Geneva, 11 April 2017
Thank you, Mr Chair,
Estonia would also like to extend our gratitude toSwitzerland and the ICRC for the background document provided, which we believeprovides an excellent outline for the discussion here today.
As to the main topic at hand, Estonia sees the potentialforum of states as a platform to learn from each other in order to enhancerespect for and to together overcome obstacles in implementing IHL. What weregard as the primary issue at focus is that of the challenges all states face in capability-building.Collectively, we have not yet overcome challenges related to the emergence ofnon-state actors in armed conflicts. We are also faced with new challenges,such as applying IHL in contemporary domains and to modern technologies. Aforum of states could provide a safe space to address such and other issues ina non-politisized and non-contectualized manner.
We believe that there is work to be done and discussionsto be held to together improve our capability to tackle the said challenges.The eloquent description by the German delegate is likely familiar to many ofthe states present here. This aim can presicely be achieved by sharing bestpractices and ideas with other states, not necessarily having to agreecollectively on all fronts. If we don’t lose focus of what the potential forumstands for and aims to do, we can concentrate on mutual capacity building, not the assessment nor judgement ofwhere other states’ implementation of concrete IHL obligations is correct ornot in practice.
To touch upon the question of safeguards proposed toavoid non-politization of the forum of states, we support previous statements,such as that by our CZ colleague here yesterday in that it is up to us asstates to set the ground for achieving non-politization. As mentioned also bythe US and Uruguayan delegations and highlighted by Norway and others, it maybe explicitly stated in the rules of procedure of this potential forum ofstates what non-politization and non-contextualization means for us, thestates. We would also like to echo our Australian colleague who mentioned otherforums that have achieved just this regionally and we believe the same could besuccessful on a global scale. Additionally, what is proposed in the backgrounddocument are very concrete methods of establishing such safeguards: powers maybe accorded to the chair presiding over debates to ensure observance of rulesagreed upon jointly. All written documents submitted by delegations to such aforum could be made subject to a review in order to ensure conformity with theset standards.
With regard to the questions posed at the end of themeeting yesterday, we believe that the fruitful discussion yesterday, includingthe statements by the UK, Australia, Slovakia, Uruguay, the Netherlands andothers, provided a good reply to the questions posed in respect to existinggaps and the question of duplication. We would also like to again drawattention to the non-papers distributed by Spain, UK/Uruguay and France whichalso provide answers to these questions.
I thank you.