Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-qxdb6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T13:46:52.963Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Definition of Damage Resulting fromTransboundary Movements of Living Modified Organismsin Light of the Cartagena Protocol onBiosafety

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2016

Juan-Francisco Escudero Espinosa
Juan-Francisco Escudero Espinosa*
Affiliation:
University of León, León, Spain
Get access

Summary

The concept of risk requires preventative measures aswell as measures of liability and redress in thecase that damage is actually caused. The CartagenaProtocol on Biosecurity limits itself in Article 27to the establishment of a mandate for theelaboration of norms and procedures in regard toliability and redress. The fulfillment of thismandate requires, first, a definition of the conceptof damage to the conservation and sustainable use ofbiological diversity; second, a survey of the extentof damage to health; and, third, the considerationof socio-economic aspects. In this context, thisarticle analyzes the concept of damage in theinternational instruments that deal with thismaterial, taking into account levels ofimplantation. The article concludes by presenting adefinition of damage for use in the context of thedevelopment of the content of Article 27, using anadministrative focus in regard to the concept ofdamage for civil liability in domestic law.

Sommaire

Sommaire

La notion de risque nécessite des mesures préventivesainsi que des mesures de responsabilité et deréparation dans le cas de préjudice. Le Protocole deCartagena sur la biosécurité se limite, à l’article27, à l’établissement d’un mandat pour l’élaborationdes normes et procédures en matière deresponsabilité et de réparation. L’accomplissementde ce mandat exige, d’abord, une définition de lanotion de préjudice à la conservation etl’utilisation durable de la diversité biologique;d’autre part, une enquête sur l’étendue du préjudiceà la santé; et, troisièmement, un examen d’aspectssocio-économiques. Dans ce contexte, cet articleanalyse la notion de préjudice dans les instrumentsinternationaux qui traitent de cette matière, entenant compte des niveaux de l’implantation.L’article conclut en présentant une définition depréjudice, pour utilisation dans le cadre del’élaboration du contenu de l’article 27, en sefondant sur une orientation administrative en ce quiconcerne la notion de préjudice tiré de laresponsabilité civile en droit interne.

Type
Notes and Comments / Notes etcommentaires
Information
Canadian Yearbook of International Law/Annuaire canadien de droit international , Volume 47 , 2009 , pp. 319 - 342
Copyright
Copyright © The Canadian Yearbook of International Law/Annuaire canadien de droit international 2009 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

00 The author was a member of a research project entitled International Production and Trade of Genetically Modified Organisms, Reference no. LE059A05, which was financed by the Council of Education of the Regional Government for Castilla y León. He wishes to thank Thérèse Leroux, professor at the Université de Montréal, for her support and advice during his work at the Centre de Recherche en Droit Public.

1 Case Concerning Gabcíkovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary/Slovakia), 25 September 1997, [1997] ICJ Rep. 78.

2 Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, 29 January 2000, 39 I.L.M. 1027 (2000), <http://www.biodiv.org/biosafety/protocol.asp>. The list of state parties are available at <http://www.cbd.int/convention/parties/list.shtml> [Cartagena Protocol].

3 Falkner, R., “Regulating Biotech Trade: The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety” (2000) 76(2) International Affairs 299 at 300.Google Scholar

4 Cartagena Protocol, supra note 2, Article 1 (Objective).

5 Ibid., Article 27 (Liability and Redress).

6 Convention on Biological Diversity, Nairobi, 22 May 1992, 31 I.L.M. 818 (1992), <http://www.biodiv.org/convention/articles.asp> [CBD]. Currently, 191 states are parties to the CBD following the deposit of their ratification or accession instrument. See the status of ratifications and entry into force at http://www.cbd.int/convention/parties/list.shtml>.

7 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, 13 June 1992, 31 I.L.M. 874 (1992), Annex I, <http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?documentID=78&articleID=1163>.

