| Acronym Institute Home Page | Calendar | UN/CD | NPT/IAEA | UK | US | Space/BMD |
| CTBT | BWC | CWC | WMD Possessors | About Acronym | Links | Glossary |
Back to the Index of Resolutions
Introduced by Pakistan.
First introduced in 2003 and unchanged since 2004, this annual resolution urges states to comply with existing restrictions on the threat or use of force and on the peaceful settlement of disputes. It calls on states to pursue confidence- and security-building measures, as set out in the report of the Disarmament Commission in its 1993 session, through sustained consultations and dialogue. It further encourages promotion of bilateral and regional processes "to avoid conflict and prevent the unintended and accidental outbreak of hostilities". Lastly, it requests the Secretary-General to seek the views of governments on regional and sub-regional confidence-building measures and to submit a report to the next session of the General Assembly.
First Committee: without a vote
General Assembly: without a vote
This resolution built on resolution 57/337 (2003), entitled "Prevention of armed conflict", which called for states to settle their disputes by peaceful means. While this resolution was initially adopted with only 70 states in favour - outweighed by the negative votes and abstentions - since undergoing revision in 2004 it has been adopted annually by consensus.
Introduced by Indonesia on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement.
This annual resolution was first introduced in 2002 as a follow-on to resolution 56/24T (2001) on multilateralism in the area of disarmament and non-proliferation and global efforts against terrorism, from which it greatly departed in response to the build-up for the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq. The current resolution, unchanged in recent years, affirms multilateralism is the core principle in negotiation of non-proliferation and disarmament norms and in addressing related concerns, and urges the transparent and non-discriminatory participation of all interested states in such matters. It requests states parties to relevant non-proliferation and disarmament instruments to resolve cases of non-compliance according to procedures defined in those instruments and "to refrain from resorting or threatening to resort to unilateral actions or directing unverified noncompliance accusations against one another to resolve their concerns". It again directs the Secretary-General to seek the views of member states and to submit a report to the next session of the General Assembly.
First Committee: 115-5-49
General Assembly: 126-5-50
The vote on this resolution was the same as in past years-Israel, the United Kingdom, and the United States and its dependencies voted against, European and other states not affiliated with the Non-Aligned Movement abstained. As in previous years, Australia, Canada and New Zealand made a joint statement, delivered this year by Australia, expressing disappointment at once again being unable to support the resolution due its assertions in OP1 and OP2 that multilateralism is the core principle in arms control and disarmament agreements, ignoring the potential for overlapping and complementary unilateral and plurilateral initiatives. The statement continued to argue that this perspective is expressed in the PP8 and to question why it was not also reflected in the operative paragraphs.
Introduced by Indonesia on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement.
First introduced by Cuba in 1994 and unchanged in previous years, this resolution emphasizes the need to observe environmental norms in the negotiation and implementation of disarmament and arms control agreements, and specifically refers to "the detrimental environmental effects of the use of nuclear weapons". It calls on states to adopt measures to ensure scientific and technical progress in international disarmament does not undermine environmental and sustainable development concerns, and to provide information on measures adopted to the Secretary-General.
First Committee: without a vote
General Assembly: without a vote
Breaking the pattern of recent years, the United States did not call for a vote on this resolution, thereby allowing it to be adopted without a vote. In past years, the United States has typically cast the solitary vote against this resolution, with France, Israel, and the United Kingdom abstaining. The United States and France issued a joint statement disassociating themselves from the resolution. The United Kingdom separately announced its dissociation from the vote on the resolution, indicating that if a vote had been held, it would have abstained.
Introduced by Indonesia on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement.
