Multilateral treaties deposited with the Secretary-General- TREATY I-XXVI--2.asp

2. Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons which may be deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to have Indiscriminate Effects (with Protocols I, II and III)

Geneva, 10 October 1980


Entry into force:	2 December 1983 in accordance with article 5 (1) and (3).
Registration:	2 December 1983, No. 22495.
Status:	Signatories: 50 ,Parties: 103.
Text:	United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 1342, p. 137; depositary notifications C.N.356.1981. TREATIES-7 of 14 January 1982 (procès-verbal of rectification of the Chinese authentic text) and C.N.320.1982. TREATIES-11 of 21 January 1983 (procès-verbal of rectification of the Final Act).

Note: The Convention and its annexed Protocols were adopted by the United Nations Conference on Prohibitions or Restrictions of the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects, held in Geneva from 10 to 28 September 1979 and from 15 September to 10 October 1980. The Conference was convened pursuant to General Assembly resolutions 32/152 of 19 December 1977 and 33/70 of 14 December 1978. The original of the Convention with the annexed Protocols, of which the Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish texts are equally authentic, is deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations. The Convention was open for signature by all States at United Nations Headquarters in New York for a period of twelve months from 10 April 1981.

PARTICIPANTS


Participant	Signature	Ratification, Acceptance (A), Approval (AA), Accession (a), Succession (d)
Afghanistan	10 Apr 1981
Albania		28 Aug 2002 a
Argentina	2 Dec 1981	2 Oct 1995
Australia	8 Apr 1982	29 Sep 1983
Austria	10 Apr 1981	14 Mar 1983
Bangladesh		6 Sep 2000 a
Belarus	10 Apr 1981	23 Jun 1982
Belgium	10 Apr 1981	7 Feb 1995
Benin		27 Mar 1989 a
Bolivia		21 Sep 2001 a
Bosnia and Herzegovina		1 Sep 1993 d
Brazil		3 Oct 1995 a
Bulgaria	10 Apr 1981	15 Oct 1982
Burkina Faso		26 Nov 2003 a
Cambodia		25 Mar 1997 a
Cameroon		7 Dec 2006 a
Canada	10 Apr 1981	24 Jun 1994
Cape Verde		16 Sep 1997 a
Chile		15 Oct 2003 A
China	14 Sep 1981	7 Apr 1982
Colombia		6 Mar 2000 a
Costa Rica		17 Dec 1998 a
Croatia		2 Dec 1993 d
Cuba	10 Apr 1981	2 Mar 1987
Cyprus		12 Dec 1988 a
Czech Republic		22 Feb 1993 d
Denmark	10 Apr 1981	7 Jul 1982
Djibouti		29 Jul 1996 a
Ecuador	9 Sep 1981	4 May 1982
Egypt	10 Apr 1981
El Salvador		26 Jan 2000 a
Estonia		20 Apr 2000 a
Finland	10 Apr 1981	8 Apr 1982
France	10 Apr 1981	4 Mar 1988
Gabon		1 Oct 2007 a
Georgia		29 Apr 1996 a
Germany	10 Apr 1981	25 Nov 1992
Greece	10 Apr 1981	28 Jan 1992
Guatemala		21 Jul 1983 a
Holy See		22 Jul 1997 a
Honduras		30 Oct 2003 a
Hungary	10 Apr 1981	14 Jun 1982
Iceland	10 Apr 1981
India	15 May 1981	1 Mar 1984
Ireland	10 Apr 1981	13 Mar 1995
Israel		22 Mar 1995 a
Italy	10 Apr 1981	20 Jan 1995
Japan	22 Sep 1981	9 Jun 1982 A
Jordan		19 Oct 1995 a
Lao People's Democratic Republic		3 Jan 1983 a
Latvia		4 Jan 1993 a
Lesotho		6 Sep 2000 a
Liberia		16 Sep 2005 a
Liechtenstein	11 Feb 1982	16 Aug 1989
Lithuania		3 Jun 1998 a
Luxembourg	10 Apr 1981	21 May 1996
Maldives		7 Sep 2000 a
Mali		24 Oct 2001 a
Malta		26 Jun 1995 a
Mauritius		6 May 1996 a
Mexico	10 Apr 1981	11 Feb 1982
Moldova		8 Sep 2000 a
Monaco		12 Aug 1997 a
Mongolia	10 Apr 1981	8 Jun 1982
Montenegro¹		23 Oct 2006 d
Morocco	10 Apr 1981	19 Mar 2002
Nauru		12 Nov 2001 a
Netherlands	10 Apr 1981	18 Jun 1987 A
New Zealand	10 Apr 1981	18 Oct 1993
Nicaragua	20 May 1981	5 Dec 2000
Niger		10 Nov 1992 a
Nigeria	26 Jan 1982
Norway	10 Apr 1981	7 Jun 1983
Pakistan	26 Jan 1982	1 Apr 1985
Panama		26 Mar 1997 a
Paraguay		22 Sep 2004 a
Peru		3 Jul 1997 a
Philippines	15 May 1981	15 Jul 1996
Poland	10 Apr 1981	2 Jun 1983
Portugal	10 Apr 1981	4 Apr 1997
Republic of Korea		9 May 2001 a
Romania	8 Apr 1982	26 Jul 1995
Russian Federation	10 Apr 1981	10 Jun 1982
Senegal		29 Nov 1999 a
Serbia		12 Mar 2001 d
Seychelles		8 Jun 2000 a
Sierra Leone	1 May 1981	30 Sep 2004
Slovakia		28 May 1993 d
Slovenia		6 Jul 1992 d
South Africa		13 Sep 1995 a
Spain	10 Apr 1981	29 Dec 1993
Sri Lanka		24 Sep 2004 a
Sudan	10 Apr 1981
Sweden	10 Apr 1981	7 Jul 1982
Switzerland	18 Jun 1981	20 Aug 1982
Tajikistan		12 Oct 1999 a
The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia		30 Dec 1996 d
Togo	15 Sep 1981	4 Dec 1995 A
Tunisia		15 May 1987 a
Turkey	26 Mar 1982	2 Mar 2005
Turkmenistan		19 Mar 2004 a
Uganda		14 Nov 1995 a
Ukraine	10 Apr 1981	23 Jun 1982
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland	10 Apr 1981	13 Feb 1995
United States of America	8 Apr 1982	24 Mar 1995
Uruguay		6 Oct 1994 a
Uzbekistan		29 Sep 1997 a
Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of)		19 Apr 2005 a
Viet Nam	10 Apr 1981