8 CBD, supra note 6, Article 19.3.

9 Falkner, R., “Negotiating the Biosafety Protocol: The International Process,” in Bail, Chr., Falkner, R., and Marquard, H., eds., The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety: Reconciling Trade and Biotechnology with Environment and Development? (London: Royal Institute of International Affairs and Earthscan Publications, 2002), 3 at 6Google Scholar; Henne, G. and Fakir, S., “The Regime Building of the Convention on Bio-logical Diversity on the Road to Nairobi” (1999) 3 Max Planck Y.B. U.N. L. 315 at 327Google Scholar; Koester, V., “The Biodiversity Convention Negotiation Process: And Some Comments on the Outcome,” in Basse, E.M. et al., ed., Environmental Law: From Internationalto National Law (Copenhagen: GadJura, 1997), 205 at 222Google Scholar. The same article is also published in (1997) 27(3) Envt’l Pol’y & L. 175 at 181. Pomerance, R., “The Biosafety Protocol: Cartagena and Beyond” (2000) 8(3) N.Y.U. Envtl. L.J. 614 at 615.Google Scholar

10 Gupta, A., Framing “Biosafety” in an International Context, Environment and Natural Resources Program Discussion Paper no. E-99-10 (Cambridge, MA: Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, 1999) at 4.Google Scholar

11 Rivera-Torres, O., “The Biosafety Protocol and the WTO” (2003) 26(2) B.C. Int’l & Comp. L. Rev. 263 at 271.Google Scholar

12 Damena, W., “Liability and Redress,” in Bail, , Falkner, , and Marquard, , supra note 9, 366 at 368.Google Scholar Maljean-Dubois, S., “Le Protocole de Carthagène sur la biosécurité et le commerce international des organismes génétiquement modifiés (OGM)” (2001) 11(2) L’Observateur des Nations Unies 41 at 45.Google Scholar Liability and Redress (Article 27). Terms of Reference for the Open-Ended Ad Hoc Group of Legal and Technical Experts on Liability and Redress in the Context of the Cartagena Protocol on Bio-safety: Synthesis Report of Submissions Received from Parties, Other Governments and Organizations” Doc. UNEP/CBD/BS/COP-MOP/1/9 (31 October 2003) at 2, para. 8.

13 Report of the Extraordinary Meeting of the Conference of the Parties for the Adoption of the Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity, Doc. UNEP/CBD/ExCOP/1/3 (20 February 2000) at 27, para. 3 [CBD Report].

14 Burgiel, S. “The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety: Taking the Steps from Negotiation to Implementation” (2002) 11(1) R.E.C.I.E.L., 53 at 54Google Scholar; Cosbey, A. and Burgiel, S., The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety: An Analysis of Results, An IISD Briefing Note (Winnipeg: International Institute for Sustainable Development, 2000) at 2Google Scholar; Rivera-Torres, supra note 11 at 272; Schweizer, G.W., “The Negotiation of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety” (1999–2000) 6(2) Environmental Lawyer 577 at 585Google Scholar; Stoll, P.-T., “Controlling the Risks of Genetically Modified Organisms: The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety and the SPS Agreement” (2000) 10 Y.B.I.E.L. 82 at 87Google Scholar; Ladika, S., “Informal Talks Seen to Reaffirm Commitment of All Parties to Agree on Biosafety Protocol” (1999) 22(22) International Environment Reporter 785 at 786.Google Scholar

15 Cook, K., “Liability: “No Liability, No Protocol,”” in Bail, , Falkner, , and Marquard, , supra note 9, 371 at 378.Google Scholar

16 Report of the Third Meeting of the Open-Ended Ad Hoc Working Group on Biosafety, Doc. UNEP/CBD/BSWG/3/6 (17 October 1997) at 10 and 11, para. 39.

17 Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety: A Record of the Negotiations (Montreal: Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, 2003) at 82; Annex I, “Consolidated Text of Draft Articles ‘Biosafety Protocol’ Consolidated Text,” Doc. UNEP/CBD/BSWG/3/6 (17 October 1997) at 88-90.

