Activities of the International Committee of the Red Cross in the field of conventional arms control

The International Committee of the Red Cross is a unique international humanitarian organization that operates worldwide. The main goal of the entity is to ameliorate the sufferings of the wounded and sick during an armed conflict. Throughout time the aims and tasks of the Red Cross have undergone significant changes. Nowadays, the ICRC is not simply a unit that provides medical aid but also the entity that strives to promote and develop international humanitarian law, ameliorate the sufferings of wounded and sick, and ensure decent conditions for prisoners of war, and tackling with weapons issue. The Red Cross has been evolving and nowadays it is the most significant international humanitarian entity in the world.
The ICRC is unique not only because of its mission, task, and principles but also due to its status in international relations. The entity is sui generis, which means one of its kind. By its features, it simultaneously resembles non - governmental and international organizations. On the one hand, it was founded by private individuals and still is governed by them, However, on the other hand, it holds a mandate on its work by the nation-states, and it possesses an international legal personality. The majority of the international community treats it as an international organization, and it operates as an international organization in many ways. However, still, it remains to be independent of the intervention of third parties. Logically, it is one of its kind, and such status helps the entity fulfill its tasks and goals in the international arena.
For quite a long time, the weapons issue was not attributed to the Red Cross, even though members of the organization proclaimed that the ICRC, right from the creation, was engaged with the weapons problem. The founding father of the entity draw attention to the weapons issue, and some ex and current associates of the entity has ensured that weapons for the ICRC are the sphere of interests. However, only at the beginning of the XX century appeals of the organization concerning weapons problem were visible, even though conventional weapons control was not a part of thorough investigation of the entity until the 1950-s.
In the middle of the XX century, the ICRC committed the first steps in what is now known as conventional arms control. It started with the cautious tactics, by implementing the following methods: outreaching investigation of the conventional weapons and raising awareness about the problem. Such methods were perceived as highly cautious and careful by scholars because activities which implemented those methods were not provocative or decisive. For the implementation of the methods the ICRC used the following activities: it organized outside expert meetings and participated in the governmental expert meetings, it issued different introductory, not legally binding documentation. Also, the ICRC conducted discrete communication with governments and did not go beyond states’ consent in the area of weapons
control. Actions and strategy which the ICRC chose to apply did not cause any significant changes in the conventional arms control and disarmament field.
Until the beginning of the 1990-s, the ICRC wanted to be a friend to states and did not advocate or lobby for certain actions towards the conventional weapons problem. It chose to be an entity that provided information but did not dictate what should actors do with it. Such a tactic was simply explained by the unwillingness of the entity to lose states’ goodwill. Those were the governments who mandated the ICRC to do its job, and the entity did not want to be deprived of the ability to fulfill its primary task, namely help wounded and sick during the armed conflicts. So, initially, the International Committee of the Red Cross was humble and careful in conducting its strategy in conventional weapons control.
Everything changed in the 1990-s when the ICRC expanded its scope of methods applicable to conventional weapons control. It added such methods as advocating for the restriction or prohibition of certain conventional weapons, facilitation of negotiation process of conventional weapons norm, support of the national implementation of weapons restrictions, and facilitation of adherence to conventional weapons norms. With the expansion of the methods, activities implemented in those methods expanded. Moreover, nowadays, the ICRC implements a broad scope of methods and activities appropriate for conventional weapons control.
Advocating was a logical development of such methods as outreaching and raising awareness. Although advocacy seemed irrelevant for the neutral and impartial organization, the ICRC applied this method to the convention weapons control. The Red Cross became the first entity that called for the total prohibition of a certain type of conventional weapons - landmines. Later, it started an ambitious media campaign that was of great help to the prohibition of antipersonnel landmines. Also, it appealed for a cluster munition ban and imposing restrictions on uncontrolled arms transfer. Now it is striving for the limitations on lethal autonomous weapons systems. So, advocating became an essential and efficient method of the ICRC in conventional weapons control.