Declarations made under article 4 (3) and (4)

(Declarations consenting to be bound by Protocols I, II, and III, adopted on 10 October 1980)8

(Unless otherwise indicated, the declarations were made upon ratification, acceptance, approval, accession or succession.)


Participant	Protocol I	Protocol II	Protocol III
Albania	x	x	x
Argentina	x	x	x
Australia	x	x	x
Austria	x	x	x
Bangladesh	x	x	x
Belarus	x	x	x
Belgium	x	x	x
Benin	x		x
Bolivia	x	x	x
Bosnia and Herzegovina²	x	x	x
Brazil	x	x	x
Bulgaria	x	x	x
Burkina Faso	x	x	x
Cambodia	x	x	x
Cameroon	x	x	x
Canada	x	x	x
Cape Verde	x	x	x
Chile	x		x
China	x	x	x
Colombia	x	x	x
Costa Rica	x	x	x
Croatia²	x	x	x
Cuba	x	x	x
Cyprus	x	x	x
Czech Republic	x	x	x
Denmark	x	x	x
Djibouti	x	x	x
Ecuador	x	x	x
El Salvador	x	x	x
Estonia	x		x
Finland	x	x	x
France	x	x	x (18 Jul 2002)
Gabon	x		x
Georgia	x	x	x
Germany	x	x	x
Greece	x	x	x
Guatemala	x	x	x
Holy See	x	x	x
Honduras	x	x	x
Hungary	x	x	x
India	x	x	x
Ireland	x	x	x
Israel	x	x
Italy	x	x	x
Japan	x	x	x
Jordan	x		x
Lao People's Democratic Republic	x	x	x
Latvia	x	x	x
Lesotho	x	x	x
Liberia	x	x	x
Liechtenstein	x	x	x
Lithuania	x		x
Luxembourg	x	x	x
Maldives	x		x
Mali	x	x	x
Malta	x	x	x
Mauritius	x	x	x
Mexico	x	x	x
Monaco	x
Mongolia	x	x	x
Montenegro1	x	x	x
Morocco		x
Nauru	x	x	x
Netherlands	x	x	x
New Zealand	x	x	x
Nicaragua	x		x
Niger	x	x	x
Norway	x	x	x
Pakistan	x	x	x
Panama	x	x	x
Paraguay	x	x	x
Peru	x		x
Philippines	x	x	x
Poland	x	x	x
Portugal	x	x	x
Republic of Korea	x
Moldova	x	x	x
Romania	x	x	x
Russian Federation	x	x	x
Senegal			x
Serbia²	x	x	x
Seychelles	x	x	x
Sierra Leone	x		x
Slovakia	x	x	x
Slovenia²	x	x	x
South Africa	x	x	x
Spain	x	x	x
Sri Lanka	x	x	x
Sweden	x	x	x
Switzerland	x	x	x
The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia²	x	x	x
Tajikistan	x	x	x
Togo	x	x	x
Tunisia	x	x	x
Turkey	x
Turkmenistan	x	x
Uganda	x	x	x
Ukraine	x	x	x
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland	x	x	x
United States of America	x	x
Uruguay	x	x	x
Uzbekistan	x	x	x
Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of)	x	x	x

