Dear participants,
I am greatly honoured to have been invited to attend and speak at this conference. My remarks today will be made in my personal capacity.
This conference comes at a crucial times when many of the principles and norms that have been established through painstaking processes of negotiations and cooperation over the past 60 years – are challenged and undermined.
Russia's aggression against Ukraine is the most dramatic development but these trends of challenges to the multilateral and international law based system have been going on for longer.
One of the gains that is today at stake is the progress achieved in what is called humanitarian disarmament in the past 25 yrs. I was asked to give some reflections on this.
1) Firstly, what is “Humanitarian Disarmament”?
I am not aware of a precise definition of it but I think this description is quite accurate: Humanitarian disarmament seeks to prevent and remediate arms-inflicted human suffering and environmental harm through the establishment and implementation of norms. This approach to disarmament is people-centered in substance and process. Also, Humanitarian Disarmament is guided by a bottom-up, rights-based approach, which emphasizes the rights of conflict- and displacement-affected communities to safety and security.
Humanitarian disarmament is thus a human security approach.
Humanitarian disarmament also juxtaposes the military utility of weapons and weapons systems – such as for example antipersonnel landmines and cluster munitions – with the effects – short and long-term –- these weapons have on civilians and affected communities. So it is a "military utility versus an effects-based" approach.
The focus is partly the indiscriminate or inhumane nature of certain weapons; other weapons systems are problematic due to the manner of their use, their trade and proliferation, or their lingering effects.
The conceptual basis of this approach is on the security of people rather than the security of states and on increasing the protection of civilians by reducing the human and environmental impacts of weapons.
“Humanitarian” focusses on people and their security and on the prevention and remediation of humanitarian harm, and “disarmament” refers to a broad range of issues and actions –- from destroying weapons, to prohibiting their use production, development etc., to clearing up weapons such as UXOs, to activities related to the rights of victims – victim assistance care rehabilitation, socio-economic inclusion and their rights.
Disarmament is used here as a means to address – in the sense of remediation and prevention – urgent humanitarian and human security problems and challenges. This is different from the more traditional disarmament and arms control approaches which refer more to the codification of eliminations or reductions of weapons systems that major military powers have concluded of either not requiring them anymore or where a limitation serves their security and stability interests.
Disarmament is used here as a means to address - in the sense of remediation and prevention - urgent humanitarian and human security problems and challenges. This is different from the more traditional disarmament and arms control approaches which refer more to the codification of eliminations or reductions of weapons systems that major military powers have concluded of either not requiring them anymore or where a limitation serves their security and stability interests.
However, Humanitarian Disarmament has also come to represents other aspects; a different approach to disarmament diplomacy.
It means a democratic approach to disarmament that gives voice to states and communities that are often disenfranchised in multilateral affairs, which are dominated by the interests of so-called major players.
I am not aware of a precise definition of it but I think this description is quite accurate: Humanitarian disarmament seeks to prevent and remediate arms-inflicted human suffering and environmental harm through the establishment and implementation of norms. This approach to disarmament is people-centered in substance and process. Also, Humanitarian Disarmament is guided by a bottom-up, rights-based approach, which emphasizes the rights of conflict- and displacement-affected communities to safety and security.
weapons such as UXOs, to activities related to the rights of victims – victim assistance care rehabilitation, socio-economic inclusion and their rights.
Disarmament is used here as a means to address - in the sense of remediation and prevention - urgent humanitarian and human security problems and challenges. This is different from the more traditional disarmament and arms control approaches which refer more to the codification of eliminations or reductions of weapons systems that major military powers have concluded of either not requiring them anymore or where a limitation serves their security and stability interests.
It means a democratic approach to disarmament that gives voice to states and communities that are often disenfranchised in multilateral affairs, which are dominated by the interests of so-called major players.
This is demonstrated by the manner in which the humanitarian disarmament treaties were negotiated - either through ad hoc processes or through the UN General Assembly.
