A/HRC/15/22 B. Scope of the mandate 13. Another advantage the mandate has vis-à-vis existing international environmental mechanisms and procedures comes from its comprehensive scope. Multilateral environmental treaties contain very precise definitions to delimit their scope of application, and are only applicable when a particular situation matches one described in their provisions. For instance, the applicability of the Basel Convention presupposes that a substance or object (1) is a waste pursuant to article 1.1 of the Convention,11 and (2) presents either the hazardous characteristics referred to in article 1.1 or is considered as “other wastes” as defined in article 1.2 of the Convention. Moreover, some categories of wastes — such as radioactive wastes and wastes deriving from the normal operations of a ship — are excluded from the scope of the Convention (articles 1.3 and 1.4). 14. The Special Rapporteur, on the contrary, is not bound by any specific definition, since neither the resolution which established the mandate nor the resolutions adopted thereinafter provide a definition of “toxic and dangerous products and wastes” or explain the meaning of the words “movement” or “dumping”. In order to maximize the protection of the individuals and communities whose rights may be adversely affected by these phenomena, the Special Rapporteur has, since the establishment of the mandate, interpreted the expression “toxic and dangerous products and wastes” extensively. 15. Accordingly, any object which contains hazardous substances and/or has intrinsic hazardous qualities (e.g. flammable, toxic, radioactive or explosive nature) likely to threaten the enjoyment of human rights has been taken as falling within the scope of the mandate, without the need to ascertain whether it constitutes “waste” (i.e. something that has been or is being discarded) or a “product” (i.e. something that is being traded or exchanged). This focus on the potential adverse effects on the enjoyment of human rights thus allows the Special Rapporteur to overcome the legal difficulties commonly associated with the definition of “hazardous products” and “toxic wastes�� under international environmental law, and to provide greater protection to the victims of the unsound management or disposal of hazardous products and wastes. 16. An example of the usefulness of this comprehensive approach is provided by end-oflife ships. Under the Basel Convention, a ship may become waste as defined in article 2 whilst continuing to be defined as a ship under other international rules. There is thus uncertainty as to whether a ship containing asbestos, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) or heavy metals can be classified as hazardous waste when destined for recycling or disposal. In accordance with the broad interpretation of the expression “toxic and dangerous products and wastes”, the Special Rapporteur considers that in view of the hazardous substances and materials aboard, end-of-life vessels fall within the scope of his mandate without the need to establish whether they represent a “product” that is being traded or “waste” that is being disposed of. 17. Transboundary movement and illicit disposal of hazardous products and wastes are also narrowly defined in international environmental treaties. According to the Basel Convention, a transboundary movement of wastes presupposes that at least two States are involved in the movement (art. 2.3). Article 2 defines “disposal” as any operation specified in annex IV to this Convention, and “illegal traffic” as any transboundary movement of hazardous wastes or other wastes as specified in article 9. In the absence of a specific definition, the mandate holder has interpreted these terms extensively. 11 GE.10-14907 Article 2.1 of the Basel Convention defines wastes as “substances or objects which are disposed of or are intended to be disposed of or are required to be disposed of by the provisions of national law”. 7