| Acronym Institute Home Page | Calendar | UN/CD | NPT/IAEA | UK | US | Space/BMD |
| CTBT | BWC | CWC | WMD Possessors | About Acronym | Links | Glossary |
Issue No. 67, October - November 2002
A Report and Analysis of the Seventh Session of the Conference of States Parties
By Fiona Tregonning
The Seventh Session of the Conference of the States Parties (the Conference) of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) convened in The Hague from October 7 to 11, 2002. As the highest decision-making body of the OPCW, the Conference meets annually (or on occasion more frequently) to address issues of importance to the implementation of the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC). This year, the Conference was attended by 109 of the 145 states parties1 and three signatory states, Israel, Kyrgyzstan and Thailand. Observer status was also granted to three non-signatory states (Andorra, Iraq and Libya), five international organisations and six non-governmental organisations.
The issues before the Conference were, for the most part, familiar to those taking part. First and foremost were financial issues, given the dire financial state of the OPCW for much of 2001 and into 2002. Caught up in those financial issues, and the cause of prolonged negotiations both at and prior to the Conference, were matters regarding the priority given to international co-operation and assistance programmes undertaken by the OPCW and the distribution of industry inspections. Looking ahead to April 2003, the First Review Conference of the Convention also clearly occupied the minds of many delegates. Both these, and the other issues addressed at the Conference, are discussed further below. Before turning to those issues, however, it is worth analysing the change in the leadership of the OPCW which occurred earlier this year and which has coloured the tone of both recent Executive Council sessions and the Conference.2
The landmark which should have constituted the highlight of the period since the last session3 of the Conference - the fifth anniversary of the entry into force of the CWC - was overshadowed by the dismissal and replacement of the first Director-General of the Technical Secretariat.4 José Bustani of Brazil, who had held office as Director-General since entry into force and whose term was renewed at the Fifth Session of the Conference in April 2000, was dismissed by a vote of the Special Session of the Conference in April this year.5 The Special Session was convened at the request of the United States and followed a period of several months during which the United States had called for an end to the Director-General's tenure - levelling allegations of mismanagement and inappropriate behaviour against him - and the Director-General - vehemently denying the accusations - had refused to resign.
A gap of some three months ensued between the dismissal of Mr. Bustani at the end of April and the appointment of a new Director-General. The delay was caused by initial difficulties in locating candidates for the position; at the end of May, the Latin American and Caribbean regional grouping (GRULAC) advised that it would not present a candidate for the position of Director-General. Accordingly, the field for candidates was then opened to all states parties. The four candidates ultimately nominated and eligible for the position of Director-General were from Ethiopia, Pakistan, Slovakia and, contrary to previous expectations, Argentina. The Council was, however, able to reach a decision by consensus because the three non-GRULAC candidates were all withdrawn by their nominating states parties upon the presentation of the Argentinian candidate, Rogelio Pfirter. Mr. Pfirter was accordingly recommended to the post by acclamation of the Executive Council on July 16 and appointed by the resumed Special Session of the Conference on July 25. His term commenced on the day of the appointment and is scheduled to run until July 25, 2006.
The Director-General has worked hard in the short period since his appointment to convey at every opportunity his key themes of transparency and the promotion of dialogue between the Secretariat and the states parties.6 For their part, states parties have expressed their desire for a return to consensus decision-making after the divisive nature of the vote to dismiss the first Director-General and a more general return to normality in the functioning of the OPCW. While this could be viewed as something of a 'grace period' for the Organisation, there nevertheless remains a certain goodwill generated by what is regarded as an accomplished and dedicated new Director-General.