In the 1990-s, at the beginning of the humanitarian arms control era, the ICRC started to be invited to the conventional weapons treaty negotiations. Even with the observer status, the Red Cross got a chance to be integrated into the treaty discussion. During the Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention negotiation, the ICRC delivered submissions and statements which shaped the course of the talks, and some ideas proposed by the entity were incorporated in the final version of the treaty. The same happened with the Cluster munition Convention and Arms Trade Treaty negotiations; the ICRC also delivered statements and submissions where expressed its opinion about the ban and what should be included in the final document. Yes, it remained to be outside of the adoption of the treaties, it did not gain governmental status. However, the chance 62
to deliver its position among those who would implement the norm was of great importance for the ICRC and the course of humanitarianism as a whole. Later on, it continued to take part in the norm negotiation process and shape the course of the talks. In comparison, during the negotiation of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (1979-1980), the ICRC did not have a great chance to be heard and did not influence the course of talks. However, since the beginning of the 1990-s, the Red Cross became an important actor in the conventional weapons control negotiation process.
After the creation of conventional weapons legal norms, the Red Cross facilitated their universality and support its national implementation. However, before such methods were applied to the Geneva law, in the frames of conventional weapons control, there were not used. Moreover, such methods were applied to conventional weapons control only after the end of the Cold war, so there could not be any comparison with the times before the 1990-s.
For facilitation of the adherence to the legal norms, the ICRC started to apply its usual cautious tactics. Firstly, the entity did not persuade states to adhere to restrictions but in general terms pointed out the importance of universalization. Nevertheless, lately, the entity started to add new activities for the implementation of the method. It started not only publicly addressing the issue of universality, but issuing special kits, which were aimed at the guidance of states in ratifying certain weapons norms. It launched traveling exhibitions, which explained the peculiarities of treaties and promoted conventional weapons norms. It is still doing all those activities, as not a single conventional weapon’s norm became universal.
The ICRC did not only add new activities to the method implementation but improved fulfillment of some of them. At the beginning of the XXI century, the Red Cross quit to be humble in its public appeals concerning the universalization issue but started to be persuasive. Instead of using neutral wording, the entity started operating with such terms as “encourage”, “must” and “call on”. That imperative rhetoric became visible and influential. The shift from careful to persuasive wording is explained by the conditions in which the entity operated. Despite the fact, that conventional weapons norms were adopted and came into force, the speed of adherence to them slowed down. And in this situation, the ICRC tried to find a way to attract states to accede to the norms. And if such a way was to be persuasive and sharp, so that was the option.
In addition, the ICRC could not stand but provide help with the national implementation of conventional weapons control treaties. After all, without proper compliance with the provisions, any legal restrictions will not work at all. The ICRC provided support for the national implementation of the Geneva law, but for the conventional arms control, it started to do so only after the beginning of the 1990-s. It could not persuade states to follow provisions of treaties; it 63
simply did not have enough capabilities to dictate what states should do in their domestic policy. However, the ICRC wanted to ensure decent compliance with conventional arms control, which is why it started to undertake careful and discreet steps aiming at guiding states in the process of national implementation of weapons-related treaties.
For the sake of the method, the entity created a special unit, which now deals specifically with the national implementation issues. The Advisory Service on International Humanitarian Law helps states to comprehend how to implement certain provisions and adjust them to the given domestic legal system. The Advisory Service issues module laws, provides translation of legal documents, provides advisors to the governments concerning the national implementation. However, it does not persuade states to do certain steps, but acting more like legal advisers or secretariat. The entity does not have the mandate to dictate what states must do in their internal affairs, in their domestic politics. The entity only has a chance to guide governments throughout implementation but does not force them to follow provisions. Since the beginning of the 1990-s, the method of assistance or supporting national implementation has not changed. However, the scope of activities to implement the method expanded.
To conclude, the International Committee of the Red Cross possesses various scope of methods and activities implemented in conventional arms control. Such tactics and tools have undergone some changes after the end of the Cold War. First of all, the scope of the methods has changed. Nowadays, the ICRC applies six essential tactics to the conventional weapons issue. In the 1990-s such methods as advocating, assistance in national implementation, facilitation of universalization, and national implementation were added to already existed outreaching for investigation of conventional weapons and raising awareness. With the addition of new tactics, the ICRC did not abandon or neglect the “original” methods but started using them as the basis for the implementation of other methods. The entity continued investigation of weapons, raising awareness about the problem, however, it stopped waiting so much time on fulfillment those methods. The shortening of time between moving from one method to another was possible due to the development of the new technologies and due to gaining respect from main actors in the field of arms control and disarmament. The Red Cross proved to be helpful and credible in the coping with weapons issue; that is why it did not need to be so cautious anymore and did not have to spend so much time on careful preparation to the decisive actions towards conventional weapons issue.


Купить