By Javier Surasky-
[Attention: this is a
longer than usual post]
This is our third post
analyzing the Second Revision of the Pact for the
Future (PfF, Rev-2). In the first one, we referred to the PfF coherence and highlighted the
“new” preamble wording, and in
the second, we analyzed the reforms in Chapter 1 on sustainable
development and financing for development.
In this post, we will focus
our attention on one of the more critical and hard-to-reach consensus areas in
the PfF: Peace and security. Included as Chapter 2, it is structured with an
introductory paragraph, some actions, and a set of decisions attached to each
action. In Rev-2, Chapter 2 includes 17 actions and 69 decisions, which makes
it the longer PfF chapter.
To help the readers, the
text added in Rev-2 is highlighted in blue, and deletions in orange.
Chapter 2 Introduction
Two paragraphs (§29 and §30)
introduce the theme. They re-word Rev-1 introduction and include new elements.
In Rev-2, Member States
start by affirming that “The global security landscape is undergoing profound
transformation.” Threats to international
peace and security are increasing
and diversifying “including
the growing risks of a nuclear war”. Then, member states reaffirm their commitment [previously, “duty”] “to international law and our obligation to act
in accordance with the Charter,” taking care of keeping the G77 always required
mention to the “full respect for the sovereign equality of all Member States,
the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples”.
While a reference to the Human Rights Declaration included in Rev-1 is
still part of Rev-2, a previous mention concerning “the central
importance of the International Court of Justice” was deleted.
Paragraph 30
recovers from Rev-1 the reference to the UN's “indispensable” role “in the
maintenance of international peace and security” and to the importance of “efforts
to rebuild trust, strengthen solidarity, and deepen cooperation, including
through the intensified use of diplomacy” to address “accumulating and diverse
threats to international peace and security”, on the land, sea, air, and “in
outer space and in cyberspace.” To that end, States “will take into account the
recommendations in the New Agenda for Peace”.
Chapter 2 Actions and “Decisions”
This chapter includes the following
actions and “decisions”:
Action 13. Redouble our efforts to build and sustain peaceful, inclusive and just societies and address the root causes of conflicts (Action 11 in Rev-1): 3 decisions.
Recognizes the
interdependence between international peace and security, sustainable
development, and human rights and reaffirms the rule of law. The concern about the “growing imbalance” between
military expenditures and sustaining development and
peace became a concern for its “potential impact that the global increase in military expenditures could have” on
investments in sustainable development and peace.
“Decisions” (a) on strengthening
resilience and comprehensively addressing drivers and root causes of armed
conflict, violence, and insecurity, and (c) on ensuring that spending on arms
does not come at the expense of investment in sustainable development and peace,
shows no changes.
“Decision” (c) merged Rev-1
“decisions” (b) and (d) and is reworded: “Provide equal access to justice,
protect civic space and uphold human rights for all, including through
promoting a culture of peace, tolerance and peaceful coexistence, eradicating
religious discrimination, racism and xenophobia
and by enhancing human security,” and the Secretary-General to provide
analysis on the impact of the global increase in military expenditure on the
achievement of the SDGs by the end of the UNAG seventy-ninth session”.
Action 14. Protect all civilians in armed conflict (Action 12 in Rev-1): 7 decisions.
Changes in this action are
notable from the beginning: while Rev-1 (§17) recognized “the devastating impact of armed conflict on civilians,
civilian infrastructure and cultural heritage,” while in Rev-2 Member States “condemn” it “in the strongest terms”
(§32).
The
next step in Rev-1 was expressing “concern about the impact of violence on
women and children in armed conflict.” Rev-2 is about “the disproportionate impact of
violence” on women and children, but also on “persons with disabilities and vulnerable groups.”
Finally,
with minor wording changes, both versions of the PfF mention genocide, crimes
against humanity, and war crimes, and the express governments' recommitment to
international law, international humanitarian law, human rights law, and
international refugee law.
Without relevant changes, most
Rev-1 decisions are replicated in Rev-2, namely:
(a) on adopting concrete
and practical measures [previously,
“actions”] to protect all civilians in armed
conflict with a focus on “people
in vulnerable situations” [previously, “vulnerable groups”].
(b) on accelerating the implementation of commitments under the
children and armed conflict agenda.