This annual resolution, which only technically updates resolution 62/48, "stresses the importance of the symbiotic relationship between disarmament and development and the role of international security in this connection", and expresses concern "at increasing global military expenditure, which could otherwise be spent on development needs". The resolution recalls the 2004 report of the Group of Government Experts and requests the Secretary-General to strengthen role of the UN and the high-level Steering Group on Disarmament and Development, and to continue implementing the 1987 action programme of the International Conference of the Relationship Between Disarmament and Development. It also encourages the international community to make reference to the role of disarmament in meeting the Millennium Development Goals and for sub-state organizations and institutions to incorporate issues pertaining to the relationship between disarmament and development in their agendas. The current resolution reiterates its invitation to states to submit information to the Secretary-General regarding measures to devote resources freed by implementing disarmament agreements to development, and for the Secretary-General to include this information in the report on the implementation of the resolution to be submitted to the next session of the General Assembly.
First Committee: 167-0-1
General Assembly: without a vote
Breaking with the practice of recent years, the United States declined to call a vote of this resolution, opting instead not to participate in the vote. In recent years, the United States has cast the lone vote against this resolution, with Israel and France abstaining. Israel, however, switched its abstention to a vote in favour this year. After a moment of confusion in the First Committee, the French delegation cast a rare, lone abstention from the resolution after it was compelled to call a vote in order to record its abstention. The French dissociated itself from the vote on the resolution in the General Assembly, allowing the text to be adopted without a vote.
The French, UK, and US delegations each repeated their standard statements in response to this resolution. The US delegation reiterated its well-known belief that disarmament and development are two distinct issues and that the United States is not bound by the decisions of the 1987 Conference on Disarmament and Development, as it did not participate in it. The French delegation again said that it does question the linkage between disarmament and development, but it continued to object to the characterization of a symbiotic relationship between the two. The French further explained that they abstained due to elements in the resolution they could not support, accusing the drafters of the resolutions of being unwilling to take on even the most minor of amendments. The UK delegation again voted in favour of the resolution, but expressed reservations regarding the expert group report and disagreed with the notion that there is an automatic link between disarmament and development.
Introduced by Indonesia on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement.
Taking forward first-time resolution 62/30, drafted by Cuba, the sponsors of this resolution introduced a revised and expanded text building upon and expanding the 2007 draft, which simply requested the views of delegations on the issue. In addition to acting out of concern over the potential harmful effects of depleted uranium munitions, the drafters expanded the preamble to invoke environmental concerns. The key provisions of the resolution request states that have not done so to submit their views to the Secretary-General. A new provision requests the Secretary-General to ask relevant international organizations to update and complete their studies on the effects of depleted uranium munitions. The resolution request the Secretary-General to submit an updated report to the 65th session of the General Assembly.
First Committee: 127-4-34
General Assembly: 141-4-34
The four delegations that voted against the 2007 resolution-France, Israel, the United Kingdom, and the United States-again cast the only opposing votes. The abstentions were made up of some members of NATO- and most EU-affiliated delegations. Other European states voting in favour included Austria, Ireland, and Finland.
NATO remained split on the issue, however, with Germany and Italy continuing to vote in favour. After voting against the 2007 resolution, the Netherlands voted in favour, following NGO pressure on its government. The Dutch delegation expressed reservations, however, that it would have preferred the characterization of the basis for future research to be couched in more neutral language and for the text to note that to date research has shown no harmful effects from the use of depleted uranium munitions, in line with the views of the IAEA and WHO. The Japanese delegation, which voted in favour, echoed the Dutch sentiments, noting that research is currently being carried out by relevant international agencies and that there has not been any definitive connection between the use of depleted uranium and adverse health effects.
Introduced by the United States.
This broad, triennial resolution, which includes only minor revisions to resolution 60/55, acts out of general concern over cases of non-compliance and its resultant deleterious effects on regional and global security and on international law. The preamble now recalls the 2006 report of the Panel of Government Experts on verification in all its aspects, and a new paragraph recognizes "the importance of effective national, regional and international capacities for ... verification, compliance and enforcement" consistent with the UN Charter. The key provisions of this resolution continue to 1. call upon states in non-compliance to make the strategic decision to come back into compliance and 2. urge all states to take concerted action, consistent with international law, to hold non-compliant states accountable. A new operative paragraph calls upon states to encourage and assist states "in need of assistance to increase their capacity to implement fully their verification and compliance obligations".