In other developments since the Sixth Session of the Conference, a significant landmark in relation to the destruction of chemical weapons was passed on April 29, 2002, with the fifth anniversary of the entry into force of the Convention. Under the terms of the Convention, the anniversary also represented the deadline for the four declared CW-possessor states parties to destroy 20 percent of their declared Category 1 stockpiles. Two of the four - the United States and India - duly fulfilled their obligations in this regard, while Russia and the customarily unnamed fourth state party requested extensions. All possessor states parties met the April 2002 deadline for the destruction of all Category 2 and 3 weapons.7
As of October 1 this year, the OPCW had verified the destruction of approximately 7,050 metric tonnes of chemical agents (Category 1, Category 2, and binary component agents). This amounts to over ten percent of the total stockpiles declared by the four possessor states parties.8 As of September 20, 1,251 inspections were ongoing or had been completed by the OPCW at 541 sites in 51 states parties and one non-state party since entry into force of the Convention. Of these inspections, 298 were at CW destruction facilities, 248 were at CW production facilities, 175 were at CW storage facilities, 20 were at abandoned chemical weapons sites, 39 were at old chemical weapons sites, four were at destruction of hazardous chemicals sites, one was at an emergency destruction of chemical weapons site, 102 were at Schedule 1 facilities, 196 at Schedule 2 facilities, 86 at Schedule 3 facilities, 81 at discrete organic chemicals plants and there was one other. OPCW inspectors had spent a total of 72,561 days on mission. In terms of inspections this year, over 133 inspections at 100 sites have been completed or are ongoing.9 Notably, inspections conducted this year included an initial inspection of old chemical weapons, declared as abandoned by Panama, carried out at San Jose Island and reported on to the Executive Council of the OPCW in March 2002.10
The slow pace of progress towards universality reported for 2001, with only four additional states parties joining the OPCW, has continued into 2002. As at September 27, 2002, the Convention was due to enter into force at the end of October for the two states new to the OPCW fold in 2002, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines and Samoa. This will bring the number of states parties to the Convention to 147, leaving 27 signatory states yet to ratify.11
In the period between the Sixth and Seventh Sessions of the Conference, the Executive Council was reported to have met 13 times and adopted 51 decisions. Significant amongst that number were ten decisions approving facility agreements (seven of which occurred at the last session of the Council prior to the Conference), ten decisions relating to plans for the verification of destruction or conversion of CW production facilities, four decisions relating to lists of new validated data for inclusion in the OPCW Central Analytical Database and one decision relating to declarations of Aggregate National Data.12 Progress in reaching decisions was most marked at the thirtieth session of the Council in September this year.
In terms of finances during the past year, as of September 25, 28 states parties were in arrears in payment of their financial contributions to the OPCW over the past two years.13 As of September 30, 88 member states had paid their assessed contributions to the 2002 budget in full, amounting to over 97 percent of the total assessed to member states.14 Final payment by the United States towards its annual assessment for 2002 - delivered on May 15, shortly after the removal of Mr. Bustani from the post of Director-General - substantially boosted the percentage collected. The OPCW's finances were also assisted by voluntary contributions and assistance received in 2002 from a number of states parties, including the Netherlands, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States.15
Despite the payment by the United States on May 15 of almost half its Article IV and V arrears, reimbursements for verification costs remain an issue. Under Articles IV and V of the Convention, each state party is required to meet the costs of verification of storage and destruction of CW and the costs of verification of destruction or conversion of CW production facilities. At the end of 2001, six states parties, including all four declared CW-possessor states, remained in arrears for the payment of invoices issued in respect of Articles IV and V inspections.16 Problems regarding Article IV and V inspection costs are only likely to increase in the coming years, with four new CW destruction facilities due to come online in the United States and the Russian Federation in 2002 and 2003. While the realisation has clearly sunk in that payments under Articles IV and V have a considerable financial impact on the Organisation, as of July 16 no consensus was reported to have been reached by the Executive Council on whether a change to the current mechanism for payment of costs was required.17
I. The Budget and Programme of Work
As discussed above, the major issues to be resolved at the Conference this year revolved around finances. The OPCW has suffered significant financial crises over recent years, resulting in reduced programme delivery and the decision not to fill some 30 fixed-term positions at the Secretariat - as well as the very real possibility, at one stage, of the OPCW lacking funds to remain in operation.18 One example of the impact of the financial difficulties faced is that only 200 of the 293 inspections planned for 2001 took place, with only 29 percent of the inspections budgeted for carried out at Schedule 3 plants.19
The importance, therefore, of a realistic and achievable programme and budget for 2003 being agreed upon by the Conference was evident. This was reflected in the General Debate at the Conference, during which some thirty-two delegations made statements, many touching on budgetary issues, including Denmark, on behalf of the European Union and countries associated with the European Union (EU) and the European Free Trade Area (EFTA), and Nigeria, on behalf of the African Group. The Conference also received a statement on behalf of UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan.
