From a State Department “media note” released last Friday:

On January 21, the United States deposited its instruments of ratification for Protocols III, IV, and V of the Convention on Conventional Weapons (”CCW“) and for an amendment to that Convention. Protocol III covers incendiary weapons, Protocol IV covers blinding laser weapons, and Protocol V deals with explosive remnants of war. The Amendment expands the scope of the Convention to non-international armed conflicts.

The United States took a leading role in negotiating these protocols and the amendment, has long complied with the norms contained in them, and is pleased to become a party to each of them. This action reaffirms our commitment to the development and implementation of international humanitarian law.

The CCW and its Protocols are part of a legal regime that regulates the use of particular types of conventional weapons that may be deemed to pose special risks of having indiscriminate effects or causing unnecessary suffering. The CCW is a framework convention. States Parties to the CCW negotiate protocols within this framework to regulate specific types of weapons. States ratify each protocol separately.

According to Wikipedia, the Convention has five separate protocols:

Protocol I restricts weapons with non-detectable fragments.

Protocol II restricts landmines, booby traps.

Protocol III restricts incendiary weapons.

Protocol IV restricts blinding laser weapons (adopted on October 13, 1995, in Vienna).

Protocol V sets out obligations and best practice for the clearance of explosive remnants of war, adopted on November 28, 2003 in Geneva.

The United States had already signed** Protocols I and II, but until now had not agreed to the provisions of the other three.  (To be considered a signatory, a country had to sign at least two of the five, so the U.S. was a signatory to the Convention in fact if not in spirit.

So why is this important?  First, this is yet another repudiation of Bush.  The Convention is an annex to the Geneva Convention, one largely uncontroversial outside of the Cheney-Bolton-Whack-job wing of the Republican Party.  This represents not merely a willingness to work withing existing international norms, but also a promise to adhere to the laws of war — a view with which the Bushies were vehemently (and notoriously) disagreed.  Somewhere, John Bolton and David Addington are developing facial tics.

Second, Protocol V obligates the United States to agree to standards on the “explosive remnants of war.”  Although this includes unexploded munitions such as cluster bomb fragments, it also includes certain types of mines.  in fact, the negotiations leading to Protocol V, which failed to include all land mines, ultimately led to the Ottawa Treaty, which bans all anti-personnel mines — also known as land mines.

Both the Clinton and Bush Administrations refused to sign or ratify the Ottawa treaty in large part because land mines are a key component of the U.S.-South Korean defensive perimeter — in fact there are over one million anti-personnel mines along the DMZ.

It’s too early to tell whether the Obama Administration’s decision to sign Protocol V will lead to a decision to become a signatory to the Ottawa Treaty, but it certainly looks promising.  That said, my guess is that even if the U.S. signs, the Administration is unlikely to submit the Ottawa Treaty to the Senate for ratification:  Republicans would use such a step to pillory Obama as soft on North Korea.

In fact, I’d be surprised to see the Administration do more than sign all such “controversial” treaties.  I would prefer ratification, of course, but we’re not yet in a place where issues like land mines and the International Criminal Court are not controversial.  Until that day comes (I hope soon), we’ll have to settle for the Administration’s determination to adhere by these treaties and conventions’ standards even if they do enjoy the force of law.

*WONK NOTE:  For those unfamiliar with treaty law, there are two steps:  signing and ratifying.  In the press release, the Administration says that it has “deposited its instruments of ratification,” which means it has signed the treaty.  For the United States to become an actual party to the convention (known in treatyland as a “state party”), the Senate must ratify it by a two-thirds majority, per Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution.  Given the Republicans’ active dislike of international law, and given the fact that Democrats would need at least seven Republicans (66 votes) to support any attempt to ratify, those treaties obligating the U.S. military to do things it does not want to do (like ban land mines) are unlikely to be submitted to the Senate by any Administration, no matter how worthy they may be.

Related posts

• When You’re Wrong. . .
• Ambassador for All War Crimes except Our Own
• What’s Missing at DNC: Torture, Guantanamo. . .and Cheney
• Jack Cade, White Courtesy Phone Please
• Was McCain Tortured? Ask Dick Cheney