261. Report of the U.S. Delegation to the Diplomatic Conference on the Reaffirmation and Development of International Humanitarian Law Applicable in Armed Conflicts, Third Session1 2
[Omitted here is material unrelated to human rights policy.]
III. CONCLUSIONS
(a) Evaluation of the Conference
The third session of the diplomatic conference hit many snags, some expected and some unexpected. Unlike the first session and like the second session, it was not preoccupied by divisive political issues, and the work was generally carried out in a cooperative sprit. Under the plan of work set forward by Swiss Foreign Minister Grater, there is a chance that the conference will complete its work by the end of the fourth session in 1977.
Considerable progress was again made in Committees II and III. These Committees have completed the lion’s share of their work, and it should be feasible for them to complete their remaining tasks in the first four weeks of the next session of the conference. Committee I, however, continues to be a disappointment. With numerous and controversial articles remaining to be dealt with, there is no chance, under the present methods of work, that Committee I could complete its work at the fourth session of the conference. The only way the work could be completed would involve either a radical change in the Committee’s attitudes and work methods, or the reassignment on a significant portion of the remaining Committee I articles to different main committees of the conference, or preferably both.
The Ad Hoc Committee on Conventional Weapons was stalled and did not begin to function as a main committee of the [Page 3] conference, considering articles and amendments. Perhaps a somewhat lower degree of interest in the work of the Ad Hoc Committee is evident, but certain countries continue to press strongly for results and even to indicate that, in their view, progress on the two Protocols is linked to progress in the Ad Hoc Committee.
As in previous years, the interests of the United States appeared reasonably well served. In Committee I, the U.S. was successful in achieving the adoption of an article on grave breaches which, for the most part, appears to be workable. In Committee II, major U.S. objectives were achieved in the adoption of a new regime for the protection of medical aircraft and of provisions dealing with the missing and the dead. In addition, Committee II completed the work on the technical Annex concerning the identification of medical aircraft and other medical transport and wrapped up certain loose ends in the articles dealing with the wounded, sick and shipwrecked in both Protocols. Committee III completed work on all articles on means and methods of combat in international armed conflicts, with results generally in line with U.S. positions, and completed work on all but two Protocol II articles assigned to it.
Work on Protocol II articles continues in all main committees, but a substantial number of developing countries, fearing that a protocol on non-international conflicts will lessen their ability to suppress rebellion, have continued to reserve their position on Protocol II.
Not only is the work in Committee I lagging, but it will be difficult for the conference as a whole to adopt plenary articles adopted in any of the main committees until the Drafting Committee of the conference has made further progress. At the third session, the Drafting Committee was a dismal failure and made only slight progress in its important work of technical review and alignment of the texts, which is necessary if they are to be adopted in final form in plenary of the conference. If anything, by referring articles back to Committee II instead of to plenary, it caused regression.
The conference must wrap up its work and adopt the Protocols at the 1977 session. Adoption of the provisions previously achieved on protecting powers, on medical aircraft, [Page 4] and, this year, on the missing and dead, are in the interests of the United States; and it is in our interest to see these articles translated into new rules of binding international law. However, the results on several outstanding key issues to be considered at the fourth session of the conference could well dictate the final U.S. position on the protocol on international armed conflicts. The protocol on non-international armed conflicts is in much worse shape, and it is not clear at the present time what the position of the U.S. on this will ultimately be.
(b) Future Work
The chronology of future events relating to the conference will be as follows:
Fall 1976—The U.N. General Assembly will again have on its agenda various topics relating to the diplomatic conference. The first (Political) Committee will consider matters relating to conventional weapons. The Third (Social, Humanitarian, Cultural) Committee will consider the topic of journalists. The Sixth (Legal) Committee will consider, in general, the progress made on international humanitarian law. It is likely that the U.N. will confine itself to procedural resolutions since the work is near its conclusion.
January 3–21, 1977—An experts meeting will be held in Geneva to consider the technical preparatory work done by the conference secretariat and the ICRC for the conference Drafting Committee.
March 17-June 10, 1977—the fourth session of the diplomatic conference on the reaffirmation and development of international humanitarian law applicable in armed conflict meets in Geneva, Switzerland. The schedule for the conference is as follows:
- —March 17—formal opening of the conference.
- —March 17-April 7—Conference Drafting Committee meets.
- —April 13—Bureau of the conference meets.
- —April 14—Plenary of the conference meets.
- —April 15—Main Committees of the conference meet, [Page 5] scheduled to last for about four weeks, with final plenary meetings thereafter for adoption of articles and the Protocols and signature of the final act and Protocols.
- —June 10—conference closes.
The third session of the conference was reasonably productive, but disappointing for anyone who wished to see at least the substantive work on the key issues completed in 1976. There is every reason to hope that the fourth session win be the final session and the work will be completed. However, both past experiences and the work methods of the conference do not permit one to be overly optimistic. The pitfalls facing the conference are many. The task of Committee I seems beyond its capabilities. Whether the Secretariat’s work and the January experts meeting, as well as the three weeks of additional meetings scheduled at the commencement of the conference can permit the conference Drafting Committee to accomplish its task remains to be seen. What will happen to the Ad Hoc Committee on Conventional Weapons is uncertain. And these are but the procedural problems, leaving aside the inherent substantive difficulties in the articles yet to be dealt with. If time and resources to complete the work were limitless, there is no question that the work would eventually be completed. But this is not the case. The chances, consequently, of achieving a final result rest in the determination, or lack of it, of the participants. The United States Delegation has spared no effort to achieve a positive result and will continue in this vein at the next session.
- Source: National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy Files, P760175–0038. No classification marking. It was transmitted to Kissinger by Aldrich. Prepared by Bettauer. Only the conclusions section is published.↩
- The conclusion assessed the third session and the likelihood of an acceptable final result.↩