DECLARATIONS

Declarations and Reservations

(Unless otherwise indicated, the declarations and reservations were made upon

ratification, acceptance, approval, accession or succession.)

Argentina

Reservation:

The Argentine Republic makes the express reservation that any references to the 1977 Protocols Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 that are contained in the [said Convention and its Protocols I, II and III] shall be interpreted in the light of the interpretative declarations in the instrument of accession of the Argentine Republic to the afore-mentioned additional Protocols of 1977.

Canada

Declarations:

"1. It is the understanding of the Government of Canada that:

(a) The compliance of commanders and others responsible for planning, deciding upon, or executing attacks to which the Convention and its Protocols apply cannot be judged on the basis of information which subsequently comes to light but must be assessed on the basis of the information available to them at the time that such actions were taken; and

(b) Where terms are not defined in the present Convention and its Protocols they shall, so far as is relevant, be construed in the same sense as terms contained in additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions of August 12, 1949.

2. With respect to Protocol I, it is the understanding of the Government of Canada that the use of plastics or similar materials for detonators or other weapons parts not designed to cause injury is not prohibited.

3. With respect to Protocol II, it is the understanding of the Government of Canada that:

(a) Any obligation to record the location of remotely delivered mines pursuant to sub-paragraph 1 (a) of article 5 refers to the location of mine fields and not to the location of individual remotely delivered mines;

(b) The term `pre-planned', as used in sub-paragraph 1 (a) of article 7 means that the position of the minefield in question should have been determined in advance so that an accurate record of the location of the minefield, when laid, can be made;

(c) The phrase `similar functions' used in article 8, includes the concepts of `peace-making, preventive peace-keeping and peace enforcement' as defined in an agenda for peace (United Nations document A/47/277 S/2411 of 17 June 1992).

4. With respect to Protocol III, it is the understanding of the Government of Canada that the expression `clearly separated' in paragraph 3 of article 2 includes both spatial separation or separation by means of an effective physical barrier between the military objective and the concentration of civilians."

China

Upon signature:

Statement:

1. The Government of the People's Republic of China has decided to sign the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May be Deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects adopted at the United Nations Conference held in Gene- va on 10 October 1980.

2. The Government of the People's Republic of China deems that the basic spirit of the Convention reflects the reason- able demand and good intention of numerous countries and peoples of the world regarding prohibitions or restrictions on the use of certain conventional weapons which are excessively in- jurious or have indiscriminate effects. This basic spirit con- forms to China's consistent position and serves the interest of opposing aggression and maintaining peace.

3. However, it should be pointed out that the Convention fails to provide for supervision or verification of any violation of its clauses, thus weakening its binding force. The Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby Traps and Other Devices fails to lay down strict restrictions on the use of such weapons by the aggressor on the territory of his victim and to provide adequately for the right of a state victim of an aggression to defend itself by all necessary means. The Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons does not stipulate restrictions on the use of such weapons against combat personnel. Furthermore, the Chinese texts of the Convention and Protocol are not accurate or satisfactory enough. It is the hope of the Chinese Government that these inadequacies can be remedied in due course.

