STATEMENT

by the Representative of the Russian Federation
in the First Committee of the 75th Session of the UN General Assembly
at the Thematic Debate on «Conventional Weapons»

Mr. Chairman, Colleagues,

Being among of the most active Parties to the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects (CCW) Russia stands for further strengthening of its regime, above all, via universalization of the Convention and its Protocols as well as full implementation of their provisions.

We deeply regret that the events preplanned by the decisions of the Meeting of the CCW High Contracting Parties – MHCP (session of the Group of Governmental Experts on Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems – GGE on LAWS, and meetings of experts under the Amended Protocol II and Protocol V) have not taken place. The reason is the COVID pandemic and the lack of consensus among the Parties regarding «hybrid» format of the meetings that restricted the right of delegations to be adequately represented in the meeting room by a number of experts needed.

We still call to exercise the utmost caution when introducing new topics in the framework of the CCW taking into account the balance between humanitarian concerns and the legitimate defense interests of States. The maintenance of such a balance is particularly relevant and required against the background of growing illegitimate attempts of certain countries and civil society activists to present humanitarian aspects as the only absolutely sufficient condition for imposing restrictions and prohibitions on specific types of conventional weapons.

We proceed from the fact that norms of international law including international humanitarian law fully apply to emerging technologies in the area of LAWS and there is no need to adapt those to specifications of weapon systems in question. In this regard, we see no grounds to elaborate a legally binding instrument on LAWS containing a ban or a moratorium on development and use of such systems and related technologies. Any discussions on a «code of conduct» with respect to LAWS we consider also to be premature. So, the calls by a number of States and NGOs to change the GGE's research mandate to a negotiation one are baseless and counterproductive for its further work.

While prototypes of such systems are non-existent and LAWS basic characteristics and conceptual frameworks remain uncertain and, moreover, there is a considerable divergence in positions among State Parties any precipitate steps may only damage scientific and technological progress in areas related to information technology, artificial intelligence, peaceful robotics, etc.

We are ready to continue the discussion on LAWS in the GGE. The results of the Group's work confirm that the CCW remains the best venue for further consideration of LAWS issues.

We follow closely evaluation of the discussion on the use of explosive weapons in populated areas (EWIPA). One has to be cautious when it comes to elaboration of some «political declarations» on the prohibition of the weapons in question that may be used in the future under this pretext in order to discredit any military operation that employ explosive weapons as well as to divide those weapons into categories of «acceptable» and «unacceptable».

In our view, there is nothing that can justify any adaptation of international humanitarian law to specifics of explosive weapons’ use. Any related issues can be solved exclusively through faithful implementation of already existing norms of international humanitarian law, first of all, of the 1977 Additional Protocol I to the 1949 Geneva Conventions.

We attach great importance to the solution of the problem of improvised explosive devices (IEDs) which are currently a major imminent humanitarian threat. We advocate for further consideration of issue in the framework of CCW Amended Protocol II including coordination of efforts with other international initiatives and approaches in this sphere, as required by relevant UNGA and UNSC resolutions. The ongoing work on IEDs within the CCW should be consistent with the subject and purpose of the Convention.

Mr. Chairman,

We pay the greatest attention to the issue of trafficking in conventional weapons. We stand for a more efficient implementation of the UN Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons, which aims to reliably curb arms trafficking. Certainly, this work will require concerted efforts of the entire international community with the UN playing the central role.

In addition, we note the importance of the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms as one of the chief mechanisms for ensuring transparency and international security through tracking and detection of destabilizing stockpiles of arms in certain regions of the world. At the same time, we are cautious about attempts of a number of States to expand the scope of the Register, taking into account the past precedents when this mechanism was applied for purposes it is not meant for, such as by establishing the parameters of the arms embargo imposed by the UN SC.

I have to admit, we still believe it is inadvisable to accede to the Arms Trade Treaty in its current form and participate, even as observers, in official events held under its auspices. The Treaty-established standards are way below the Russian ones. Besides, the application of the Treaty in practice raises serious questions. It is unacceptable for its individual Parties to keep on supplying military products directly or indirectly to the zones of internal armed conflicts.

Thank you.