These processes challenges the absolute control of multilateral disarmament frameworks by the powerful states, for example by rejecting the consensus obligation – which often leads to a veto mind-set – and that has come to dominate the traditional disarmament processes. The priority that is given to the solution to humanitarian challenges does not lead itself to outcomes that only represent a lowest common denominator. The strength of the humanitarian disarmament norm is, thus, given precedent to universal membership of the outcome.
Humanitarian disarmament processes are also characterized by a multi stakeholder involvement. These processes are more open to academia, NGOs, experts and affected community representatives.
Humanitarian Disarmament represents a more internationalist, common and collective security approach that is based on shared rights and norms and a human security vision. It therefore also represents a globalist perspective of security that is partly a counter model to a narrower national security perspective of states.
Moreover, humanitarian disarmament gives due importance to the nexus between security and development, namely the socio-economic impact of the use of weapons, of the arms trade, the use of resources for armaments as against for socio-economic purposes.
2) I want to also address the successes and limitations of humanitarian disarmament approach:
I would say the main success is what I have already talked about: it is to have developed the humanitarian disarmament concept in the first place –- and to have established it in the international discourse on weapons issues and an integral part of disarmament diplomacy.
This was done against significant resistance.
The key successes that are usually referred to are to have created legally binding instruments that contain strong prohibition norms on specific weapons categories: primarily the Mine Ban Treaty (1997), the Convention on Cluster Munitions (2009) and the Treaty on the Prohibition on Nuclear Weapons – TPNW (2017).
It is very significant to have achieved these three treaties on weapons categories where multilateral work has been going on for a long time but progress was illusive due to the resistance of some of the major military powers. These treaties were achieved despite and against the objections of some of those states through a combination of public diplomacy and effective multi stakeholder cooperation.
However, the humanitarian disarmament approach has also influenced other significant treaties and instruments such the Programme of Action on Small Arms and Light Weapons (2001), the Arms Trade Treaty (2013) –- as well as the recent political declaration on the Use of Explosive Weapons in Populated Areas (2022). You can also see it impacting on the current multilateral discussions on Autonomous Weapons Systems.
The humanitarian disarmament argument was relatively easy to make in the case of landmines and cluster munitions. While there is a possible military utility of employing such weapons at certain moment in a conflict, it pales in light of the long- lasting humanitarian and socio-economic impact for affected communities long after the conflict has ended.
If a child is maimed 20-30 yrs after mines were laid, the military utility becomes very hard to justify. The same goes when cluster munitions with failure rates of up to 50% remain in the ground as dangerous explosive remnants of war (as we used to call them).
These are the most significant successes of humanitarian disarmament because these treaties saw a large uptake by affected states, a significant change of state practice, weapons stockpile destruction, cleared land and victim assistance.
Nevertheless, these norms are still very contested – and are challenged by conflicts such as in Syria, Yemen and now in Ukraine.
The case of Ukraine is particularly challenging with massive use of mines and cluster munitions by Russia in complete disregard of the humanitarian norms. The recent delivery of cluster munitions to Ukraine by the USA was widely reported and criticised. Ukraine is a state party of the AP Mine Ban Convention but not of the Convention on Cluster Munitions. This raises difficult ethical issue given that Ukraine’'s case for legitimate self-defence is so obvious. However, I believe that we will see that the case for humanitarian disarmament –- and the prohibition of use of these indiscriminate weapons –- will be very clear if and when this conflict will be over. The humanitarian and socio-economic of these weapons will regrettably be immense.
On the nuclear weapons issue, making the humanitarian disarmament case for the TPNW is at the same time easier and very obvious as well as more challenging.
One the one hand, the humanitarian consequences and human security dimension of nuclear weapons are very clear. They were also the focus of the international community at the international conferences on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons. These conferences presented a significant body of research that the consequences and risks of nuclear weapons are more severe and more complex than previously assumed. The focus on nuclear weapons, thus, cannot be remediation, it must be prevention.