Although a draft programme and budget for 2003 had been produced by the Secretariat at the end of May, and despite the intensive rounds of consultations which have taken place in recent months, the Executive Council had again been unable to reach consensus on a draft programme and budget for 2003 prior to the Conference. Consensus also proved difficult to reach during the five days of the meeting itself, the motto of the Conference often appearing to be 'nothing is decided until everything is decided'. However, a Programme and Budget for 2003 was ultimately adopted on the last evening of the Conference, appropriating a total of EUR 68,562,966. Of this, the amount payable by states parties is EUR 64,026,741, which represents a 9.9 percent increase over the 2002 pre-adjusted assessments to states parties. This is to be contrasted both with the zero budget growth for the OPCW over 1999-2001 and the 11.3 percent increase originally proposed by the Secretariat for 2003.20 The budget for 2003 funds 474 staff posts, meaning 33 positions within the Secretariat will remain vacant. Once again, the scale of assessments to be paid by states parties for 2003 was not a matter of immediate consensus, one delegation circulating an alternative proposal involving the use for the 2003 financial year of the UN Scale of Assessments for 2002.
One key theme which emerged during the general debate, and which clearly formed part of the budgetary negotiations in the Committee of the Whole, was the desire by a number of primarily developing states parties for an increased budgetary allocation to International Cooperation and Assistance (ICA) programmes. These programmes conducted by the OPCW relate to Articles X (Assistance and Protection against Chemical Weapons), XI (Economic and Technological Development) and VIII(38)(e) (Implementation Support) of the Convention.
Funding for ICA programmes was, however, the source of prolonged negotiation at the Conference, with a number of delegations, while stating that they were sympathetic to an increase in funding for ICA, expressing the need to ensure that ICA was not funded to the detriment of other core activities carried out by the OPCW. The Conference ultimately decided that additional funds of EUR 450,000 would be made available for ICA programmes. The funds will come from the following sources: EUR 114,000 originally intended for replenishing the special account; and EUR 336,000 to be acquired through management of the programme and administrative adjustments. The programmes to which the funds will be directed include: doubling the training capacity of the OPCW Associate Programme, which provides training for participants from developing countries and countries whose economies are in transition; OPCW official language versions of the information packages provided to National Authorities of states parties; regional meetings of National Authorities and specialised workshops; a medical course to take place in Iran; national protection courses to be held in Togo and Uzbekistan; support for international co-operation programmes such as internship support, research projects and equipment exchange; training courses for National Authority personnel; and training and other support from the Assistance Co-ordination and Assessment Team (ACAT).
Another issue of concern that broke along similar lines was the allocation of Article VI industry inspections in the 2003 Programme and Budget. According to the Convention, inspections under Article VI cover Schedule 1, 2 and 3 facilities as well as Discrete Organic Chemicals/Phosphorous, Sulfur or Fluorine plants (known as DOC/PSF plants).21 A number of delegations took issue with the distribution of inspections proposed by the Secretariat for 2003, which weighted the allocation of the Article VI inspections strongly in favour of inspecting DOC/PSF sites with a corresponding decrease in inspections of Schedule 1, 2 and 3 facilities. This was described, for example, by one delegation as not merely a major policy shift but a reinterpretation of the Convention and contrary to the risk assessment of the various facilities inherent in the Convention, language echoed by other delegations.22 The contrary view, again supported by a substantial number of delegations, expressed support for a distribution of inspections consistent with the capabilities of the various facilities, noting that a number of DOC/PSF facilities might have the potential for Schedule 1 production. Concerns were expressed that, in the past, the allocation of Article VI inspections had been such that the likelihood of receiving an inspection at an 'Other Chemical Production Facility' (OCPF) was considerably less than 1 percent.23
While most delegations reportedly accepted that the total number of Article VI inspections should be kept at 132, a compromise proposal by the Chair in an effort to reach consensus - setting the number of DOC/PSF inspections at 63, rather than the 93 initially proposed by the Secretariat - could not be agreed upon. The programme of work that was finally agreed on Friday evening budgets for 16 Schedule 1 inspections, 38 Schedule 2 inspections, 18 Schedule 3 inspections and 60 DOC/PSF inspections in 2003. This is to be compared with the budgeted Article VI inspections for 2002 which involved 18 Schedule 1 inspections, 40 Schedule 2 inspections, 42 Schedule 3 inspections and 32 DOC/PSF inspections.24 The Conference's decision noted, however, that the distribution of inspections did not prejudge the distribution for future budgets or alter the priorities set out in the Convention.