(d) on enabling safe, rapid, and unimpeded humanitarian
access and assistance, fully respecting humanitarian principles.
(e) on protecting all
humanitarian and medical personnel, journalists, and media professionals in armed
conflict.
(f) on redoubling efforts
to end impunity and ensure accountability for atrocity crimes and other gross
violations, and gender-based violence.
There are important changes
in “decision” (c). “Avoid at all costs
the use of explosive weapons in populated areas, especially near schools and medical facilities”
becomes “Refrain from the
use of explosive weapons in populated areas when their use may be expected to cause harm to
civilians or civilian objects, including
essential civilian infrastructure, schools, medical facilities and places of worship,” extending the reach of the decision.
A last decision on a critical issue is added in
Rev-2; (g) “Encourage a
collective and voluntary agreement amongst the permanent members of the
Security Council to refrain from the use of the veto when the Security Council
intends to take action to prevent or halt genocide,
crimes against humanity or war crimes”.
Action 15. Ensure people affected by humanitarian emergencies receive the support they need (Action 13 in Rev-1): 4 decisions.
In Rev-1, the word “crisis”
was used instead of “emergencies”.
In this action, we can see how the PfF has included
more specific references to poverty and hunger, as we explained in the initial
post of this series. After expressing “grave concern
at the unprecedented number of people affected by humanitarian emergencies”,
this action expressly mentions personas “experiencing forced and increasingly
protracted displacement and those afflicted by hunger, acute food insecurity and famine” (§33).
Its decision (a) is new. It
refers to strengthening Member States' efforts “to prevent, anticipate and mitigate the impact of
humanitarian emergencies on people in need, especially the most vulnerable”.
Decision (b) is to address
the root causes of forced and protracted displacement “including the mass displacement of populations”
and implement equitable international burden and responsibility sharing in the creation
of durable solutions “for international displaced
persons and refugees”.
Humanitarian assistance is at the center of decision
(c) on eliminating “hunger, acute food insecurity and famine in armed conflict (…) including by
fulfilling our obligations to remove all restrictions on humanitarian
assistance and ensure people in need receive vital assistance, strengthening
early warning, developing social protection systems, and taking preventive
measures that builds the resilience of communities at risk”.
Finally, action (d) went to some rewording, and
read as follows: “Significantly
increase financial and other forms of support to countries and communities
facing humanitarian emergencies,
including host communities [Previously, “crises”],
including by scaling up innovative and anticipatory financing mechanisms”.
Action 16. Promote cooperation and understanding between Member States, defuse tensions, seek the pacific settlement of disputes and resolve conflicts (Action 14 in Rev-1): 5 decisions.
This action and its attached
“decisions” went through many reforms and now show increased attention to
regional efforts. To start, a paragraph in which Member States reaffirm their commitment “to
preventive diplomacy, the peaceful settlement of disputes and the importance of
dialogue between states” is added in the action presentation by Rev-2, which
now recognizes the
UN’s role in preventive diplomacy “and the importance of the
United Nations’ partnership with regional and sub-regional organizations to
prevent and resolve conflicts between Member States” (§34).
Rev-1 decision
(a) was split into to Rev-2 “decisions” 8a) and (b), establishing:
(a) “Prioritize [previously, “Revitalize”] conflict
prevention and resolution by revitalizing and implementing existing mechanisms for the peaceful
settlement of disputes, in accordance with the Charter.”
(b) Develop and implement new “mechanisms for the pacific
settlement of disputes, confidence-building, early warning and crisis
management mechanisms, at the sub-regional,
regional, and international level, to address new and emerging threats to international peace and
security”.
In the decision
(c) on intensifying
the use of diplomacy to ease tensions, a reference to requesting the good offices of the Secretary-General in Rev-1 was taken out. Instead, in the decision (d)
new wording the States “urge the Secretary-General to actively use the
good offices of the Secretary-General (…) to lead and
support mediation and preventive diplomacy” encouraging the SG “to bring to the attention of the Security
Council any matter that may threaten the maintenance of international peace and
security”.
Last but not
least, a new decision (e) calls to “support regional and
sub-regional organizations’ role in diplomacy, mediation and the pacific
settlement of disputes, and strengthen the coordination and cooperation between
these organizations and the United Nations”.