First Committee: 142-0-19
General Assembly: 158-0-18
In 2005, the United States hardened the language of this resolution to bring its tone in line with the views of the Bush administration. These changes resulted, however, in the loss of consensus, with several states including Russia abstaining and China not participating in the vote. In contrast, the General Assembly had adopted its previous iteration by consensus in 2002 as resolution 57/86. The 2005 revisions had also been criticized by outspoken Non-Aligned states, such as Cuba, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Pakistan, and Venezuela.
The key abstainers continued to be Russia, Iran, Pakistan, and Venezuela. While in 2005 the Arab states were split on this resolution, with many voting in favour, the Arab states abstained as a bloc to the current resolution with only Jordan, Morocco, and Tunisia breaking ranks to vote in favour. As in 2005, China did not participate in the vote. Indonesia and South Africa dropped their 2005 abstentions and voted in favour.
Speaking before and after the vote, delegations reiterated their past criticisms of the text. The broadest critique was that, whereas the prior iteration of the resolution reflected a balance between non-proliferation and disarmament, the present version is heavily skewed toward non-proliferation. This view was reflected in statements made by Russia, Indonesia, and Cuba.
A number of delegations - such as Egypt, India, Iran, and Russia - felt the resolution went too far in supporting unilateral assessment and enforcement of treaty obligations, which could be subject to political considerations. Some of these delegations and others emphasized that they would have preferred language from the text of pertinent treaties on methods for dealing with compliance and verification by competent international organizations. The Russian delegation argued that the resolution focused solely on punishment, with the intent of targeting the "so-called pariah states", and that it lacked reference to binding verification measures. The Egyptian delegation objected to the resolution's failure to clarify whether or not the action it called for states to take to ensure compliance included military measures, which it opposes.
Introduced by India.
Last introduced as a substantive text in 2006 and adopted as resolution 61/55, this decision places an item entitled "Role of science and technology in the context of international security and disarmament" on the agenda of the 64th session of the General Assembly.
First Committee: without a vote
General Assembly: without a vote
In past years, India had introduced a resolution that centrally urged states to undertake multilateral negotiations to develop universally accepted, non-discriminatory guidelines for the transfer of dual-use and high-technology items with military applications. As such a call conflicted with the participation of Western states in various export control regimes, such states consistently voted against the resolution, which had been supported by the Non-Aligned states.
Introduced by Germany.
This biennial resolution acts in the conviction that certain practical disarmament measures are prerequisite to consolidating peace and security in post-conflict peacebuilding efforts. It specifies that such measures can include: collection and destruction of illicit weapons and ammunition declared surplus; confidence-building measures; disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration of combatants; demining; and conversion. The current resolution incorporates minor revisions to the preambular portion, including the streamlining of some paragraphs and the addition of a new one welcoming the establishment of the Programme of Action Implementation Support System. The preamble continues to note and welcome steps taken on the issue within the UN, with particular focus on efforts to stem the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons. The key provisions of the resolution encourage the inclusion of practical disarmament measures in peacekeeping mandates, the support of existing efforts, and the development of new measures. The resolution requests the Secretary-General to submit a report on the implementation of practical disarmament measures to the 65th session of the General Assembly, also taking into consideration the actions of the Group of Interested States.
First Committee: 165-0-0; "and Third" in PP10: 160-0-1
General Assembly: 182-0-0; PP10: 176-0-1
Without explanation, the United States voted in favour after voting against in 2006. The Pakistani delegation, although voting in favour, expressed reservations on the resolution's inclusion of ammunition, stating that the issue is beyond the scope of the UN Programme of Action. Following from its new practice of opposing all references to the outcome of the third small arms Programme of Action biennial meeting of states, Iran called for a separate vote on the words "and Third" in the tenth preambular paragraph, casting the sole abstention.
Introduced by the Republic of Korea.