Two other decisions of some significance to the financial operations of the OPCW were adopted. The first decision authorises the Director-General to withhold the distribution of the prospective cash surplus for 2001, arising from late payment of Article IV and V reimbursements, pending further consideration of the matter at the Eighth Session of the Conference. Secondly, it was decided that transfers of funds from the Working Capital Fund for the purpose of financing budgetary appropriations in 2002 and 2003 shall "as an exceptional measure" be reimbursed as soon as possible, but not later than the end of the financial periods of 2003 and 2004 respectively. The need for resolution of these matters to relieve the financial predicament of the Organisation had been taken up by the Director-General in his opening statement. He had, however, correctly predicted that, with some member states still needing "more time to work on a permanent fix", it was likely that only temporary relief would be granted by the Conference.25
While the Executive Council had been unable to recommend to the Conference a programme and budget for 2003, several important decisions were taken as a result of the Council's recommendations. The most prominent of these were in respect of requests for extension of destruction deadlines. At the resumed twenty-first meeting of the Council, held on October 10, during the period of the Conference, a decision was reached in respect of the Russian Federation's request for an extension of intermediate and final destruction deadlines. This matter had been before the Council since its twenty-seventh session in December 2001. As proposed by the Russian Federation, the timeline in the draft decision under consideration by the Council was for 1 percent destruction by April 20, 2003, 20 percent destruction by April 29, 2007, 45 percent destruction by April 29, 2009 and 100 percent destruction by April 29, 2012 - an overall extension of five years from the deadline (ten years after entry into force, i.e. April 29, 2007) established in the Convention.26
However, the ultimate recommendation of the Council, then adopted by the Conference without debate, approved "in principle" extensions of the deadlines for destruction of 1 percent and 20 percent of the Russian Federation's Category 1 chemical weapons stockpiles. The Conference authorised the Council to establish the specific dates for those deadlines, with a view to the Council taking a decision in respect of the 1 percent deadline at its thirty-first session in December. The decision contains detailed requirements for reports from the Russian Federation, the Director-General and the Chair of the Executive Council. Benchmark targets are set for construction to begin at the destruction facility at Kambarka on January 31, 2003 and to be completed, with destruction commencing immediately, on December 1, 2005. On the basis of the Council's recommendations, the Conference is to set a substitute 20 percent deadline at its Eighth Session, with a view to also establishing practical deadlines in respect of 45 percent and 100 percent destruction of Russian Category 1 chemical weapons.
This decision reflects the concerns expressed by a number of delegations that the Conference not simply grant a blanket extension to the Russian Federation.27 Instead, the decision adopts a step-by-step approach and requires a separate review for each treaty deadline. While it is gratifying to see a decision actually reached, albeit somewhat at the eleventh hour of the Conference, the decision is far from a final resolution of the problems facing the Russian destruction programme. In addition to the financial and operational issues still facing that programme, close attention should be paid to whether a decision is actually adopted in respect of 1 percent destruction at the December session of the Council. While a step-by-step approach allows for information to be gathered and realistic deadlines set, it also carries at least the potential for delay and deferrals within the Council and Conference. One can only hope that the spirit of consensus so often referred to in recent months will preclude this from occurring.
A second extension request was also approved at the Conference, that of an unnamed state party's obligation to meet the intermediate phase 2 deadline for destruction of 20 percent of its Category 1 chemical weapons stockpiles. Under the terms of the decision, destruction is to be completed before the end of the timeframe stipulated in the Convention for completion of phase 3 of destruction. The decision also provides for periodic reports to the Council by the Director-General and Chairman of the Council on destruction progress and requires reports at each alternate regular session by the state party on the status of its plans. The decision was adopted without debate at the Conference.
In respect of conversion requests recommended by the Council, all nine requests before the Conference from the Russian Federation for conversion of CW production facilities for purposes not prohibited under the Convention were approved. Of those nine, four relate to the Open Joint Stock Company (OJSC) Khimprom site in Volgograd, four are at the OJSC Khimprom site in Novocheboksark, and one is in Dzhershinsk.