Cyprus

Declaration:

"The provisions of article 7 of paragraph (3b) and article 8 of the Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices (Protocol II) will be in- terpreted in such a way that neither the status of peace-keeping forces or missions of the United Nations in Cyprus will be af- fected nor will additional rights be, ipso jure, granted to them."

France

Upon signature:

Declaration:

After signing the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects, the French Government, as it has already had occasion to state

- through its representative to the United Nations Confer- ence on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Con- ventional Weapons in Geneva, during the discussion of the pro- posal concerning verification arrangements submitted by the delegation of the Federal Republic of Germany and of which the French Government became a sponsor, and at the final meeting on 10 October 1980;

- on 20 November 1980 through the representative of the Netherlands, speaking on behalf of the nine States members of the European Community in the First Committee at the thirty-fifth session of the United Nations General Assembly;

Regrets that thus far it has not been possible for the States which participated in the negotiation of the Convention to reach agreement on the provisions concerning the verification of facts which might be alleged and which might constitute violations of the undertakings subscribed to.

It therefore reserves the right to submit, possibly in associ- ation with other States, proposals aimed at filling that gap at the first conference to be held pursuant to article 8 of the Conven- tion and to utilize, as appropriate, procedures that would make it possible to bring before the international community facts and information which, if verified, could constitute violations of the provisions of the Convention and the Protocols annexed thereto.

Interpretative statement

The application of this Convention will have no effect on the legal status of the parties to a conflict.

Reservation:

France, which is not bound by Additional Protocol I of 10 June 1977 to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949:

Considers that the fourth paragraph of the preamble to the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects, which reproduces the provisions of article 35, paragraph 3, of Additional Protocol I, applies only to States parties to that Protocol;

States, with reference to the scope of application defined in article 1 of the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons, that it will apply the provisions of the Convention and its three Protocols to all the armed conflicts referred to in articles 2 and 3 common to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949;

States that as regards the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, the declaration of acceptance and application provided for in article 7, paragraph 4 (b), of the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons will have no effects other than those provided for in article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions, in so far as that article is applicable.

18 July 2002

Interpretative declarations [made upon consent to be bound by Protocol III]:

The French Republic accepts the provisions of article 2, paragraphs 2 and 3, insofar as the terms used in these paragraphs do not lead to the assumption that an attack using incendiary weapons launched from an aircraft would involve any greater risk of indiscriminate hits than one launched by any other means.

It is the understanding of the French Republic that the term "clearly separated"used in article 2, paragraph 3, can be interpreted as meaning either a separation in terms of space or a separation by means of a physical barrier between the military target and the concentration of civilians.

Israel

Declarations:

"(a) With reference to the scope of application defined in article 1 of the Convention, the Government of the State of Israel will apply the provisions of the Convention and those annexed Protocols to which Israel has agreed become bound to all armed conflicts involving regular armed forces of States referred to in article 2 common to the General Conventions of 12 August 1949, as well as to all armed conflicts referred to in article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949.

(b) Article 7, paragraph 4 of the Convention will have no effect.

Understandings:

(a) It is the understanding of the Government of the State of Israel that the compliance of commanders and others responsible for planning, deciding upon, or executing attacks to which the Convention and its Protocols apply, cannot be judged on the basis of information which subsequently comes to light, but must be assessed on the basis of the information available to them at the time that such actions were taken.

(b) With respect to Protocol I, it is the understanding of the Government of Israel that the use of plastics or similar materials for detonators or other weapon parts not designed to cause injury is not prohibited.

(i) Any obligation to record the location of remotely delivered mines pursuant to sub-paragraph 1 (a) of article 5 refers to the location of mine fields and not to the location of individual remotely delivered mines;

(ii) The term pre-planned, as used in sub-paragraph 1 (a) of article 7 means that the position of the minefield in question should have been determined in advance so that an accurate record of the location of the minefield, when laid, can be made."

Holy See

Declaration:

"The Holy See, as a signatory of the [said Convention and annexed Protocols], in keeping with its proper nature and with the particular condition of Vatican City State, intends to renew its encouragement to the International Community to continue on the path it has taken for the reduction of human suffering caused by armed conflict.

