The Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on Their Destruction (the Chemical Weapons Convention) opened for signature on 3 December 1997 and entered into force on 1 March 1999� An intercessional meeting on this Convention in May 2001 proposed the establishment of a small unit in accordance with the mandate of States Parties that would enhance the operations of the implementation process of the Convention�
The Third Meeting of States Parties of the Convention in September 2001 formally welcomed the establishment of an ISU� The Geneva International Centre for Humanitarian Demining (GICHD) was man-dated to manage the unit in accordance with the duties approved by States Parties� The agreement between the GICHD and States Parties was finalised on 7 November 2001�
Mandate
The ISU’s responsibilities, outlined in the President’s Paper and endorsed at the Third Meeting of the States Parties, are as follows:114
■ Providing support and advice to the Coordinating Committee and following up on Coordinating Committee decisions� The Committee was established in 2000 to coordinate matters relat-ed to the Intercessional Work Programme� The Coordinating Committee includes the Standing Committee’s 16 Co-Chairs and Co-Rapporteurs and is chaired by the President of the most recent meeting of the States Parties
■ Providing support and advice across all facets of current and incoming Presidents’ duties
■ Providing support and advice to the Co-Chairs and Co-Rapporteurs of the Standing Committees, undertaking preparations for meet-ings of the Standing Committees and executing any necessary follow-up
■ Interacting with the ICBL, ICRC, UN and other international organisations and agencies
■ Collecting, collating, storing and retrieving documentation on the Convention and its implementation
■ Ensuring that the GICHD website contains the latest information on the implementation process
Structure and staffing
The ISU operates under the financial and administrative guidance of the Director of the GICHD� The Director is accountable to the States Parties by complying with the agreement to establish an ISU to carry out the
duties related to the Convention and not the GICHD’s governing body�
The Director is mandated to submit an annual report on the functioning of the ISU to the States Parties at their annual meeting� The report covers the period between two meetings of States Parties� The Director may be invited by the President or the Coordinating Committee to present an oral report on the functioning of the ISU at intercessional meetings or on other occasions as requested� Below is a diagrammatic representation of the ISU�
Funding
The agreement between the States Parties and the GICHD-ISU states:
‘A fund for voluntary contributions shall be established to finance the on-going activities of the ISU�’115 The Coordinating Committee and the Director of the GICHD are responsible for the annual budget for the ISU� The basic infrastructure costs (for example general services, human resources, accounting, conference management) of the ISU are covered by the GICHD and are not included in the ISU budget�
The Director
Victim assistance specialist
Professional Officer
Intern Manager
Administrative assistance
Considerations for African States
In terms of AU preliminary discussions on developing an AU Common Position on an ATT there has been a recommendation for ‘a Secretariat to serve, promote and verify the effective, fair and accountable implementa-tion of the Treaty� Such a Secretariat could be funded from funds charged on revenues from arms sales from major producers, on an agreed per-centage�’116 However, no clear consensus has emerged as to whether the ISU should be an independent entity or should be based within the UN system� There has also been no further elaboration on how such a ‘levy’
on ‘major arms producers’ will be administered�
There appears to be no firm agreement among African States on the mandate that such an ISU could have with regards to providing technical assistance to those States that require support to establish and/
or enhance national conventional arms control measures and processes in accordance with a future ATT� This is an important consideration as comprehensive, national conventional arms transfer control entities in Africa are not commonplace� If technical assistance is a priority, then the multifunctional mandate similar to that of the ISU for the BTWC may be preferable for African States�
Should African States require an ISU that provides States with techni-cal assistance on request, then it will be in the interests of such States for the ISU to be staffed with conventional arms control technical experts, as in the case of the OPCW� These experts should be able to provide specialised advice and support on the elements of an ATT, especially with regard to national implementation�
A likely fundamental role for the ISU will be to be a clearinghouse for state reports on arms transfers� Given the current substantial inter-national arms control reporting requirements, it may be in the interests
of African States for the ISU to provide targeted reporting assistance� In addition, it may be prudent for such an entity to facilitate simplified and streamlined reporting procedures in order to encourage extensive and regular reporting�
Informally, many African States have suggested that the ISU be a focal point for funding applications for ATT implementation assistance�
Some States have also recommended that the ISU administer a voluntary implementation assistance fund, similar to the case of the ISU for the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-personnel Mines and on Their Destruction