Action 17. Fulfill our commitment to comply with the decisions of the International Court of Justice in any case to which our State is a party (New action): 1 decision.
In this Rev-2 added the UN Member States “recognize the positive
contribution of the International Court of Justice (…) and the value of its work for the
promotion of the rule of law” while reaffirming their obligation “to comply with the decisions of
the International Court of Justice in cases to which they are parties”.
The only decision under this action is taking “appropriate steps to ensure that
the International Court of Justice can fully and effectively discharge its
mandate and promote awareness of its role in the peaceful settlement of
disputes, while respecting that parties to any dispute shall also seek other
peaceful means of their own choice”.
This is a clear example of
an action, and “decision”, that only repeats long-term ago agreed upon and well-established
international law rule.
Action 18. Build and sustain peace at the national level (Action 15 in Rev-1): 9 decisions.
This is the more extensive
action in this Chapter, in which the Member States
recognize that they “bear
the primary responsibility [previously, “are responsible”] for preventing conflict
and building peace in their countries”. Then, in an obvious statement,
Governments affirm “that national efforts to build
and sustain peace contribute to the maintenance of international peace and
security”. To provide “adequate, predictable and sustained [previously, also “flexible”] financing
for peacebuilding is essential”, welcome the recent General
Assembly decision to increase the resources available to the United Nations
Peacebuilding Fund” (§36).
With minor wording changes,
Rev-1 “decision” (a) was divided into Rev-2 “decisions”:
(a) Deliver on our
commitment in the 2030 Agenda to significantly
reduce all forms of violence and related death rates everywhere”. Previously, “decision” (d) included a reference to make
“efforts to quantifiably
reduce violent deaths” that was erased, so this is a sentence movement and not a new adding.
(b) Redouble our efforts to eliminate sexual and gender-based violence and
conflict-related sexual violence”.
“Decisions” (c) and (d) are
new:
(c) “Eliminate racism, racial
discrimination, xenophobia, religious intolerance and all other forms of
intolerance and discrimination from our societies and promote interreligious
and intercultural dialogue”.
(f) “Request the Secretary-General
to provide Member States with examples and analysis of best practice and
effective approaches from existing national, regional and sub-regional
prevention mechanisms or strategies to be presented at the 80th session”.
The other “decisions” are reformed as follows:
(d) “Strengthen
and implement existing [Previously, “develop”] national prevention strategies and approaches, and develop them where they do not exist” to
address the “root causes [previously, “drivers”] of violence and armed
conflict”. Despite the modification, this paragraph maintains a reference
coming from Rev-1 explaining that it would be done “on a voluntary basis”. It
means that implementing this decision is up to Member
States' consideration.
Based on Rev-1 “decision”
(c), the new “decision” (e) calls to assist States requesting national capacity
building to develop and implement their nationally-owned
prevention strategies “and
approaches and address the root causes of violence and conflict in their
countries”, expressly mentioning that the Peacebuilding Commission and
the UN are a tool to that end.
Based on Rev-1 “decision” (d),
Rev-2 “decision” (g) States “address
[previously, “integrate”] the risks associated with small arms and light weapons, their ammunition and parts and
components [previously, “in all their aspects”] including through national
prevention strategies and approaches”. The new wording extends the reach of the “decision”.
Based on Rev-1 “decision”
(e), Rev-2 “decision” (h) addresses the risks that “disinformation, misinformation, hate speech and content inciting harm” causes to social stability and
cohesion, and calls to respect the right to freedom of expression but also “privacy
(while) ensuring unhindered access to the internet”.
Based on Rev-1 “decision
(f), Rev-2 “decision” (i) is about pursuing “stronger alignment between the United Nations,
international and regional financial institutions and the needs of Member
States affected by conflict and violence” in supporting their “economic stability, national prevention and peacebuilding efforts”.
Action 19. Accelerate the implementation of our commitments on women and peace and security (Action 16 in Rev-1): 4 decisions.
Rev-2 paragraph 37
initiates by recognizing “the role of women as agents of peace” and that
“the full, equal, safe, and meaningful participation of women in decision-making
at all levels of peace and security, including conflict prevention and resolution” is essential in achieving
sustainable peace, to immediately after condemning the increased levels of
violence against all women and girls, particularly at risk during violence in
armed conflict, post-conflict situations and humanitarian emergencies [previously, “settings”].
