Kasetinis šaudmuo – tai įprastinis šaudmuo, kurį sudaro dešimtys ar/arba šimtai mažesnių sprogmenų – kasetinio šaudmens vienetų. Kai šaudmuo yra išaunamas nuo žemės ar paleidžiamas iš oro, jo korpusas atsidaro ir jame esantys kasetinio šaudmens vienetai pabyra dideliame plote. Kasetinis šaudmuo – mirtį nešantis ginklas, dėl kurio, skaičiuojant nuo 1965 m., nukentėjo daugiau kaip 100 tūkstančių žmonių. Pažymėtina, kad 98 procentai visų nukentėjusių yra civiliai, o net kas trečias nukentėjęs – vaikas. Šiame darbe atskleidžiamos ir analizuojamos kasetinių šaudmenų techninės savybės, keliančios didžiausią grėsmę civiliams. Taip pat darbe plačiau aptariami tarptautinės humanitarinės teisės principai, labiausiai susiję su kasetinių šaudmenų reguliavimu. Didelis dėmesys darbe skiriamas naujo teisinio instrumento – Konvencijos dėl kasetinių šaudmenų, kuri visiškai uždraudžia konvencijos šalims naudoti, tobulinti, gaminti, jokiais kitais būdais įsigyti, kaupti, saugoti ir pervežti kasetinius šaudmenis, – analizei. Darbo pabaigoje atskleidžiama Lietuvos pozicija kasetinių šaudmenų atžvilgiu ir jos indėlis tarptautiniuose procesuose, siekiant uždrausti šį pavojingą ginklą. / Cluster munitions are conventional weapon containing dozens or hundreds of smaller submunitions. After being dropped from the air or fired from the ground, parent cluster munitions open in the air, releasing and dispersing their submunitions over a wide area. Cluster munitions are deadly weapons that have killed or maimed more than 100 000 people worldwide since 1965. It should be noted that 98 percent of all casualties are civilians, and every third victim is a child. The paper analyses the technical background of the cluster munitions and it looks at what causes the biggest humanitarian harm. The paper further discusses the principal rules of international humanitarian law relevant to the use of cluster munitions. The paper gives much attention to the analysis of a new legal instrument, the ‘Convention on Cluster Munitions’. The Convention prohibits the use, developing, production, acquisition, stockpiling, and transfer of cluster munitions. At the end of the paper the position of Lithuania is revealed in respect of cluster munitions and its contribution in the international processes to ban this dangerous weapon.

This thesis examines the evolution of international humanitarian concern culminating in adoption of a Convention on Cluster Munitions (CCM) banning these weapons in May 2008. It is based on systematic analysis of official documents, extensive interviews, participant-observation, and several bodies of international relations (IR) theory. Part I explains the research methodology and discusses the theoretical context for the thesis. It is argued that several core assumptions of rationalist-materialist approaches to IR theory impede understanding of the CCM's emergence, and thus the thesis adopts an interpretivist framework. The four chapters of Part II analyse international efforts on cluster munitions including prior, failed attempts to restrict cluster munitions, the emergence of an international campaign from 2003, ensuing activity involving states, international organisations and civil society, and the CCM's eventual negotiation involving more than 100 states. Part III marries this empirical account to theoretical analysis of four thesis propositions. It is concluded that non-state actor-engendered processes of evidence collection and analysis, learning and frame alignment were central to the Oslo process's emergence. The Oslo Declaration's particular humanitarian framing (to ban cluster munitions causing unacceptable harm to civilians) and the structure of the subsequent 'define-and-ban' discourse permitted convergence between states over prohibiting these weapons. Nevertheless, they contain implications for other international efforts aimed at controlling means of armed violence.

This thesis examines the evolution of international humanitarian concern culminating in adoption of a Convention on Cluster Munitions (CCM) banning these weapons in May 2008. It is based on systematic analysis of official documents, extensive interviews, participant-observation, and several bodies of international relations (IR) theory. Part I explains the research methodology and discusses the theoretical context for the thesis. It is argued that several core assumptions of rationalist-materialist approaches to IR theory impede understanding of the CCM¿s emergence, and thus the thesis adopts an interpretivist framework. The four chapters of Part II analyse international efforts on cluster munitions including prior, failed attempts to restrict cluster munitions, the emergence of an international campaign from 2003, ensuing activity involving states, international organisations and civil society, and the CCM¿s eventual negotiation involving more than 100 states. Part III marries this empirical account to theoretical analysis of four thesis propositions. It is concluded that non-state actor-engendered processes of evidence collection and analysis, learning and frame alignment were central to the Oslo process¿s emergence. The Oslo Declaration¿s particular humanitarian framing (to ban cluster munitions causing unacceptable harm to civilians) and the structure of the subsequent ¿define-and-ban¿ discourse permitted convergence between states over prohibiting these weapons. Nevertheless, they contain implications for other international efforts aimed at controlling means of armed violence.

