Russian Federation

2015: Attended the state consultations on the SSD in Geneva – led by Norway.

August 2016: CAAC Open Debate: “We are seriously concerned about the destruction of schools, hospitals and other civilian infrastructure.” “According to the Special Monitoring Mission of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, between 12 and 20 July alone, rebel-controlled residential areas were shelled from positions held by the Ukrainian armed forces. Houses, schools and electrical facilities and gas plants came under fire.” “Numerous accounts from non-governmental organizations point to the use of schools and other educational institutions by Ukrainian military forces, including the destruction and seizure of property.”

January 2017: HRW made a submission to the Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights regarding the Russian Federation, calling for Russia to endorse the Safe Schools Declaration.

March 2017: Attended Buenos Aires Conference on Safe Schools.

April 2017: GCPEA faxed follow-up letter to representative in Buenos Aires.

June 2017: Obstructed a reference to the Declaration in a HRC resolution on child, early and forced marriage. The language had been proposed by New Zealand but was rejected.

September 2017 UNSC: GCPEA sent a letter to the ambassador in New York asking to raise the issue on attacks and military use and encourage to endorse in view of the Open Debate on children and armed conflict.

March 2018: During the informal on Resolution A/HRC/37/L.33, Russia has opposed references to the Declaration in operative and preambular paragraphs.

July 2018: During UNSC Open Debate on children and armed conflict, Russia referred to attacks on schools in their statement.

October 2018: UN WPS open debate advocacy in New York: GCPEA first meeting with the Russian Federation. Gisela met with the Senior Counsellor who covers WPS. He has a strong background in international law and represented the Russian Federation at the negotiations on the Rome Statute, Additional Protocol III, and other key international documents. We had a long and thoughtful discussion about the background to the initiative. He had thought the consultations on the Declaration had taken place outside of the UN and had not been open to all Member States. He was glad to hear this was not the case. He took special note of the ICRC’s support, as they are an important partner with a special mandate that the Russian Federation supports. He was also interested in Switzerland’s position.
The Russian Federation takes an IHL approach and views the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocols as the best tools since they provide a solid legal framework, he said. He thought they should be considered as living documents. He asked if reopening the Geneva Conventions had been considered, suggesting that fears of a rollback in protections were unfounded. He responded well to the idea that the Declaration provides a framework for cooperation, and to provide assistance and advice to states in conflict. He thought the sharing of experience would also be relevant for countries experiencing disaster. The Russian Federation would prefer to see an international treaty, customary in nature, that would build on the frameworks for protection of civilians and medical personnel, for example. He thought this would be possible in time once the norms have been established in customary international law. To directly endorse the Declaration would be a step too far. There are too many political initiatives, and the absence of a strong legal basis weakens the effort. They prefer to act cautiously and balance competing concerns. Nonetheless, he stressed several times that they are open to further dialogue, mentioning again that several concerns had been well addressed during the meeting. He said they were ready to consider all ideas and that they “might even” participate in the Spain conference. He encouraged to continue the dialogue with the Mission in Geneva. They would be unlikely to address the topic in the Security Council. Follow-up: Letter for Foreign Minister sent by email.

November 2018: Russia blocked the reference to the SSD in the final UNGA rights of the child resolution.

March 2019: Clustered Interactive Dialogue with the SRSG Ms. Virginia Gamba, HRC Geneva: criticised SRSG Gamba for “her inappropriate call” for endorsement of documents developed outside the auspices of the UN, such as the Paris and Vancouver Principles and the Safe Schools Declaration.

March 2020: During the consultions on the GA Res on International Day to Protect Education for Attack, Russia opposed the inclusion and reference to the ICC and the Rome Statute. Recognizing the importance of ensuring inclusive and 12 years of equitable quality education and promoting lifelong learning opportunities for all (PP6); Russia wanted this PP to be revised, supported by Algeria, India, Iran to not include reference to 12 years of education, through stating that there is no basis for that it should be 12 years. Violence against girls when going to, from and while in school PP11; Russia wanted PP11 to be deleted, as it relates to violence on girls (related to violence when going to and from and while in school) and did not see the relevance of this under the current resolution.; Reference to UNICEF in relation to CAAC and inclusion of the 6 grave violations PP14 – Russia stated that UNICEF has a very different mandate from the SRSG CAAC and should not be conflated in the pp.

September 2020: Russia was against the reference to SSD in the PRST (Niger’s CAAC debate on attacks against schools)

December 2021: Negative comment in their statement at the Arria formula meeting on the protection of education during armed conflict hosted by Norway and Niger. : “Universal norms of the international humanitarian law provide the legal basis for the protection of children in armed conflict. In this regard, we should not overstate the relevance of documents adopted by separate groups of states outside the UN framework. I mean the Safe Schools Declaration, Paris and Vancouver principles. Let’s be frank, those documents have a very specific feature: they envisage a set of obligations that is not totally concordant with the IHL. They are also a little bit naïve. There is, however, a positive aspect as well: all those initiatives are aesthetically appealing per se.”