Then,
the Member States “decide”:
(a) Redoubling efforts to
achieve gender equality and women’s
empowerment, including by preventing setbacks and tackling the
persistent barriers to the implementation of the women and peace and security
agenda” with an important addition referred to “ensure that initiatives to advance these efforts are
adequately financed”.
Two new “decisions”, very
similar and easy to join in only one, call to
(b) “Deliver on our commitments to
ensure that women can fully, equally and meaningfully participate in all United
Nations-led mediation and peace processes”.
(d) “Accelerate
our ongoing efforts to ensure the full, equal and meaningful participation of women
in peace operations”.
Finally,
“decision” (c) is about taking concrete steps “to eliminate and prevent” the threats and human rights violations and abuses
experienced by all women and girls in armed conflict, post-conflict situations
and humanitarian emergencies
[previously, “settings”], with an obvious adding expressly mentioning “gender-based violence and conflict
related sexual violence”.
Action 20. Accelerate the implementation of our commitments on youth, peace and security (New action): 2 decisions.
In this new action, the UN
Member States “recognize that the full, effective and meaningful participation of all
young persons is critical to maintain and promote international peace and
security”, and decide to:
(a) Take concrete measures to ensure young persons can participate in
decision-making at all levels of peace and security, including by increasing
opportunities for them to participate in relevant intergovernmental
deliberations at the United Nations.
(b) Strengthen and implement existing youth, peace and security national
and regional roadmaps, and develop them where they do not exist, on a voluntary
basis to deliver on our commitments.
Action 21. Address the challenges posed to international peace and security by adverse climate and environmental impacts (Action 17 in Rev-1): 2 decisions.
Previously presented as “address environmental and climate impacts on peace and
security”, a specific reference to diversity loss as a factor that exacerbates
tensions, instability, and economic insecurity is deleted from the Rev-2
paragraph 39, which now underlines that “countries affected by armed conflict often lack
the capacity, resources and resilience to address and respond to adverse
climate and environmental challenges”.
Rev-2
“decision” (a) wording deletes a specific reference to the Security Council
among the UN's relevant intergovernmental organs for considering and addressing
“the implications for international peace and security [previously,
“adverse impacts”] of
climate change, and other adverse environmental impacts where relevant [previously, “degradation and biodiversity loss impacts”], including as part of the mandate of peace
operations, as appropriate”.
“Decision”
(b) calls to “urgently implement our respective commitments [previously, “intergovernmentally agreed
commitments”] on climate change
and the environment”, and highlights the special importance of meeting the “financial
commitments to support developing countries adapt to climate change, and
support highly vulnerable countries and those affected by armed
conflict build resilience [previously, “highly vulnerable countries and communities”].
Action 22. Adapt peace operations to better respond to existing challenges and new realities (Action 18 in Rev-1): 6 decisions.
In Rev-1, this
action was not only about adapting peace
operations but also about supporting peace enforcement,
and it is only the beginning of the reforms introduced here by Rev-2.
To
start, Rev-1 (§23) mentioned “the needs of Member
States, including
those of host countries”, but now
it refers to “the needs of all Member States” and to “the priorities and responsibilities
of host countries”, to add that “Peace operations can only succeed when political solutions are
actively pursued and they have predictable, adequate and sustained financing”
(§40).
Then,
the Member States reaffirm the importance of enforcement action authorized by
the Security Council to maintain or restore international peace and security,
and, in that regard “support
enhanced collaboration between the United Nations and regional and sub-regional organizations, particularly the African Union” (Rev-1 only mentioned the
UN-African Union collaboration. Consequently, Members States “decide”:
(a) Call on the Security
Council to ensure that peace operations are anchored in and guided by political strategies, deployed with clear, sequenced and prioritized
mandates that are realistic and achievable, exit
strategies and viable transition plans, and as part of a comprehensive approach
to sustaining peace in full compliance with international law”.
(b) Request the
Secretary-General “to undertake
a review on the future of all forms of United Nations’ peace operations, taking
into account lessons learned from previous and ongoing reform processes, and providing strategic and action-oriented
recommendations (…) on [erased text: “the future of
all forms of United Nations’ peace operations and”] how the United Nations’ toolbox can be adapted
to meet evolving needs”, allowing agile and tailored responses to “existing,
emerging and future challenges”.