No / This article undertakes a critical analysis of what have been labelled humanitarian arms control (HAC) initiatives, most notably, recent agreements to ban cluster munitions and landmines as well as efforts to restrict the proliferation of small arms. The article critiques conventional accounts that view such initiatives as illustrating the potential of global civil society to interject human security concerns into the domain of arms regulation through the exercise of bottom-up power. In order to do this, the article first outlines the concept of securitization, particularly Floyd's discussion of positive and negative forms of securitization and Abrahamson's concept of the security continuum. This is used to frame an analysis of contemporary HAC initiatives that locates them in the much longer history of pariah weapons regulation and the way it relates both to the framing of legitimized weapons and changes in the broader regulation of the conventional defence trade in different eras. In contrast to conventional accounts of the HAC agenda, it is argued that initiatives such as those on landmines and cluster munitions were successful precisely because they were consonant with the same discourse used to legitimize both post-Cold War liberal interventionism and the new generation modern high-tech weapons. Moreover, the extra-securitization of landmines, cluster munitions and small arms has been accompanied by the (relative) desecuritization of the trade in major conventional weapons and associated dual-use technologies, a process that has a number of quite negative effects in terms of arms trade regulation. The article concludes by reflecting on the implications of the preceding analysis both for thinking about processes of securitization and for arms trade non-governmental organizations (NGOs).

Atskyrimo principas ginkluotuose konfliktuose yra tarptautinės humanitarinės teisės pagrindas, reikalaujantis, kad konflikto šalys visuomet skirtų civilius gyventojus ir kombatantus, civilinius ir karinius objektus. Tačiau dėl visuotinės privatizacijos padidėjus civilių ir privačių kompanijų, dalyvaujančių ginkluotuose konfliktuose, skaičiui bei nuolat tobulėjant karinėms technologijoms, riba tarp civilių ir kombatantų ėmė nykti. Norėdami pritaikyti atskyrimo principą šiuolaikiniams ginkluotiems konfliktams, šiame darbe, visų pirma, analizavome tiesioginio dalyvavimo karo veiksmuose įtaką šio principo taikymui ir nustatėm, kad asmeniui, tiesiogiai dalyvaujančiam karo veiksmuose, atskyrimo principas nebetaikomas, jis tampa teisėtu kariniu taikiniu ir praranda apsaugą nuo karo veiksmų keliamų pavojų. Tiesioginiu dalyvavimu karo veiksmuose siūlėme laikyti veiksmus, atitinkančius žalos masto, tiesioginio priežastinio ryšio tarp atliekamo veiksmo ir kilusios ar kilsiančios žalos ir ryšio su ginkluotu konfliktu bei viena iš konflikto šalių reikalavimus. Visų antra, nagrinėjome atskyrimo principo ginkluotuose konfliktuose taikymą PKSK personalo atžvilgiu. Nustatėme, kad dalis PKSK darbuotojų galėtų būti laikomi kombatantais ir dėl to taptų teisėtais kariniais taikiniai, jiems atskyrimo principas taikomas nebūtų, tačiau kita dalis PKSK turėtų būti laikomi civiliais ir tol, kol jie tiesiogiai nedalyvauja karo veiksmuose, jiems būtų taikoma apsauga nuo karo veiksmų keliamų pavojų... [toliau žr. visą tekstą] / The principle of distinction in armed conflicts is the corner stone of international humanitarian law, requiring that the Parties to the conflict would at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives. But because of the increased number of civilians and private companies participating in armed conflicts due to the global privatisation and permanent technological improvement of military equipment, the line between civilians and combatants begin to blur. In order to apply the principle of distinction to modern armed conflicts, firstly, we analysed an influence of direct participation in hostilities to the application of the principle of distinction and determined that for person who directly participates in armed conflicts the principle of distinction is no longer applicable and this person becomes a legal military target with no general protection against dangers arising from military operations. An act which is considered to be direct participation in hostilities should meet the requirements of threshold of harm, direct causation and belligerent nexus. Secondly, we studied the application of the principle of distinction to the personnel of private military and security companies in armed conflicts and determined that part of this personnel might be considered combatants and because of that become lawful military targets to whom the principle of distinction in no longer applicable. The other part of... [to full text]