The Conference also made two important decisions relating to technical matters. The first was the adoption by the Conference of a decision reached at the thirtieth session of the Council on guidelines for the declaration of Aggregate National Data for Schedule 2 chemical production, processing, consumption, import and export and Schedule 3 import and export. The second was the adoption of a draft decision on procedures for updating the list of approved inspection equipment. No final agreement was, however, reached in respect of the draft decision on procedures for revising technical specifications for on-site inspection equipment. However, the Conference reported agreement on a number of elements within the draft, as well as fundamental principles regarding the ability of states parties to review and comment on the technical specifications. The draft decision is to be forwarded to the Council with a view to having it approved, provisionally applied and then submitted to the Eighth Session of the Conference. It is regrettable that both this and the decision in respect of the list of approved equipment decision had been before the Council since February this year, and were ultimately referred to the Conference without any decision being taken.
Given the concerns surrounding the projected significant increase in the OPCW's verification duties over the next few years, the Conference requested the Director-General to present various proposals to the Council relating to optimisation of verification activities and the more substantial use of monitoring equipment at CW storage and destruction facilities under Articles IV and V. Both sets of proposals are to be presented at the thirty-second session of the Council. Related to this, the Conference also noted the desirability of optimising and increasing the efficiency of verification activities in respect of Article VI. Areas for improvement particularly targeted include the duration of inspections and the number of inspectors at each inspection.
One item discussed in general debate by the delegations of China and Japan was the progress to date in respect of Abandoned Chemical Weapons (ACW) in China. Japan reported that this year it had sent a number of investigation teams to burial sites in Heilongjiang Province in North East China, and that infrastructure for excavation of ACW in Jilin Province was under construction. It was reported that bilateral consultations between Japanese and Chinese authorities were underway to determine the primary destruction technologies and the location of the main destruction facilities. While both delegations reported progress and co-operation, China also indicated that a great deal of work was still required.
On more procedural matters, dates were finalised for the forthcoming First Review Conference, to be held in The Hague from April 28 to May 9 next year.28 An Open-Ended Working Group for the Preparation of the Review Conference has been meeting since the twenty-sixth session of the Executive Council in September 2001. While it seems likely that the Conference will look at relevant issues thematically rather than conducting an article-by-article review, the precise format and eventual end-product of the meeting is, even now, still the subject of some debate. This was reflected in a number of national statements to the effect that while the Review Conference would be an important occasion for reviewing progress in implementation, it should not become an "amendment conference". It seems clear that substantial work remains to be done in preparation for the fast-approaching meeting29; however, no substantive items on the subject were included in the agenda for the Seventh Session, and no discussion other than that contained in delegations' statements during general debate took place.
Other matters finalised included the dates and duration of the regular sessions of the Conference until 2010. The Eighth Session of the Conference will be held from October 20-24, 2003.
The Report of the Executive Council for the period from February 24, 2001 to July 16, 2002, introduced by Ambassador Lionel Fernando of Sri Lanka, the current Chair of the Council, was noted by the Conference.30 The report contained a list of 38 matters still under consideration by the Council as of July 16; this list has, however, been slightly reduced by the progress made at the thirtieth session and twenty-first meeting of the Council. Nevertheless, matters with the most items listed as still being under consideration include industry declaration issues, challenge inspections and old and abandoned chemical weapons. The report also lists matters referred to the Council by the Conference at its Sixth Session. Under this heading, it is notable that the Council has yet to take a decision on the recommendation of guidelines regarding low concentration limits for declarations of mixtures containing Schedule 2A and 2A* chemicals, despite the Conference's wish for a decision to be made in advance of its Seventh Session.31
In terms of other outstanding matters, the Council has yet to forward a proposal to the Conference regarding the fostering of international co-operation for peaceful purposes in the field of chemical activities. While Mexico stated at the Conference that it had put forward a draft proposal which has the support of some developing states parties, the suggestion has yet to secure consensus. The Conference heard somewhat strongly-worded statements made on this issue by Iran and India, expressing disappointment and frustration that, five years after entry into force, no agreement had yet been reached on the modalities of the implementation of Article XI of the Convention. The importance to countries with developing or transitional economies of the Article XI assurances regarding economic and technological development, and the concerns regarding export control regimes, were particularly highlighted. However, with no proposal before the Conference, the issue was again referred back to the Council for consultations to continue, with a view to the Council forwarding a proposal to the Conference at its Eighth Session.
