What Is Ottawa Agreement

April: The first draft of the future "Ottawa Convention" was presented informally by the Austrian representative at the Review Conference of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW), Mr. Werner Ehrlich, frustrated by the lack of progress towards a complete ban at that conference. [16] [17] The Council, acting on behalf of the Organization, may conclude additional agreements with one or more Member States amending the provisions of this Agreement in respect of that State or States. 10 December: The United Nations General Assembly adopts resolution 51/45 S: "An international agreement to ban anti-personnel mines", supported by 115 sponsors. Its first operational paragraph urges States to "vigorously seek an effective and legally binding international convention on the prohibition of the use, stockpiling, production and transfer of anti-personnel landmines so that negotiations can be concluded as soon as possible". [40] The Ottawa Accords were 12 bilateral trade agreements providing for reciprocal tariff concessions and certain other obligations, negotiated in Ottawa from July 20 to August 20, 1932 by Great Britain, Canada and other Commonwealth dominions and territories. They can be seen as the culmination of a trend towards imperial preference that began with Canada`s unilateral granting of such preferences in 1897. Canadian industries that may have benefited from the agreements included wheat cultivation, logging and milling, apple growing, automotive manufacturing, and the non-ferrous metals industry. Canada`s negotiators, eager to win a lot and give a little, nevertheless promised to allow British manufacturers conditions that would give them a fair chance in the Canadian market. Canada has also lowered some tariffs on British products while increasing them on some non-British products, widening the gap between normal and preferential rates, angering the United States.

12 December: The United Nations General Assembly adopts resolution 50/70 O "Moratorium on the export of anti-personnel mines", which calls on States to declare such a moratorium and reach consensus on an agreement when the Review Conference (the Convention on the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons) reconvenes. Indication i.a.: "Also encourages the continuation of direct international efforts to find solutions to the problems caused by anti-personnel landmines, with a view to the eventual elimination of anti-personnel landmines; (operational paragraph 6)"[15] This first draft already provided for a complete ban on the use, production, transfer and stockpiling of anti-personnel mines, required the destruction of stockpiles within one year of entry into force and the clearance of delocalised anti-personnel mines within five years. It represents the heart of what was later elaborated in the first Draft Austrian text of the Ottawa Agreement [1932], a series of trade policy initiatives adopted by Britain and its dominions. The Ottawa Conference of 1932 produced not only one, but seven separate agreements, which the Argentines called the "Black Pacts." Although the fanatically anti-Argentine press baron Lord Beaverbrook saw no difference between these pacts and an eighth between London and Buenos Aires, there was still a crucial difference. While the Dominions strove to maximize a lead in the British market, the Argentines struggled to minimize a setback. The former made revealing arguments: first, Britain had long enjoyed preferences in the imperial markets and had made few concessions in return. With the suspension of free trade and the imposition of tariffs, the dominions could push for much more. As the Great Depression required compassion and the Statute of Westminster (1931) weakened London`s political control, the ensuing imperial consolidation had to be economic. The main impact of the Ottawa agreements for Argentina was that 33.2% of British imports were now subject to tariffs, up from 17.3% just before the conference. (Before 1930, none of them were the subject.) There were also sharp reductions in Argentina`s exports, which allowed the dominions to export more to the United Kingdom. To counter these cuts, the controversial Roca Runciman Pact between London and Buenos Aires was negotiated in 1933.

Criticism from academics, security officials and diplomats is based on both the political process and the substance. The campaign for what became the Ottawa Treaty was led by a group of powerful non-governmental organizations, and instead of working within existing multilateral frameworks, including the Conference on Disarmament, which was located at the United Nations site in Geneva (the Palais des Nations), an ad hoc framework was created that bypassed existing intergovernmental processes. Critics have argued that this poses a challenge to the sovereignty and responsibility of nation-states to defend their citizens. [85] The wise way to achieve this goal was to insist on the conduct of the relevant negotiations within the framework of the United Nations Forum for Disarmament Negotiations, the Conference on Disarmament (CD). The problem was that the Conference on Disarmament had become a dead end for many years, because of fundamental disagreements among Member States on its agenda and because of the consensus rule that gave each Member the de facto right of veto. [44] Opponents point out that the Ottawa Convention does not impose any restrictions on anti-vehicle mines that kill civilians on tractors, school buses, etc. The position of the United States is that the inhumane nature of landmines does not stem from the fact that they are anti-personnel rather than anti-vehicle, but from their persistence. The United States has unilaterally committed itself to never using persistent landmines of any kind, either against personnel or vehicles, which it believes is a more comprehensive humanitarian measure than the Ottawa Convention. .