18 “BSWG-6 Hightlights Tuesday, 16 February 1999” (1999) 9(112) Earth Negotiations Bulletin 2; Cook, supra note 15 at 377.

19 Burgiel, supra note 14 at 55. Newell, P. and Mackenzie, R., “The 2000 Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety: Legal and Political Dimensions” (2000) 10(4) Global Environmental Change: Human and Policy Dimension 313 at 315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar The different versions revised by the Open-Ended Ad Hoc Working Group on Biosafety (BSWG) of the draft project are the following documents: Doc. UNEP/CBD/BSWG/6/L.2 and Doc. UNEP/CBD/BSWG/6/L.2/Rev.1. The final draft of the project is published in Report of the Sixth Meeting of the Open-Ended Ad Hoc Working Group on Biosafety, Doc. UNEP/ExCOP/1/2 (15 February 1999) at 32, Article 25.

20 CBD Report, supra note 13 at 33, para. 92; Falkner, supra note 9 at 22. Schweizer, supra note 14 at 580; Zarrilli, S., International Trade in Genetically Modified Organisms and Multilateral Negotiations: A New Dilemma for Developing Countries (Geneva: United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, 2000), Doc. UNCTAD/ DITC/TNCD/1 (5 July 2000) at 19, para. 64, http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/poditctncd1.en.pdf>.Google Scholar

21 See Report of the First Meeting of the Conference of the Parties serving as the Meeting of the Parties to the Protocol on Biosafety, Doc. UNEP/CBD/COP-MOP/1/15 (14 April 2004) at 102-4.

22 Report of the Open-ended Ad Hoc Working Group of Legal and Technical Experts on Liability and Redress in the Context of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety on the Work of Its Third Meeting, Doc. UNEP/CBD/BS/WG-L&R/3/3 (15 March 2007) at 6, paras. 34 and 36 [OEWG Liability Report].

23 OEWG Liability Report, supra note 22 at 14, Annex I, “Blueprint for a COP/MOP Decision on International Rules and Procedures in the Field of Liability and Redress for Damage Resulting from Transboundary Movements of Living Modified Organisms.”

24 Report of the Open-Ended Ad Hoc Working Group of Legal and Technical Expert on Liability and Redress in the Context of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety on the Work of Its Fourth Meeting, Doc. UNEP/CBD/BS/WG-L&R/4/3 (13 November 2007) at 4, para. 18.

25 Ibid.

26 Report of the Open-Ended Ad Hoc Working Group of Legal and Technical Expert on Liability and Redress in the Context of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety on the Work of Its Fifth Meeting, Doc. UNEP/CBD/BS/WG-L&R/5/3 (25 March 2008) at 9, para. 56.

27 This offer was made by Thomas Carrato of the Global Industry Coalition, on behalf of BASF, Bayer CropScience, Dow AgroSciences, DuPont/Pioneer, Monsanto and Syngenta. Ibid. at 7, para. 36.

28 Ibid. at 13, para. 88. Final Report of the Open-Ended Ad Hoc Working Group of Legal and Technical Experts on Liability and Redress in the Context of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, Addendum on Proposed Operational Texts on Approaches and Options Identified Pertaining to Liability and Redress in the Context of Article 27 of the Biosafety Protocol: Outcomes of the Meeting of the Friends of the Co-Chairs, Bonn, 7—10 May 2008, Doc. UNEP/CBD/BS/COP-MOP/4/11/Add.1 (11 May 2008) at 1, para. 1 [Addendum on Operational Texts].

29 Addendum on Operational Texts, supra note 28 at 1, para. 2 . Report of the Fourth Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity serving as the Meeting of the Parties to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, Doc. UNEP/CBD/BS/COP-MOP/4/18 (10 June 2008) at 23 and 24, para. 154 [Report of the Fourth Meeting].

30 Report of the Fourth Meeting, supra note 29 at 82, para. 1, Decision no. BS-IV/12 on Liability and Redress under the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety.