Further loose ends include a decision on tenure and amendment of the Staff Regulations, on which subjects consultations continue.32 The Director-General has expressed his desire to resolve these matters, resolution of the issue regarding tenure having been outstanding since the Fourth Session of the Conference in 1999. The ongoing lack of resolution on both of these matters can only have a considerable impact on staff morale at the Organisation and must surely be addressed as a matter of urgency.
Both the Secretariat and the constituent organs of the OPCW have gone through a period of considerable trauma since the Sixth Session of the Conference. Without question, the upheaval caused by the removal and replacement of the Director-General thwarted the ability of the Council to make decisions in relation to a number of important issues. However, with that dark period now behind it, and with expressions by states parties of a "renewed atmosphere of confidence and co-operation" with the Secretariat abounding, one can only hope that this is indeed the beginning of a return to normality for the OPCW.33
To realise this hope, the Council must now focus on making headway on the long list of unresolved issues still confronting it. Expressions of goodwill and the desire for consensus were not enough this year to allow the Council to actually agree a draft programme and budget for 2003 or make decisions on, for example, much-needed procedures for updating the list of approved inspection equipment; that was left to the Committee of the Whole. This should not be allowed to become the norm. While some progress was made at the Conference - and the budget increase is certainly a step in the right direction - work remains to be done to resolve in a substantive way a number of key financial and industry issues. Five years after entry into force, these matters should be significantly further down the road to resolution.
The wounds of recent times, however, may not yet be healed. On the final afternoon of the Conference, the Director-General made a statement regarding a complaint recently brought by former Director-General Bustani to the International Labour Organisation. Mr. Bustani was reported to be contesting the decision of the Special Session of the Conference to terminate his term of office and is requesting compensation. The Chair of the Conference requested, and received, authorisation for he and the Director-General to take such administrative action as necessary to respond to the complaint. Despite the wishes of many, the Organisation is evidently not yet entirely clear of the "trial by fire" it has endured recently.34
1. As at October 11, 2002.
2. See, for example, the statement by Ambassador Donald A. Mahley, the United States Permanent Representative to the OPCW, to the Twenty-Ninth Regular Session of the Executive Council, June 25, 2002, available at http://www.state.gov/t/ac/rls/rm/11558pf.htm, as well as the electronic compilation of statements to the Conference (hereinafter, the Compilation) reproduced as a supplement to this article by the Acronym Institute for Disarmament Diplomacy, available at http://www.acronym.org.uk.
3. For analysis of the Sixth Session of the Conference, held in The Hague from May 14-19, 2001, see Alexander Kelle, "Implementation on a Low Flame Disarmament Diplomacy No. 57, May 2001, pp. 18-22.
4. For further details, see Pamela Mills, "Progress in the Hague, Quarterly Review No. 38", The CBW Conventions Bulletin 56, June 2002; and Fiona Tregonning, "Progress in the Hague, Quarterly Review No. 39", The CBW Conventions Bulletin 57, September 2002 (hereinafter 'Fiona Tregonning, "Progress in The Hague"').
5. "Decision under Item Three of the Agenda of the First Special Session of the Conference of the States Parties", OPCW document C-SS-1/DEC.1, April 22, 2002, available at www.opcw.org/html/global/docs_frameset.html.
6. See for example "Acceptance Speech by H.E. Ambassador Rogelio Pfirter", July 25, 2002, available at www.opcw.org/html/global/docs_frameset.html; and "Opening Statement by the Director-General to the Conference of the States Parties at its Seventh Session", OPCW document C-7/DG.4, October 7, 2002, p.6 (hereinafter 'Opening Statement by the Director-General'), available at http://www.opcw.org/html/global/c_series.csp7/c7_dg4.html, and featured in the Compilation.
7. "News Chronology, February through April 2002", The CBW Conventions Bulletin 56, June 2002; and Opening Statement by the Director-General, supra note 6, p.3.