This new resolution, drafted by Australia and the Republic of Korea, connects the problem of illicit brokering of weapons to the prolongation of conflict and addresses the illegal transfer by non-state actors of both conventional weapons and weapons of mass destruction. It notes existing initiatives to combat illicit brokering, including various small arms initiatives, relevant resolutions, the 2006 report of the Group of Government Experts on illicit brokering, and Security Council resolution 1540 (2004). Its key provisions 1. encourage states to implement the relevant international instruments to prevent illicit brokering, 2. call on states to adopt national legislation in a manner consistent with international law, and 3. encourage states to draw upon civil society expertise in developing effective measures. It provides assurances to respect legitimate arms trade and the right to produce and acquire arms for self-defense.
First Committee: without a vote
General Assembly: without a vote
A number of delegations vocalized concerns over the breadth of this resolution and its consolidation of the definition of illicit brokering to include small arms and light weapons as well as weapons of mass destruction. The Russian delegation derided the resolution as "amusing" and dissociated itself from the vote on it, citing fundamental objections to its premises and expressing the view that the resolution mixed two distinct and different issues. The Brazilian delegation also expressed the preference to keep separate issues of weapons of mass destruction proliferation and illicit traffic in small arms.
Particularly an issue for many advanced developing states, such as Brazil, Indonesia, and others, was the resolution's third preambular paragraph, which recognizes the need for states to prevent illicit brokering of "materials, equipment and technology that could contribute to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery". Developing states felt this provision could impact trade in dual-use technologies, but these delegations stated their concerns had been addressed during consultations with the sponsors of the resolution. The fourth preambular paragraph of the resolution thus states that efforts undertaken "should not hamper the legitimate arms trade and international cooperation with respect to materials, equipment and technology for peaceful purposes".
Introduced by Russia.
First introduced in 1998, this annual resolution includes technical updates to resolution 62/17, which the General Assembly adopted over the sole objection of the United States. The primary concern expressed in the resolution is the potentially harmful effect on security and infrastructure caused by the misuse of information technology. Noting the report of the 2005 Group of Government Experts, established pursuant to resolution 58/32, the current resolution calls for states to promote further multilateral consideration of threats in the field of information security. The resolution repeats it request for the Secretary-General to convene a Group of Governmental Experts in 2009 to continue studying existing and potential threats in field of information security and to submit a report to 65th session of the General Assembly.
First Committee: 167-1-0
General Assembly: 178-1-0
The Russian delegation noted the Group of Government Experts (GGE) called for in the resolution will hold three substantive sessions in 2010: two in New York and one in Geneva. The United States again cast the sole vote against this resolution, following from its objection expressed in 2007 over the convening of an additional GGE. In 2007, the US delegation stated the 2005 GGE had been unable to find any common ground, and that it believes any further GGE would not achieve a different outcome. The US delegation affirmed that it viewed network and infrastructure security as important, urging delegations to join the existing Council of Europe Convention on Cyber Crime. The European Union continues to support the Russian-led process, however, which it sees as compatible with its own initiative.
Introduced by the Netherlands.
This resolution supports the UN Register on Conventional Arms, established in 1992 pursuant to resolution 46/36 L (1991). The current resolution provides technical updates to resolution 61/77, which endorsed the 2006 expert group report (A/61/261), contained a decision to expand the definition of warships, and recommended that states informally report transfers of small arms and light weapons. The resolution repeats many standard elements-mostly technical and procedural in nature-of past resolutions, including a call on states to provide requested information to the Register, to implement the relevant recommendations of past expert groups (OP2), and to informally provide information on arms production and holdings (OP3) and on small arms and light weapons transfers (OP4). The resolution also continues to reaffirm the decision to keep the scope of and participation in the Register under review (OP5). To that end, the resolution reaffirms its request for the Secretary-General to convene a Group of Government Experts in 2009 to review the continuing operation and further development of the Register and to report to the 64th session of the General Assembly (OP5b). The resolution also continues to invite the Conference on Disarmament to continue its work on transparency in armaments (OP7), and reiterates its call for regional and subregional cooperation (OP8).