The “decision” to “encourage the Secretary-General
to convene an annual high-level meeting with relevant regional organizations to
discuss matters pertaining to peace operations, peacebuilding and conflicts” in Rev-1 is
no longer in Rev-2. Now, “decision” (c) is about ensuring
that “peace
operations engage at the earliest possible stage in transitions, including with
host countries, the United Nations country team, and relevant national
stakeholders”.
Rev-2 includes a final
aggregate in “decision (d), that in Rev-2 states: “Take concrete steps to
ensure the safety and security of the personnel of peace operations, and improve their access to health
facilities, including mental health services”.
This is one of the two express mention of “mental health” in the PfF (the other
one is under Action 37 on investing in children and young people social and
economic development).
“Decision” (e) is about ensuring that enforcement
actions are by “an inclusive political strategy”
[previously, “efforts”] and by non-military approaches, and “address
the root causes [previously “causes and drivers”] of conflict”. In Rev-1, this decision referred explicitly to
counter-terrorism contexts and drivers of terrorism. Both mentions were deleted
in Rev-2.
Rev-1
“decision” (f) on improving “support to
peace enforcement action by adequate, predictable and sustainable financing,
including through United Nations’ assessed contributions” was taken out from Rev-2, and “decision” (g) in
Rev-1 on ensuring “adequate, predictable and sustainable financing for African Union-led
peace support operations mandated by the Security Council as recently agreed by
the Security Council” pass as
“decision” (f) if the Rev-2 without changes.
Action 23. Address the serious impact of threats to maritime security and safety (New action): 2 decisions.
In this action, included for
the first time in Rev-2, Member States recognize the importance of addressing the impacts “of threats to maritime security
and safety on regional and international peace and security to ensure that the
world’s waterways are safe, open for trade and enable all States to thrive”, and expressly mentions as reference document the UN
Charter and the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Two “decisions”
are attached: the first based on the instruments we have and the second on developing
new ones.
(a)
“Enhance international cooperation at the global,
regional, subregional and bilateral levels to combat all threats to maritime
security and safety, including threats to critical infrastructure and
disruptions to trade and economic activities and maritime interests, in
accordance with international law”.
(b)
“Explore options to develop new instruments,
frameworks, and mechanisms to monitor, prevent and respond to such threats,
including through information sharing among States and capacity building to
detect, prevent and suppress such threats”.
Action 24. Pursue a future free from terrorism (Action 19 in Rev-1): 3 decisions.
This action went through a substantial rewording. After condemning terrorism in all its forms and
manifestations, Member States “reaffirm
that all terrorist acts are criminal regardless of how
their perpetrators may justify them” and highlight
the importance of taking measures aimed “to eliminate the dissemination of terrorist propaganda,
preventing and suppressing the flow of financing for terrorist activities, as
well as recruitment activities of terrorist organizations”.
The UN Member States also reaffirms that “terrorism and violent extremism
conducive to terrorism cannot and should not be associated with any religion,
civilization, or ethnic group”, calling to promote
and protect “international
law, human rights for all and the rule
of law” as an essential part of the fight against terrorism and violent
extremism conducive to terrorism. Three “decisions” are attached to this action
in Rev-2:
(a) “Implement [previously, “adopt”] a whole-of-society [previously, “balanced and comprehensive”] approach to counter terrorism and the prevention of violent extremism
conducive to terrorism, “including
by addressing the root causes of terrorism, in accordance with international
law”. I always wonder when read that States commit to act within the
international law framework. Is not obvious?
(b) “Address the threat
posed by the misuse [previously,
“use”] of new and emerging technologies, including digital technologies and financial instruments, for
terrorist purposes.
(c)
Enhance coordination of the UN’s
counter-terrorism efforts and cooperation between the UN and regional and
sub-regional organizations on counter-terrorism and “considering revitalizing
efforts towards the conclusion of a comprehensive convention on international
terrorism”. Adding the word “considering” before “revitalizing” the second part
of the “decision” means nothing.
Action 25. Prevent and combat transnational organized crime and illicit financial flows (Action 20 in Rev-1): 2 decisions.
