Pursuing in this way the notion of bringing problem countries into the process would run a severe risk of running the issue into deadlock. Countries with a vested interest will choose to veto and stall rather than negotiate in good faith. UK rhetoric vs action 5. The Special Committee would also be tasked with mapping out the road ahead to a total ban on APMs. The CD is a closed-shop of 60 states, including the very states that blocked attempts to make the UN Inhumane Weapons Convention an 'effectively verifiable' treaty.
Most member states have the right of veto, even on points to do with the mandate.
There is no reason that December's Ottawa treaty should not be legally-binding. Many countries have already agreed an export moratorium at least. This guarantees a very long process in Special Committee itself before the issue even comes to plenary. Unless of course, the UK does not want to see a ban. The CD is the leading international body for the negotiation of disarmament agreements.