The United Nations announced Tuesday that a 30th country had signed on to the international convention banning cluster bombs, paving the way for the document to come into force on 1 August.

"The United Nations received today the 30th instrument of ratification for the Convention on Cluster Munitions," said a statement from the office of Secretary General Ban Ki-moon.
 

"The Secretary-General welcomes this major advance on the global disarmament agenda, and notes that the Convention's entry into force just two years after its adoption demonstrates the world's collective revulsion at the impact of these terrible weapons," according to the UN statement.
 

"Cluster munitions are unreliable and inaccurate. During conflict and long after it has ended, they maim and kill scores of civilians, including many children," the statement added.
 

The CMC is the work of several governments, in collaboration with the United Nations and NGOs – including the ICRC and Cluster Munition Coalition – that launched the so-called Oslo Process in February 2007.
 

Previously, the use of cluster munitions was generally regulated by international humanitarian law, in particular Additional Protocol I (1977) to the Geneva Conventions and customary law. They had set the basic rules for the use of any munitions, including cluster bombs. However, prior to the adoption and ratification of the CMC, the legality of the use of cluster munitions was subject to considerable debate and misapplication.

What will ratification mean?
“Signing [the convention] is a political act”, says Peter Herby, head of the arms unit at the ICRC who was himself involved in negotiating the CMC. “It means [states] support the objectives of this treaty and intend to ratify. Ratification is a legal act where they commit to be bound legally by the terms of the convention.” In that respect, non-compliance with the terms set out by the convention carries with it international legal repercussions.
 

Burkina Faso and Moldova were the 29th and 30th countries, respectively, to sign on for ratification after the convention was opened for signature in Oslo in December 2008.
 

The convention prohibits the use, production, and trade in cluster munitions and requires assistance to victims of the weapons. Legally, it is a significant contribution to international humanitarian law which seeks to reduce the risks for the civilian population, many of which stem from the use of cluster munitions.

Why now?
According to the ICRC, there was a proposal by 13 states in the 1970s to ban anti-personnel cluster munitions which include most of those used today but it was rejected. “What brought back the general awareness”, says Herby, “was the Kosovo conflict of 1999 which left a very heavy weapon contamination in the area”.
 

This was documented by the ICRC and other organisations. They looked at every incident in the following year and determined that one third of casualties were caused by this one weapon alone. NGOs then began to question more than ever whether this was worth the price. Later, when “during the Lebanon conflict even the Hezbollah was reported to have used cluster munitions, you begin to realise this is not a problem that is going to go away”, says Herby.

Resistance
By and large, states have recognised the scope of humanitarian damage that these weapons cause. The question then is why some governments are hesitant or openly resisting signing the convention. To Herby, this is a “Cold War relic”, the idea that you needed these massive numbers of sub-munitions that can be delivered over massive areas in just days. “Weapons were seen as the overall human cost of the conflict, they were then seen as part of the big power struggle in the Cold War and the allies of the US and the Soviet Union.”
 

But the Cold War is over and times have changed - but fear still prevails in politics. In Herby’s view, many countries have arsenals that were developed during the Cold War and they haven’t been renewed. Their fire power remains in cluster munitions as opposed to other more accurate and reliable modern weapons.
 

“For some countries including Great Britain it was a very large percentage of their munition stocks, and it was a very difficult decision for them to decide to just eliminate them.”
 

Countries that are yet to sign and ratify the Convention include the United States, China, Russia, Israel, India and Pakistan. Even for them, says Herby, it will be much more difficult to use cluster munitions in the future: “They are reacting to what has happened and the reality that this convention has set a new international norm.”