“Transnational organized
crime and related financial
flows can pose a serious threat [previously, “poses a threat”] to international peace and
security, human rights and sustainable development”. This Member States
affirmation continues by highlighting the specific threat coming from “links that can exist between [previously,
“links between”] transnational organized crime and terrorist groups”, softening
the reference.
A new (a) “decision” is
included to “scale up
efforts in addressing transnational organized crime and related financial flows
through comprehensive strategies, including prevention, early detection,
protection and law enforcement, tackling the root causes, and engagement with
relevant stakeholders”.
“Decision” (b)
was cut, and now refers to “strengthen international
cooperation to prevent and combat cybercrime,” erasing a final part in Rev-1 wording that
mentioned “crimes committed through
the use of information and communications technologies”. To be fair, the part erased referred to
cybercrime.
A Rev-1 “decision” on tacking “concrete steps to detect, investigate, and prosecute
illicit arms and ammunition and related financial flows” is deleted.
Action 26. Act to achieve the goal of a world free of nuclear weapons (Action 21 in Rev-1): 5 decisions.
In Rev-1 this action wording
was different: “Accelerate progress towards a world free of nuclear weapons”. As with many others
in this chapter, this action shows profound differences between Rev-1 and Rev-2
contents.
The Member States
open this action description saying that “A nuclear war would visit devastation upon all mankind
and could pose an existential threat to humanity” (the use of the word “could”
seems, at least, an unhappy addition). As a consequence, States decide to “make every effort to avert the
danger of such a war” and reaffirm that “a nuclear war can never be won
and must never be fought”.
Once again, Members “reaffirm and recognize that the total elimination of nuclear weapons is
the only absolute
guarantee against the use [previously, “use or
threat of use”] of nuclear weapons,” and uphold their binding
obligations and international commitments outlined in relevant treaties,
including by promoting international stability, peace, and security, as part of
a seek of a world without nuclear weapons. In the same line, Member States “reiterate
our deep concern over the slow pace of nuclear disarmament” while “reaffirm the inalienable right of
all countries to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for
peaceful purposes without discrimination”.
A new “decision” (a) expresses
that States “Recommit to
making progress towards the ultimate goal of the total elimination of nuclear
weapons in the context of general and complete disarmament under strict and
effective international control, including by reducing reliance on these
weapons and avoiding a nuclear arms race”.
A Rev-1 simple “decision” to continue calling upon
“the nuclear-weapon States to prevent any use or threat of use of nuclear
weapons, pending their total elimination” is transformed into a more complex Rev-2
“decision” (b): to “make every effort, especially the nuclear-weapon States, to ensure that nuclear weapons
are never used again, pending the total elimination of nuclear weapons, and to refrain from any
inflammatory rhetoric concerning the use of nuclear weapons”. The final
part looks like a message for concrete addresses.
The Rev-2 decision (c) rewrites Rev-1 Rev-1 “decision”
(c) “Call upon the nuclear-weapon States, pending the total elimination of
nuclear weapons, to honour and respect all existing security assurances
undertaken by them, including in connection with the treaties and relevant
protocols of nuclear weapon-free zones, and not to use or threaten to use nuclear
weapons against non-nuclear-weapon States.” Previously, it called nuclear-weapon States to engage in and intensify
dialogue on strategic stability to promote international peace and security,
and to elaborate next steps for nuclear disarmament, including by reducing nuclear
“Decisions” (d) refer
to “Commit to strengthening
the disarmament and non-proliferation architecture and work to prevent [previously,
“prevent”] any erosion of
existing international norms and take all possible steps to prevent nuclear war.” Rev-1 was
clearer regarding the reach of this decision since it mentioned “international norms against
the possession, spread, testing and use of nuclear weapons”.
Rev-1 decision on “accelerate the implementation of existing nuclear disarmament obligations
and commitments” became the Rev-2 decision
(e): “Seek
to accelerate through concrete actions the full and effective implementation
of our existing, respective nuclear
disarmament obligations and commitments, including by adhering to relevant international legal instruments
and through the pursuit of nuclear weapon free zones”. The decision is weak
since it points to “seek to accelerate”, and not “to accelerate”.
Action 27. Uphold our disarmament obligations and commitments (Action 22 in Rev-1): 8 decisions.