On the other hand, while the military utility of NWs is very much in question, their political and strategic value is considered very high by those states have these weapons or rely on security assurances by nuclear armed states.
The nuclear weapons discourse is one of the most contested spaces in international relations and this is also very visible on the TPNW.
It is a really significant success that TPNW was achieved against very forceful opposition by the nuclear armed states, which continues to this day. They still apply pressure on states not to join the treaty – nNevertheless, 93 have signed and 69 ratified and the membership will continue to grow.
The TPNW and the humanitarian focus had significant impact on the global nuclear debate. It challenges the nuclear status quo, the legality and legitimacy of a security approach based on nuclear weapons and nuclear deterrence. It raises very profound issues related to international justice and intergenerational justice and it is based on significant scientific evidence of new research[1] on the humanitarian consequences and risks of nuclear weapons.
The core argument is, thus, that nuclear deterrence, as practiced by a limited number of states, comes with extremely high risks and thus at the expense of the security of all other countries, whose populations could end up as collateral damage in much more severe ways than previously understood. The notion that nuclear weapons are essential for the security of some states must therefore be considered as questionable from a factual and ethical standpoint and is of high relevance not only for states that have them but for all humanity.
The humanitarian disarmament approach to nuclear weapons makes the case for a paradigm shift. It has high legal, political and discursive importance at a time when we see in many states a re-focus on nuclear weapons and nuclear deterrence and where the nuclear taboo looks fragile and nuclear proliferation pressures are getting bigger.
Limits and challenges of humanitarian disarmament
The logic that a strong norm (over universality) will create normative pressure and will change behaviour change state practice had some but not overarching success. It is difficult to reach the discourse in the big military powers. Moreover, there is more debate in democratic states but little impact in autocratic ones.
The broadening of the understanding of security as human security did get traction from the 1990s onwards. But today it is challenged increasingly and in danger as we see more retraction into a military and state centred understanding of security and a loss of trust in multilateral and international law based approaches. The Russian aggression against Ukraine has had a significant negative impact in some states that were more open to the humanitarian disarmament approach in the past, in particular in Europe.
Moreover, the political priority of small- and medium-sized states that tend to promote the humanitarian disarmament approach is often no match to the priority (and clout) that big military powers give the maintaining the status quo and their more state- and military- centred view of security. The human security logic often loses out against these powerful interests.
Lack of resources is another challenge. The humanitarian disarmament approach is supported by the vast majority of states, in particular also from global south but it was carried – financially but also substantially – to a significant degree by Western democracies. This dimension must not be underestimated. If people who develop these argument, such as through funding for NGOs and academic experts don’t have financial resources, the impact is very significant. Humanitarian disarmament suffers today from a significant funding shortage.
What should be done?
A slide in to geopolitical tensions, multiple arms race dynamics and the weakening of the multilateral and international law based international system cannot be in the interest of the vast majority of states. In fact, it must be in the vital interest of this majority and indeed of all humanity to counter such trends with urgency and determination. The humanitarian disarmament approach is a vital component of this.
Despite these challenges, or rather because of them, it is today even more important to keep states engaged in these debates, as all states have agency and very legitimate security concerns. It is important to enlarge and broaden the debates about what security means, whose security we should talk about, what effects weapons have and whether the threat of mass destruction can be a sustainable basis for international peace and security. Positive change on these intractable and difficult issues can only come through much broader and inclusive societal and international multi-stakeholder discourses.
As Albert Einstein said in 1947 on the nuclear weapons issue: “The basic power of the universe cannot be fitted into the outmoded concept of narrow nationalisms. For there is no secret and there is no defense; there is no possibility of control except through the aroused understanding and insistence of the peoples of the world (...) and that our only (is) that an informed citizenry will act for life and not death.”.
Thank you
[1] Understanding the Humanitarian Consequences and Risks of Nuclear_Weapons