3 UNGA resolutions to watch at First Committee
War, weapons and geopolitical tensions are on everyone’s mind right now. Here are three UN General Assembly (UNGA) resolutions that we think are worth keeping an eye out for this October.
What is it about?
The probability of nuclear war has continued to increase, with many experts saying it’s now at its highest point since the Cuban missile crisis. States without nuclear weapons are clearly trying to figure out what they can do to prevent a nuclear war, which would have catastrophic humanitarian consequences for them. The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) was one such effort, and now Ireland and New Zealand are taking the next step by putting forward a new resolution requesting the UN to set up a Scientific Panel of Experts to conduct the first UN study on the consequences of nuclear war since the 1980s. This idea was proposed by the Scientific Advisory Group of the TPNW and echos the key points from the joint statement on nuclear weapons by the National Academies of Science of the G7 countries.
Will it make a difference?
It's easy to sigh at the establishment of yet another UN panel of experts. But with escalating nuclear risks, preventing nuclear war is becoming an urgent national security matter for non–nuclear weapon states. With the stakes so high, the resolution could provide a valuable scientific and educational tool to complement existing measures to eliminate this risk.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has certainly played a big role in raising awareness about climate change and driving political pressure to reduce emissions. The nuclear war panel could contribute to similar progress in solving the nuclear weapons problem.
Who are the supporters? New Zealand and Ireland are leading the resolution.
Who are the spoilers? Probably Russia, as they oppose everything these days. Definitely France, and it will be entertaining to watch what incoherent reason they manage to make up this time.
Keep an eye on: China and the United States. China has seemed mildly positive in the consultations while the United States has been rather quiet.
What is it about?
After the Vienna conference and the UN Secretary-General’s report on autonomous weapons, this initiative marks the next step towards fulfilling the UN chief’s call to achieve a treaty regulating autonomous weapons by 2026.
The resolution sets up informal talks through the UNGA aiming for a “comprehensive and inclusive approach” to autonomous weapons. While it goes to great lengths to assure its complementarity with the decade-long ongoing process at the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons meetings in Geneva—where Russia has been blocking progress—it also puts pressure on that consensus-driven process.
Will it make a difference?
Eh, maybe? The resolution, if adopted, will just set up “informal” talks. This falls far short of what the majority of UN members want—actual negotiations on a new treaty regulating autonomous weapons. But as artificial intelligence is rapidly advancing, it at least attempts to push progress forward after a decade of torturously slow discussions in the CCW.
The resolution underscores that effectively dealing with the problems raised by autonomous weapons is more important than which conference room it’s discussed in. Once the resolution is adopted, it will be up to governments to decide which talks will achieve a substantive outcome first.
Supporters: With Austria in the lead, this resolution is brought forward by the co-sponsors of last year's resolution, with countries like Belgium, Brazil, Costa Rica, Ireland, Mexico, New Zealand, Philippines, Sierra Leone, Sri Lanka, and Switzerland driving the progress. Germany seems to have left the group though 🧐.
Spoilers: Russia and India are among the most outspoken opponents of a future treaty on autonomous weapons, often insisting on consensus rules, which they then use liberally to block progress. They’ll likely vote no to this resolution and work to bring more countries along with them.
Keep an eye on: Most Nato states claim to want an agreement to regulate autonomous weapons but are at the same time happy to protect Russia’s veto at the CCW. This resolution will put a spotlight on these states to choose whether to side with the spoilers or the movers.
Cluster munitions (text not circulated yet)
What’s it about?
The resolution on cluster munitions is usually a routine annual text reaffirming support for the Convention on Cluster Munitions (CCM), a treaty banning these inhumane weapons (of which 92% of casualties are civilians). But with Russia using these indiscriminate and illegal weapons in Ukraine, the United States supplying them to Ukraine (via Germany—a State Party to the ban!!) and Lithuania withdrawing from the treaty to “deter from a Russian invasion”, the resolution could prove far more controversial than in previous years.
In September, the 120 states parties, including 24 Nato states, to the CCM collectively responded to the current developments on cluster bombs. They condemned any use of cluster munitions, expressed regret over Lithuania's withdrawal and reaffirmed their commitment to universalise the treaty.
But beneath the surface condemnatory rhetoric, some uncomfortable Nato allies tried to water down the joint statement and weaken some of the language on the use and Lithuania’s withdrawal.
This resolution will force all these states to publicly take a position by casting a vote on the record on the issue, raising the question: will the resolution contain the strong language from the meeting of states parties, or will efforts to weaken it prevail?
Why does it matter?
The norm against cluster munitions is at risk. Lithuania has five months left of its notice period before it formally leaves the treaty, Russia continues to use them in Ukraine, unconfirmed reports say that cluster bombs were just found in Southern Lebanon, and the United States just approved a sixth transfer of cluster bombs to Ukraine. These weapons will continue to kill and harm civilians, particularly children, for decades.
Supporters: As the chair of the meeting of States Parties in September in Geneva, Mexico will lead the efforts on this resolution together with fifteen other states in the Coordination Committee.
Spoilers: Russia is the only country that always votes no to this annual resolution, and will most likely do the same this year.
Keep an eye on: Germany and the United States. Rumors have been swirling that Lithuania approached Germany before deciding to withdraw and got the nod of approval from Berlin— something that goes against the German obligations under the treaty. While Germany didn’t block the outcome document in Geneva, it worked hard to water down the language. Depending on how strong the language in the resolution is, we’ll keep an eye out for any explanations of votes from Germany.
The United States traditionally abstains since it’s not a State Party, but as it just approved its sixth transfer of old and outdated American stockpiles of cluster bombs to Ukraine, we’ll be watching for any changes in the US vote on this as well.
The UNGA First Committee on international security and disarmament will meet on 7 October to 8 November.
The meeting will be chaired by Ambassador Maritza Chan of Costa Rica and while we are of course mainly watching the actual substantive work on weapons issues, we’ll also be eagerly awaiting what stylish looks she’ll serve during the month.
To keep up to date on the resolutions and voting at the UNGA First Committee, check out Reaching Critical Will.