31 Duall, E., “A Liability and Redress Regime for Genetically Modified Organisms under the Cartagena Protocol” (2004) 36(1) Geo. Wash. Int”l L. Rev. 173 at 193.Google Scholar

32 Identification of Issues Relating to Liability and Redress for Damage Resulting from the Transboundary Movement of Living Modified Organisms, Doc. UNEP/CBD/WS-L&R/1/2 (4 November 2002) at 5, para. 23 [Identification of Issues].

33 Ibid. at 6, para. 6. Duall, supra note 31 at 194.

34 See Cartagena Protocol, supra note 2 at Articles 1, 2.4, 4, 7.4, 10.6, 11.8, 12.1, 15.1, 16.2, 16.5(a), 17.1, 17.3(c), 17.4, 18.1, 21.6(c), 23.1 (a), 26.1, and Annex III on Risk Assessment.

35 Identification of Issues, supra note 32 at 6, para. 30.

36 Ibid. at 3, para. 14. Kummer Peiry, C., “International Civil Liability for Environmental Damage: Lessons Learned,” in Kummer Peiry, C. et al., Liability and Redress and Living Modified Organisms: A Contribution to the Article 2 7 Process under the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (Brussels: CropLife International, 2004), 11 at 19, <http://www.ecoconsult.ch/uploads/1144-Croplife_Handbook.pdf>.Google Scholar

37 Liability and Redress for Damage Resulting from the Transboundary Movements of Living Modified Organisms. Review of Existing Relevant Instruments and Identification of Elements, Doc. UNEP/CBD/ICCP/2/3 (31 July 2001 ) at 1 [Liability and Redress for Damage]. Kummer Peiry, supra note 36 at 11.

38 Determination of Damage to the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biological Diversity, Including Case-Studies, Doc. UNEP/CBD/BS/WG-L&R/2/INF/3 (1 February 2006), Annex: Definitions of “Damage” or Related Concept from Other International Agreements at 16-20.

39 Liability and Redress for Damages, supra note 37 at 4, para. 12.

40 Kummer Peiry et al., supra note 36 at 11.

4 Protocol to Amend the Vienna Convention on Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage, Vienna, 12 September 1997, 36 I.L.M. 1462 (1997). The protocol to amend the Vienna Convention was signed by fifteen states and was ratified by five of these states, thereby reaching the minimum number required by Article 21 in order to come into force. This occurred on 4 October 2003. To consult the ratification process, see http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Conventions/protamend_status.pdf>.

42 Vienna Convention on Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage, 2 I.L.M. 727 (1963).

43 Protocol to Amend the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage, London, 27 November 1992, UN Doc. LEG/CONF.9/15 (2 December 1992). The protocol has been in force since 30 May 1996 and has been signed up to a significant number of states. See the list of parties at http://www.imo.org/Conventions/mainframe.asp?topic_id=256&doc_id=660>. International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage, 29 November 1969, 9 I.L.M. 46 (1970).

44 Kummer Peiry et al., supra note 36 at 15.

45 Convention on Civil Liability for Damage Caused during the Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Road, Rail and Inland Navigation Vessels, Geneva, 10 October 1989, <http://www.unece.org/trans/danger/publi/crtd/crtd_e.html> at Article 1.10.c. This convention has only been signed by two states: Germany and Morocco, and has only been ratified by one non-signatory state: Liberia. Since the minimum required by Article 23 was not reached, it is not yet in force.

46 Convention on Civil Liability for Damage Resulting from Activities Dangerous to the Environment, Lugano, 21 June 1993, 32 I.L.M. 1228 (1993) [Lugano Convention]. Currently, this convention is signed by only nine states: Cyprus, Finland, Greece, Iceland, Italy, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Netherlands, and Portugal, and it has only been ratified by Portugal. It is currently not in force.

47 Lugano Convention, supra note 46, Article 2.10.

48 International Convention on Liability and Compensation for Damage in Connection with the Carriage of Hazardous and Noxious Substances by Sea, London, 3 May 1996, 35 I.L.M. 1406 (1996).