8. See Opening Statement by the Director-General, supra note 6, p.3.
9. See Fiona Tregonning, "Progress in The Hague", supra note 4, p.18.
10. "Report of the Executive Council on the Performance of its activities", OPCW document C-7/2, 3 October 2002, p.14 (hereinafter 'Report of the Executive Council').
11. "Status of the Chemical Weapons Convention", OPCW Office of the Legal Adviser, document S/320/2002, October 9, 2002; and "Report of the OPCW on the Implementation of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling, and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction in the year 2001", OPCW Document C-7/3, 10 October 2002, p. 1 (hereinafter 'Report of the OPCW for 2001').
12. Oral report given by the Chairman of the Executive Council to the Seventh Session of the Conference of the States Parties, September 10, 2002; and Report of the Executive Council, supra note 10.
13. "States Parties in Arrears in the Payment of their Financial Contributions to the OPCW", OPCW Document C-7/DG.2, October 1, 2002.
14. OPCW Press Release 60, September 30, 2002, available at http://www.opcw.org/html/global/docs_frameset.html
15. For further details of voluntary contributions and assistance, see, for example, OPCW Press Release 16, March 11, 2002; OPCW Press Release 42, June 6, 2002; and OPCW Press Release 46, June 13, 2002.
16. Report of the OPCW for 2001, supra note 11, p.31
17. Report of the Executive Council, supra note 10, p.5.
18. For further details, see Pamela Mills, "Progress in The Hague, Quarterly Review No. 36", The CBW Conventions Bulletins 54, December 2001; and Pamela Mills, "Progress in The Hague, Quarterly Review No. 37", The CBW Conventions Bulletins 55, March 2002.
19. Report of the OPCW for 2001, supra note 11, p.2.
20. Opening Statement by the Director-General, supra note 6, p.2.
21. Toxic chemicals and their precursors considered to pose a danger to the Convention's purposes are listed in the Annex on Chemicals, which divides such substances into three 'schedules'. It has to be noted, however, that these three schedules do not define a chemical weapon under the CWC. Rather, they are used for declarations and verification purposes in the context of inspections. Schedule 1 chemicals pose the highest risk to the CWC; many have been developed, produced, stockpiled, or used as chemical weapons in the past and they have little or no peaceful uses. Schedule 2 chemicals pose a significant risk to the convention either because they can be used themselves as chemical weapons or as a consequence of their role as precursors to schedule 1 or 2 chemicals. Schedule 2 chemicals are not produced commercially on a large-scale. Lastly, schedule 3 chemicals may be produced commercially in large quantities but still pose a risk to the Convention because of their role as precursors to either schedule 1 or schedule 2 chemicals.
22. See, for example, the statement in the general debate by the Indian delegation, featured in the Compilation.
23. See, for example, the statement in the general debate by the delegation of Denmark on behalf of the European Union, featured in the Compilation.
24. "Programme and Budget and Working Capital Fund", OPCW Document C-VI/DEC.17, May 19, 2001, p.49.
25. Opening Statement by the Director-General, supra note 6, p.2.
26. Report of the Executive Council, supra note 10, pp. 10-11.
27. See, for example, the national statements in general debate by the United States and Denmark on behalf of the European Union, featured in the Compilation.
28. For a review of the challenges facing the Review Conference, see Alexander Kelle, "The First CWC Review Conference: Challenges and Opportunities", Disarmament Diplomacy, Issue No. 62, January/February 2002, pp. 13-18.
29. For a review of recent activities in relation to preparations for the Review Conference, see Fiona Tregonning, "Progress in The Hague", supra note 4, p.17.
30. Report of the Executive Council, supra note 10.
31. Report of the Executive Council, supra note 10, p.18.
32. Opening Statement by the Director-General, supra note 6, p.3.
33. Statement in the general debate by the delegation of the Czech Republic to the Seventh Session of the Conference of the States Parties, October 7, 2002.
34. Opening Statement by the Director-General, supra note 6, p.1.
Fiona Tregonning is the Harvard Sussex Program Hague Researcher at the OPCW. The views expressed in this paper are those of the author alone and should not be attributed to either the Harvard Sussex Program or the OPCW.
See also: Appendix: Compilation of Statements
© 2002 The Acronym Institute.