This
action expresses the Member States' “serious concern” at the increasing number of actions that erode international
norms “and non-compliance
with obligations in the field of disarmament, arms control and
non-proliferation”, including a mention to respecting “international law [previously, “humanitarian
principles”] that apply to weapons, means and
methods of warfare, and support progressive efforts to effectively regulate
arms”.
Then, Member States “recognize the importance of maintaining [previously, “restoring”] and strengthening [previously, “enhancing]
the role of the United Nations’ disarmament machinery.” The word-by-word
negotiation is crystal clear in this action, that continues calling “for full
compliance with and implementation and universalization of relevant treaties
established to eliminate weapons of mass destruction”, adding that “any use of
chemical and biological weapons by anyone, anywhere, and
under any circumstances is unacceptable”, reaffirming governments determination
“to exclude completely the possibility of biological agents and toxins being
used as weapons and to
uphold relevant agreements in this regard”.
The first three decisions listed under this action show
no changes or minor wording reforms:
(a) Revitalize the role of
the United Nations in the field of disarmament, including by recommending that
the General Assembly hold a fourth special session [of the General Assembly] devoted to disarmament (SSOD-IV).
(b) Pursue a world free
from chemical and biological weapons and ensure that those responsible for any
use of these weapons are identified and held accountable.
(c) Address emerging and evolving biological risks through improving
processes to anticipate, prevent, coordinate and prepare for such risks, whether
caused by natural, accidental or deliberate release of biological agents.
Even when a single reform in Rev-2
action (g) would look like a minor change, it is relevant since it results in a
modification of the obligation reach: “Strengthen
our efforts to combat, prevent and eradicate the illicit trade in small arms
and light weapons [and their ammunition] in all its aspects”.
“Decision (f) was modified as follows: “Redouble our
efforts to achieve universality and implement our respective obligations under relevant
international instruments
[previously, “implementation of treaties that”] prohibit or restrict weapons due to their humanitarian impact
[previously, “for humanitarian reasons”] and take steps
to promote all
aspects of mine action”.
Finally, three
new “decisions” are added in Rev-2:
(d) “Identify,
examine and develop effective measures, including possible
legally-binding measures, to strengthen and
institutionalise international norms and instruments against the development, production,
acquisition, transfer, stockpiling, retention, and use of biological agents and toxins as
weapons”.
(e) “Strengthen measures to prevent
the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by non-State actors”.
(h) “Address
existing gaps in through-life conventional ammunition management to reduce the
dual risks of unplanned conventional ammunition explosions and the diversion
and illicit trafficking of conventional ammunition to unauthorized recipients,
including to criminals, organized criminal groups and terrorists”.
Action 28. Address the potential risks and seize the opportunities associated with new and emerging technologies (Action 23 in Rev-1): 3 decisions
In Rev-1 this action was
presented as “address the risks posed by emerging
domains and technologies”.
Member States recognize
that “rapid technological change [“and the emergence of potential new domains of conflict”] presents risks and
opportunities to international peace and security, identifying the UN Charter
and international law as guidance providers to address these risks.
Two decisions attached to Rev-2 action 28 were
reformed.
(a) “Launch negotiations on
legally-binding and non-legally binding instruments to ensure peace, security
and the prevention of an
arms race in outer space in all its aspects, which engage all relevant
stakeholders” is transformed into “Advance discussions to prevent an arms race in outer space in
all its aspects, which engage all relevant stakeholders”. Rev-2 adds that such
negotiations should be “consistent with the provisions of
the Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in Outer Space,
with a view to agreeing potential political commitments and legally-binding
instruments with appropriate and effective provisions for verification”.
(b) “Conclude by 2026 a
legally binding instrument autonomous weapons systems” become “Advance with urgency
discussions on lethal autonomous weapons systems through the existing
intergovernmental process to develop an instrument and other possible measures,
including to address the risks posed by lethal
autonomous weapons systems” A reference explaining that the autonomous weapons
referred are those “that
select targets and apply force without human control oversight” is present in both Rev-1 and Rev-2,
but now a sentence explaining that they also reach those cases in which autonomous
weapons “cannot be used in
compliance with international humanitarian law”.
Finally, “decision” (c)
went through a minor rewording process and now “request the Secretary-General
to update Member- States on new and emerging
technologies, including nanotechnology and human enhancement technology and their implications for international
peace and security”.