49 Basel Protocol on Liability and Compensation for Damage Resulting from Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal, Basel, 10 December 1999, <http://www.basel.int/meetings/cop/cop5/docs/prot-e.pdf>.. The Basel Protocol was signed up to by thirteen states and was ratified by nine states, thereby reaching the minimum number of twenty required by Article 29.1 in order to come into force. See the status of ratifications at http://www.basel.int/ratif/protocol.htm>.

50 Lawrence, P., “Negotiation of a Protocol on Liability and Compensation for Damage Resulting from Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal” (1998) 7(3) R.E.C.I.E.L. 249 at 249.Google Scholar

51 Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects, London, Moscow, Washington, 29 March 1972, (1972) 66 A.J.I.L. 702. This convention was ratified by ninety signatory states and was also signed by another twenty-three states that have not yet ratified. However, this convention is the most accepted instrument in the field of responsibility.

52 Cartagena Protocol, supra note 2, Article 6.1 excludes from the application of procedures of the advance informed agreement for “the transboundary movement of living modified organisms destined for contained use undertaken in accordance with the standards of the Party of import.”

53 Raven, P., “The Epic of Evolution and the Problem of Biodiversity Loss,” in McManis, Ch., ed., Biodiversity and the Law: Intellectual Property, Biotechnology and Traditional Knowledge (London: Earthscan, 2007), 27 at 30.Google Scholar

54 Decision no. VII/30 on a Strategic Plan: Future Evaluation of Progress, Report of the Seventh Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity, Doc. UNEP/CBD/COP/7/21 (13 April 2004) at 379. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Biodiversity Synthesis (Washington, DC: World Resources Institute, 2005) at 8, http://www.millenniumassessment.org/en/Synthesis.aspx>. Chen, J., “Across the Apocalypse on Horseback: Biodiversity Loss and the Law,” in McManis, supra note 53, 42 at 43.Google Scholar

55 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, supra note 54 at 8.

56 International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), Current Knowledge of the Impacts of Genetically Modified Organisms on Biodiversity and Human Health: An Information Paper (Gland, Switzerland: IUCN, August 2007) at 26, <http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/ip_gmo_09_2007_1_.pdf>.

57 Chen, supra note 54 at 45. IUCN, Guidelines for the Prevention of Biodiversity Loss Caused by Alien Invasive Species as Approved by 51st Meeting of Council, February 2000, Information Paper (May 2000) at 2, http://www.issg.org/infpaper_invasive.pdf>.

58 This is the concept of damage that was put forward in the submission from the government of Norway. Liability and Redress (Article 27), Doc. UNEP/CBD/BS/COP-MOP/1/INF/5 (8 December 2003) at 21.

59 Wolfenbarger, L.L. and Phifer, P.R., “The Ecological Risks and Benefits of Genetically Engineered Plants” (15 December 2000) 290 Science 2088 at 2088.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

60 IUCN, supra note 56 at 27.

61 Ibid. at 27.

62 Wolfenbarger and Phifer, supra note 59 at 2090.

63 IUCN, supra note 56 at 31.

64 Report of the Group of Legal and Technical Experts on Liability and Redress in the Context of para. 2 of Article 14 of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Doc. UNEP/CBD/COP/8/27/Add.3 (18 October 2005) at para. 19.

65 International Plant Protection Convention, Rome, 6 December 1951, http://www.ippc.int/ippctypo3_test/index.php?id=1110485&L=0>. IUCN, supra note 56 at 31. See the criteria outlined in “Pest Risk Analysis for Quarantine Pests Including Analysis of Environmental Risks and Living Modified Organisms: ISPM No. 11,” in International Standards forPhytosanitary Measures 1 to 31 (Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization, 2008), Annex 3: Determining the Potential for a Living Modified Organism to Be a Pest, 137, particularly at 159 and 160, https://www.ippc.int/servlet/BinaryDownloaderServlet/34163_ISPM_11_E.pdf?filename=1146658377367JSPM11.pdf&refID=34163>. The International Plant Protection Convention entered into force on 3 April 1952. At a later date, two texts, revised in 1979 and 1997, were signed. All the authentic texts are available online at https://www.ippc.int/servlet/CDSServlet?status=ND0xMzI5MiY2PWVuJjMzPSomMzc9a29z>.

