Background
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 (generally known as the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons or CCW) is a key international humanitarian law and arms control treaty. The treaty regime consists of a framework convention (1980) and five protocols. The protocols address:
- non-detectable fragments (Protocol I, 1980);
- mines, booby-traps and other devices (Protocol II, 1980; Amended Protocol II, 1996);
- incendiary weapons (Protocol III, 1980);
- blinding laser weapons (Protocol IV, 1995); and
- explosive remnants of war (Protocol V, 2003).
The CCW is the only treaty that specifically regulates the use of incendiary weapons, laser weapons and mines other than anti-personnel mines. It is also the only treaty enjoying the support of all major military powers that places specific restrictions on the use of some anti-personnel landmines.
As of September 2025, CCW has 128 High Contracting Parties (HCPs). Leaving aside original Protocol II (which largely has been superseded by Amended Protocol II), adherence to specific protocols ranges from 99 States (Protocol V) to 121 States (Protocol I).
Participation in the CCW regime is thus extensive but not universal. Notably, many ASEAN Member States and States in the Pacific region are not HCPs at all or are not bound by some protocols. Reasons for this vary. Contributing factors may include:
- the complexity of the treaty regime,
- uncertainties about the relevance and effect of some protocols in light of the adoption of other instruments (in particular, Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention and Convention on Cluster Munitions), and
- scarcity of guidance on interpretation and implementation.
CCW’s Implementation Support Unit (ISU) has been addressing some of these difficulties by producing a series of information notes and a comprehensive CCW Implementation Guide (the latter prepared by Lauren Sanders, Penny Saultry and Rain Liivoja).
Proposed Commentary
The guidance notes and the Implementation Guide are not intended to provide interpretative guidance on the CCW regime. To address this gap, we are producing a comprehensive article-by-article commentary of the convention and its protocols.
The commentary aims to clarify of the convention and its protocols, ultimately in order to contribute to the better achievement of their humanitarian aspirations. The commentary seeks to provide practitioners and scholars of international law, as well as arms control and disarmament diplomats, a comprehensive resource on the CCW.
In terms of its approach, structure and style, this commentary follows those of other arms control treaties published in the Oxford Commentaries on International Law series, which currently includes commentaries on the Chemical Weapons Convention, the Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Treaty, the Cluster Munitions Convention, the Arms Trade Treaty, and the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. Oxford University Press has expressed interest in the CCW commentary and will consider a full proposal once our contributor list is complete.
The commentary seeks to outline difficulties, uncertainties or controversies surrounding the interpretation of each provision, and address questions that have arisen in their practical application. The commentary draws upon a range of sources, including domestic legislation, regulation and instructions, as well as national annual reports prepared within the CCW framework.
The commentary consist of:
- introductions to the convention and each of the protocols,
- analyses of the articles structured broadly as follows:
- background and purpose;
- relationship to other provisions and treaties (where applicable);
- preparatory discussions and negotiations;
- interpretation and application (by paragraph, if required).
Contributors
Contributors to the Commentary are drawn from among practitioners and academics who have expertise on the CCW, either through participation in the drafting of the instruments, the meetings of HCPs or national implementation, or through published scholarly works.
All contributors are invited to participate in their individual expert capacities. They are requested to apply their best professional judgment in outlining a mainstream, good faith interpretation of the provisions of the convention and the protocols. The contributions are also asked to reflect any competing interpretations and controversies insofar as they are known and plausible. Accordingly, the commentaries are not expected to conform to the institutional viewpoint of any government or organisation.
Editors and Advisory Board
Editors
Rain Liivoja, University of Queensland
Lauren Sanders, University of Queensland
Penny Saultry, formerly Australian Defence Force
Any queries about the project may be sent to the editors by email (info@apils.org) or by using the contact form.
Editorial Advisory Board
Stuart Casey-Maslen, Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights
Silvia Cattaneo, Geneva International Centre for Humanitarian Demining
Michael W Meier, Georgetown University
The Editorial Advisory Board provides legal, technical, operational and humanitarian advice to the editors and contributors.