Every step in this direction contributes to increasing awareness that war and the cruelty of war must be done away with in order to resolve tensions by dialogue and negotiation, and also by ensuring that international law is respected.

The Holy See, while maintaining that the above-mentioned Convention and Protocols constitute an important instrument for humanitarian international law, reiterates the objective hoped for by many parties: an agreement that would totally ban anti-personnel mines, the effects of which are tragically well-known.

In this regard, the Holy See considers that the modifications made so far in the second Protocol are insufficient and inadequate. It wishes, by means of its own accession to the Convention, to offer support to every effort aimed at effectively banning anti-personnel mines, in the conviction that all possible means must be used in order to build a safer and more fraternal world."

Italy

Upon signature:

Declaration:

On 10 October 1980 in Geneva, the representative of Italy at the Conference speaking at the closing meeting, emphasized that the Conference, in an effort to reach a compromise between what was desirable and what was possible, had probably achieved the maximum results feasible in the circumstances prevailing at that time.

However, he observed in his statement that one of the objectives which had not been achieved at the Conference, to his Government's great regret, was the inclusion in the text of the Convention, in accordance with a proposal originated by the Federal Republic of Germany, of an article on the establishment of a consultative committee of experts competent to verify facts which might be alleged and which might constitute violations of the undertakings subscribed to.

On the same occasion, the representative of Italy expressed the wish that the proposal, which was aimed at strengthening the credibility and effectiveness of the Convention, should be reconsidered at the earliest opportunity within the framework of the mechanisms for the amendment of the Convention expressly provided for in that instrument.

Subsequently, through the representative of the Netherlands, speaking on behalf of nine States members of the European Community in the First Committee of the United Nations General Assembly on 20 November 1980, when it adopted draft resolution A/C.1/31/L.15 (subsequently adopted as General Assembly Resolution 35/153), Italy once again expressed regret that the States which had participated in the preparation of the texts of the Convention and its Protocols had been unable to reach agreement on provisions that would ensure respect for the obligations deriving from those texts.

In the same spirit, Italy - which has just signed the Convention in accordance with the wishes expressed by the General Assembly in its resolution 35/153 - wishes to confirm solemnly that it intends to undertake active efforts to ensure that the problem of the establishment of a mechanism that would make it possible to fill a gap in the Convention and thus ensure that it achieves maximum effectiveness and maximum credibility vis-à-vis the international community is taken up again at the earliest opportunity in every competent forum.

Netherlands

"1. With regard to article 2, paragraph 4, of Protocol II: It is the understanding of the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands that a specific area of land may also be a military objective if, because of its location or other reasons specified in paragraph 4, its total or partial destruction, capture, or neutralization in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definitive military advantage;

"2. With regard to article 3, paragraph 3, under c, of Protocol II: It is the understanding of the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands that military advantage refers to the advantage anticipated from the attack considered as a whole and not only from isolated or particular parts of the attack;

"3. With regard to article 8, paragraph 1, of Protocol II: It is the understanding of the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands that the words `as far as it is able' mean `as far as it is technically able'.

"4. With regard to article 1, paragraph 3, of Protocol III: It is the understanding of the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands that a specific area of land may also be a military objective if, because of its location or other reasons specified in paragraph 3, its total or partial destruction, capture, or neutralization in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definitive military advantage."

Romania

Upon signature:

2. Romania considers that the Convention and the three Protocols annexed thereto constitute a positive step within the framework of the efforts which have been made for the gradual development of international humanitarian law applicable during armed conflicts and which aim at providing very broad and reliable protection for the civilian population and the combatants.

3. At the same time, Romania would like to emphasize that the provisions of the Convention and its Protocols have a restricted character and do not ensure adequate protection either to the civilian population or to the combatants as the fundamental principles of international humanitarian law require.

4. The Romanian Government wishes to state on this occasion also that real and effective protection for each individual and for peoples and assurance of their right to a free and independent life necessarily presuppose the elimination of all acts of aggression and the renunciation once and for all of the use of force and the threat of the use of force, of intervention in the domestic affairs of other States and of the policy of domination and diktat and strict observation of the sovereignty and independence of peoples and their legitimate right to self-determination.