66 Synthesis of Proposed Texts and Views on Approaches, Options and Issues Identified Pertaining to Liability and Redress in the Context of Article 27 of the Biosafety Protoco, Note by the Co-Chairs, Doc. UNEP/CBD/BS/WG-L&R/2/2 (19 January 2006) at 14 [Synthesis of Proposed Texts]. Synthesis of Proposed Operational Texts on Approaches, Options and Issues Identified (Sections I to III) Pertaining to Liability and Redress in the Context of Article 27 of the Biosafety Protocol, Doc. UNEP/CBD/BS/WG-L&R/3/2/Add.1 (20 December 2006) at 14 [Synthesis of Proposed Operational Texts]. OEWG Liability Report, supra note 22 at 29.

67 See Final Report of the Open-Ended Ad Hoc Working Group of Legal and Technical Experts on Liability and Redress in the Context of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, Doc. UNEP/CBD/BS/COP-MOP/4/11 (7 April 2008) at 8 [Final Report of the OEWG].

68 Report of the Fourth Meeting, supra note 29 at 84.

69 Report of the Group of the Friends of the Co-chairs on Liability and Redress in the Context of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety on the Work of Its First Meeting, Doc. UNEP/CBD/BS/GF-L&R/1/4 (27 February 2009) at 5, Annex I and II [Report of the Group of the Friends]

70 Synthesis of Proposed Operational Texts, supra note 66 at 15 and 16.

71 Ibid. at 16. UNEP/CBD/BS/WG-L&R/3/2/Add.1, n. 65 above, at 15, Operational text 2; and at 17, Operational text 7.

72 Synthesis of Proposed Operational Texts, supra note 66 at 17, Operational Text no. 8.

73 See note 56 in this article and adjacent text.

74 Synthesis of Proposed Operational Texts, supra note 66 at 16.

75 Ibid. at 16.

76 Ibid. at 17. Addendum on Operational Texts, supra note 28 at 4.

77 Synthesis of Proposed Operational Texts, supra note 66 at 15, Operational Text no. 1; and at 18, Operational Text no. 9.

78 Synthesis of Proposed Operational Texts, supra note 66 at 19.

79 Ibid. at 19.

80 Final Report of the OEWG, supra note 67 at 8. Addendum on Operational Texts, supra note 28 at 3 and 4.

81 Addendum on Operational Texts, supra note 28 at 3.

82 Report of the Group of the Friends, supra note 69 at 9.

83 Synthesis of Proposed Texts, supra note 66 at 20. Synthesis of Proposed Operational Texts, supra note 66 at 15, Operational text 1 and Operational text 2; at 18, Operational text 9.

84 Synthesis of Proposed Texts, supra note 66 at 20.

85 Ibid. at 21.

86 Ibid. at 14. Synthesis of Proposed Operational Texts, supra note 66 at 15, Operational Text no. 1; and at 18, Operational Text no. 9.

87 Synthesis of Proposed Texts, supra note 66 at 23 and 24.

88 Ibid. at 23 and 24. Synthesis of Proposed Operational Texts, supra note 66 at 16, Operational Text no. 3; and at 18, Operational Text no. 9.

89 Synthesis of Proposed Operational Texts, supra note 66 at 14; and at 16, Operational Text no. 3.

90 Ibid. at 15, Operational Text no. 2.

91 Ibid. at 24.

92 Ibid. at 25.

93 Ibid. at 26.

94 Ibid. at 16, Operational Text no. 4.

95 Final Report of the OEWG, supra note 67 at 8.

96 Report of the Group of the Friends, supra note 69 at 19.