious harms to civilians. We have also documented the damage caused by the use of ground-launched incendiary weapons in Ukraine. These facts raise serious concerns about the adequacy of the Third Protocol in achieving its goal of protecting civilians, due to its failure to explicitly condemn certain multipurpose weapons, such as white phosphorus. Furthermore, it contains weaker regulations for ground-launched incendiary weapons compared to those dropped from the air, even though all these weapons produce the same damage. Therefore, MATT recommends the urgent initiation of informal discussions regarding the adequacy of international law concerning incendiary weapons and the concerns raised by these weapons. It is also essential to work towards developing stronger international standards for better protection of civilians to address the gaps in the Third Protocol. I thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of MAT for Peace. Do any other delegations wish to take the floor? I recognize the distinguished representative of Ireland. You have the floor.

Thank you very much, President-designate. Apologies, I'm still waking from my slumber over the late belated weekend. We don't have a dedicated statement to provide of a formal nature, but I just wanted to come in and echo the comments of our colleagues from the delegation of Austria and Panama regarding the necessity for discussions both around Mottapam and around Protocol 3. These have been long-standing concern of my delegation and a wide range of delegations. It's been a real shame to see the absence of discussions on Protocol 3 in particular, and I would just yet bring to delegations awareness the working paper submitted by a group of states last year, working paper six, on this particular issue. We just echo our support for some of the proposals put forward by Panama and Austria in terms of dedicated discussions or dedicated office holder or coordinator to see how we can bring back and restore some of these discussions within our formal processes, which is badly needed. and would not agree with the other assessments in terms of the necessity or lack thereof. They're very much pressing and related to our convention. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Ireland for his statement.

Very well.

We have come to the end of the list of delegations wishing to speak this afternoon under this agenda item. As you know, we had said that we wanted to work on the basis of an iterative agenda, but it would appear that we have already caught up with a whole half-day. So we will stop here. May I thank everyone who spoke this afternoon for your substantive and constructive statements under this agenda item. Tomorrow we will address the next agenda item, namely 8, preparations for Main Committee II. will hear substantive reports on the follow-up. Ambassador Indenbosch, who is chair of the GGE on laws, will make a statement, as will others. I do not want to move too much forward on the agenda, because delegations need to prepare So we adjourn slightly earlier than expected today. Thank for your understanding. I wish you each and everyone a very good end of afternoon and beginning of evening. 00 AM, same place. This meeting stands adjourned.