First Committee: 144-0-21; OP2: 142-0-21; OP3: 143-0-21; OP4:
143-0-21; OP5b: 143-0-21; OP5: 143-0-21; OP7: 143-0-21
General Assembly: 160-0-22; OP2: 157-0-22; OP3: 158-0-22; OP4:
157-0-22; OP5b: 158-0-22; OP5: 158-0-22; OP7: 158-0-22
The General Assembly voted to establish the Register in 1991, amid widespread reservations regarding its scope and its perceived bias against recipients of arms transfers, while ignoring production and stockpiling. In the resolution establishing the Register, 46/36 L (1991), the General Assembly decided to keep the scope of and participation in the Register under review. The Register, however, continues to use its seven original categories: battle tanks; armoured combat vehicles; large calibre artillery systems; combat aircraft; attack helicopters; warships; and missiles or missile systems.
Review of the Register has resulted in some adjustments to its scope. In 2003, the General Assembly in resolution 58/54 decided to adapt the scope of the Register to include man-portable air defense systems as a subcategory of category 7 and to lower the threshold of reported artillery systems from 100mm to 75mm. The 2003 GGE also recommended that states on a voluntary basis provide information on small arms and light weapons transfers.
In 2006, the General Assembly in resolution 61/77 decided to again adapt the scope of the Register to expand the definition of warships by lowering the tonnage from 750 to 500 metric tonnes. It also expanded its inclusion of small arms and light weapons, recommending that states provide such data as part of their additional background information provided on the standardized reporting forms-informally regarding small arms and light weapons as an unofficial eighth category.
Although the Arab states supported establishment of the Register in 1991, they initially pushed to broaden its scope to include transparency on weapons of mass destruction. Following the first government expert-level review of the Register in 1994, which could not find agreement on adjusting or adding to the Register's categories or on expanding the scope of the Register, a bloc of Arab states and a few others have abstained from the General Assembly resolutions.
Between 1997 and 1999, Egypt led an ultimately unsuccessful counter-process to expand the scope of the Register to include weapons of mass destruction. Instead, the General Assembly adopted two competing resolutions on transparency in armaments. The debate that these initiatives generated culminated in an extensive expert-level review in 2000, including in-depth discussion of transparency of weapons of mass destruction and their delivery systems and production. The 2000 GGE also discussed further adjustments to the seven categories, including concepts of force projection and force multiplier capabilities, as well as the possibility of characterizing weapon systems as offensive or defensive.
Introduced by Mexico.
This biennial resolution follows up on the 2002 UN study on disarmament and non-proliferation. It acts in consciousness of the need to combat cultures of violence through education, recognizing the role of NGOs in attaining this goal. A new preambular paragraph welcomes the launch of two new UN websites on disarmament and non-proliferation education. The text is otherwise unchanged from resolution 61/73. The key provisions of the operative portion continue to encourage implementation of the recommendations contained in the study and request the Secretary-General to submit a report reviewing the results to the 65th session of the General Assembly. It also requests the Secretary-General to disseminate information related to the report in as many languages as feasible.
First Committee: without a vote
General Assembly: without a vote
A result of a joint civil society/government initiative, the Group of Government Experts established by resolution 55/33E (2002) included many representatives from non-governmental organizations, including the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, the International Peace Bureau, and the Egyptian Council for Foreign Affairs. In addition, the Monterey Institute for International Affairs contributed to the Group's work. The Group's study, A/57/124, identified the overall objective of disarmament and non-proliferation education as imparting knowledge and skills to individuals in order to empower them to act as global citizens and to achieve concrete disarmament measures leading to general and complete disarmament. The study contained 34 recommendations to expand and improve disarmament and non-proliferation education.
Introduced by Mexico.
This biennial resolution supports the UN Disarmament Information Programme, founded in 1992 as an evolution of the World Disarmament Campaign launched by the second special session of the General Assembly on disarmament. The current resolutions includes only minor updates to resolution 61/95, reflecting the launch of the disarmament website. The core product of the Programme is the UN Disarmament Yearbook, which the General Assembly again recommends the Programme continue to publish. The resolution requests the Secretary-General to submit a report on the implementation of the Programme to the 65th session of the General Assembly.
First Committee: without a vote
General Assembly: without a vote
Back to the Index of Resolutions
© 2009 The Acronym Institute.