Action 29. Address the potential risks posed by the misuse of digital technologies, including information and communication technologies and artificial intelligence (Action 24 in Rev-1): 4 decisions.
Concerned about
the potential risks to international peace and security posed by
the misuse of digital technologies, “including
information and communications technologies and artificial intelligence, but
deleting an express mention contained in Rev-1 to its use “by non-state actors and for terrorist purposes,” The member agreed in four “decisions”:
“Decision” (a), to “uphold international law,
including the Charter, as well as implement agreed norms, rules and principles
of responsible State behavior in the use of information communications
technologies” shows no change between its Rev-1 and Rev-2 versions.
Differently, “decision” (b) was
reformed and now is aimed to “ensure that no State
conducts or knowingly supports ICT activity contrary to its obligations under
international law that intentionally
damages critical infrastructure or otherwise impairs the use and operation of critical infrastructure that supports the
delivery of essential public services”. Previously, it referred to “Ensure that critical
infrastructure supporting the delivery of essential public services and required for the functioning of society is never intentionally damaged or
impaired by malicious information and
communications technology activity, from both State and non-State actors”.
That way, “the functioning of society” is
replaced by “delivery of essential
public services”, and “malicious information and
communications technology activity” by “activity
contrary to its obligations under international law”, while the final reference to “State and no State actors” is erased.
“Decision” (c) on enhancing “international
cooperation and assistance to address potential threats arising from misuse of
digital technologies through capacity building with a view to closing the
digital divide between developed and developing countries” is new.
In “decision” (d) Member States “identify and address the risks associated with the military applications of artificial intelligence and
ways to harness the opportunities
throughout their lifecycle, in consultation with relevant stakeholders”.
In Rev-1, the aim of this decision was different: to “establish robust mechanisms, such as norms, rules and principles throughout
the life-cycle of military applications of artificial intelligence”, but the mention of consulting relevant stakeholders
in Rev 1 still appears in Rev 2.
Finally, two “decisions” in Rev-1 are not part of
Rev-2:
“Request the Secretary-General to present options for Member
State consideration for a potential multilateral accountability
mechanism to support adherence to agreed norms, rules and principles of
responsible State behaviour”, and “strengthen
transparency, accountability and oversight mechanisms for the use,
development and deployment of data-driven technology, including artificial
intelligence, to support the maintenance of international peace and security
and to ensure that the use of these technologies complies with international
law”.
Conclusion
The inclusion of three new actions in Rev-2 about
complying with the decisions of the International Court of Justice; youth,
peace and security; and maritime security and safety should be highlighted. The
first is aligned with Summit of the Future the macro-objective of strengthening
multilateralism, the second helps to “update” security actors, and the third is
directly related to a worrisome current security issue with multiple impacts.
Despite the “behind doors” PfF negotiations process, the
reforms introduced in Rev-2 make clear that defining this Chapter's actions
and decisions was a difficult word-by-word deal.
In a general approach, Rev-2
seems to be more comprehensive than Rev-1, reflecting
evolving priorities and a more nuanced approach to international peace and
security issues. For example, Rev-2 includes new language about rebuilding
trust and strengthening solidarity, adds language about eliminating racism,
religious discrimination, and xenophobia; and gives more space to the regional
and subregional levels and preventive diplomacy. The permanence of the “decision”
on encouraging permanent Security Council members to refrain from using the veto
in cases of genocide, crimes against humanity, or war crimes in Rev-2 is good
news.
Nevertheless, as we pointed
out during our analysis, many decisions are now less detailed than in Rev-1,
like Rev-2 Action 28, decision (e) that in Rev-1 referred to concluding by 2026
a legally binding instrument on autonomous weapons systems, and now makes an
open call to advance with urgency the existing intergovernmental process to
develop that instrument. Fewer details mean lower possibilities for a quick
implementation.
Besides, some changes in
wording result in weaker decisions, such as when Rev-2 refers to “seek to
accelerate”, and not “to accelerate” (Action 16, decision (e)).
On a personal note, it
still strikes me when I read that states recommit to fulfilling basic international
rules, especially those directly related to the UN Charter principles. I hope
that one day it will be considered an unnecessary redundancy and, thus, abandoned
by the diplomatic practice.