In the present circumstances, when a vast quantity of nuclear weapons has been accumulated in the world, the protection of each individual and of all peoples is closely linked with the struggle for peace and disarmament and with the adoption of authentic measures to halt the arms race and ensure the gradual reduction of nuclear weapons until they are totally eliminated.

5. The Romanian Government states once again its decision to act, together with other States, to ensure the prohibition or restriction of all conventional weapons which are excessively injurious or have indiscriminate effects, and the adoption of urgent and effective measures for nuclear disarmament which would protect peoples from the nuclear war which seriously threatens their right to life--a fundamental condition for the protection which international humanitarian law must ensure for the individual, the civilian population and the combatants.

Turkey

Reservation:

"Turkey is not bound by Additional Protocol I of 10 June 1977 to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949:

Therefore, Turkey, with reference to the scope of application defined in article 1 of the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons which may be deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to have Indiscriminate Effects, states that it will apply the Convention to all armed conflicts referred to in articles 2 and 3 common to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949.

Turkey also states that paragraph 4 of article 7 of this Convention shall not apply with respect to Turkey."

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Upon signature:

"The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland will give further consideration to certain provisions of the Convention, particularly in relation to the provisions of Protocol I additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and may wish to make formal declarations in relation to these provisions at the time of ratification."

Upon ratification:

(a) Generally

(i) The term "armed conflict" of itself and in its context denotes a situation of a kind which is not constituted by the com- mission of ordinary crimes, including acts of terrorism, whether concerted or in isolation.

(ii) The United Kingdom will not, in relation to any situation in which it is involved, consider itself bound in consequence of any declaration purporting to be made for the purposes of article 7 (4), unless the United Kingdom shall have expressly recognised that it has been made by a body which is genuinely an authority representing a people engaged in an armed conflict of the type to which that paragraph applies.

(iii) The terms "civilian" and "civilian population" have the same meaning as in article 50 of the 1st Additional Protocol of 1977 to the 1949 Geneva Conventions. Civilians shall enjoy the protection afforded by this Convention unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities.

(iv) Military commanders and others responsible for planning, deciding upon, or executing attacks necessarily have to reach decisions on the basis of their assessment of the information from all sources which is reasonably available to them at the relevant time.

(b) Re: Protocol II, article 2; and Protocol III, article 1

A specific area of land may be a military objective if, because of its location or other reasons specified in this article, its total or partial destruction, capture or neutralisation in the circumstances ruling at the time offers a definite military advantage.

In the view of the United Kingdom, the military advantage anticipated from an attack is intended to refer to the advantage anticipated from the attack considered as a whole and not only from isolated or particular parts of the attack.

(d) Re: Protocol III, article 2

The United Kingdom accepts the provisions of article 2 (2) and (3) on the understanding that the terms of those paragraphs of that article do not imply that the air-delivery of incendiary weapons, or of any other weapons, projectiles or munitions, is less accurate or less capable of being carried out discriminately than all or any other means of delivery.

United States of America

Upon signature:

"The United States Government welcomes the adoption of this Convention, and hopes that all States will give the most serious consideration to ratification or accession. We believe that the Convention represents a positive step forward in efforts to minimize injury or damage to the civilian population in time of armed conflict. Our signature of this Convention reflects the general willingness of the United States to adopt practical and reasonable provisions concerning the conduct of military operations, for the purpose of protecting noncombatants.

"At the same time, we want to emphasize that formal adherence by States to agreements restricting the use of weapons in armed conflict would be of little purpose if the parties were not firmly committed to taking every appropriate step to ensure compliance with those restrictions after their entry into force. It would be the firm intention of the United States and, we trust, all other parties to utilize the procedures and remedies provided by this Convention, and by the general laws of war, to see to it that all parties to the Convention meet their obligations under it. The United States strongly supported proposals by other countries during the Conference to include special procedures for dealing with compliance matters, and reserves the right to propose at a later date additional procedures and remedies, should this prove necessary, to deal with such problems.

