Cookies Policy
X

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.

I accept this policy

Find out more here

The Convention on Cluster Munitions and the Clearance of Cluster Munition Remnants: Whose Responsibility, and How to Ensure Effective Implementation?

No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
The full text of this article is not currently available.

Brill’s MyBook program is exclusively available on BrillOnline Books and Journals. Students and scholars affiliated with an institution that has purchased a Brill E-Book on the BrillOnline platform automatically have access to the MyBook option for the title(s) acquired by the Library. Brill MyBook is a print-on-demand paperback copy which is sold at a favorably uniform low price.

Access this article

+ Tax (if applicable)
Add to Favorites
You must be logged in to use this functionality

Under the Convention on Cluster Munitions, the obligation to clear cluster munition remnants is the responsibility of States that have jurisdiction or control over the affected area. This responsibility is coupled with an obligation to provide assistance for each State Party “in a position to do so.” In other words, clearance of cluster munition remnants is a collective responsibility. Collective responsibility may not, however, be implemented if not accompanied by adequate supervision; which States discharge collective responsibility concretely, as well as when and how it is discharged is open to interpretation, so it can easily be evaded or ignored. This article argues that: (1) the idea of collective responsibility for the clearance of cluster munition remnants in this convention is genuinely supported by the States Parties; and (2) this convention is equipped with a supervisory mechanism for the effective implementation of this collective responsibility. Supervision under the Convention on Cluster Munitions includes Meetings of States Parties, Review Conferences, intersessional meetings, and working groups for thematic discussions. The experience since the entry into force of the convention in 2010 shows that together they function as quasi-constant fora of monitoring, exchange of views, and persuasion. These supervisory mechanisms do not enforce the collective responsibility, but motivate States Parties to implement it.

Affiliations: 1: Associate Professor, Kobe University, GSICS, nmika@kobe-u.ac.jp

10.1163/18781527-00302003
/content/journals/10.1163/18781527-00302003
dcterms_title,pub_keyword,dcterms_description,pub_author
6
3
Loading
Loading

Full text loading...

/content/journals/10.1163/18781527-00302003
Loading

Data & Media loading...

http://brill.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1163/18781527-00302003
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1163/18781527-00302003
2012-01-01
2016-12-02

Sign-in

Can't access your account?
  • Tools

  • Add to Favorites
  • Printable version
  • Email this page
  • Subscribe to ToC alert
  • Get permissions
  • Recommend to your library

    You must fill out fields marked with: *

    Librarian details
    Your details
    Why are you recommending this title?
    Select reason:
     
    Journal of International Humanitarian Legal Studies — Recommend this title to your library
  • Export citations
  • Key

  • Full access
  • Open Access
  • Partial/No accessInformation