"In addition, the United States of course reserves the right, at the time of ratification, to exercise the option provided by article 4 (3) of the Convention, and to make statements of understanding and/or reservations, to the extent that it may deem that to be necessary to ensure that the Convention and its Protocols conform to humanitarian and military requirements. As indicated in the negotiating record of the 1980 Conference, the prohibitions and restrictions contained in the Convention and its Protocols are of course new contractual rules (with the exception of certain provisions which restate existing international law) which will only bind States upon their ratification of, or accession to, the Convention and their consent to be bound by the Protocols in question."

Upon ratification:

Reservation:

"Article 7 (4) (b) of the Convention shall not apply with respect to the United States.

Declaration:

The United States declares, with reference to the scope of application defined in article 1 of the Convention, that the United States will apply the provisions of the Convention, Protocol I, and Protocol II to all armed conflicts referred to in articles 2 and 3 common to the Geneva Conventions for the Protection of War Victims of August 12, 1949.

Understandings :

The United States understands that article 6 (1) of the Protocol II does not prohibit the adaptation for use as booby-traps of portable objects created for a purpose other than as a booby-trap if the adaptation does not violate paragraph (1)(b) of the article.

The United States considers that the fourth paragraph of the preamble to the Convention, which refers to the substance of provisions of article 35 (3) and article 55 (1) of additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions for the Protection of War Victims of August 12, 1949, applies only to States which have accepted those provisions.

NOTES

1. See note 1 under "Montenegro" in the "Historical Information" section in the front matter of this volume.

2. The former Yugoslavia had signed and ratified the Convention on 5 May 1981 and 24 May 1983, respectively, consenting to be bound by Protocols I, II and III adopted on 10 October 1980. See also note 1 under "Bosnia and Herzegovina", "Croatia", "former Yugoslavia", "Slovenia", "The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" and "Yugoslavia" in the "Historical Information" section in the front matter of this volume.

3. See note 2 under "China" in the "Historical Information" section in the front matter of this volume.

4. Czechoslovakia had signed and ratified the Convention accepting Protocols I, II and III, on 10 April 1981 and 31 August 1982, respectively. See also note 1 under "Czech Republic" and note 1 under "Slovakia" in the "Historical Information" section in the front matter of this volume.

5. The German Democratic Republic had signed and ratified the Convention on 10 April 1981 and 20 July 1982, respectively, accepting all three Protocols. See also note 2 under "Germany" in the "Historical Information" section in the front matter of this volume.

6. A signature was affixed on behalf of the Lao People's Democratic Republic on 2 November 1982, i.e. after the time-limit of 10 April 1982 prescribed by article 3 of the Convention, as a result of an administrative oversight. The signature was cancelled; the Government of the Lao People's Democratic Republic subsequently acceded (on 3 January 1983) to the Convention, accepting the three Protocols.

7. For the Kingdom in Europe.

8. The protocols concerned are:

- Protocol on non-detectable fragments (Protocol I);

- Protocol on prohibitions or restrictions on the use of mines, booby-traps and other devices (Protocol II);

- Protocol on prohibitions or restrictions on the use of incendiary weapons (Protocol III).

Each participant must consent to be bound by any two or more of the Protocols. Acceptance of a Protocol is denoted by an "X". Unless otherwise indicated, acceptance was notified upon ratification, acceptance, approval of, accession or succession to the Convention.

Subsequent to the adoption of the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons which may be deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to have Indiscriminate Effects (with Protocols I, II and III), the following Protocols were adopted:

- Additional Protocol to the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons which may be deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to have Indiscriminate Effects (Protocol IV, entitled Protocol on Blinding Laser Weapons) (see chapter xxvi.2 a);

- Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices as amended on 3 May 1996 (Protocol II as amended on 3 May 1996) annexed to the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons which may be deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to have Indiscriminate Effects (see chapter xxvi.2 b);

- Protocol on Explosive Remnants of War to the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons which may be deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to have Indiscriminate Effects (Protocol V) (see chapter xxvi. 2 d).

Participants may also consent to be bound by these Protocols in order to comply with the requirement set forth in article 4 (3) of the Convention which provides as follows:

"Expressions of consent to be bound by any of the Protocols annexed to this Convention shall be optional for each State, provided that at the time of the deposit of its instrument of ratification, acceptance or approval of this Convention or of accession thereto, that State shall notify the Depositary of its consent to be bound by any annexed Protocol by which it is not already bound."