by Katherine Prizeman, Global Action to Prevent War
In the US delegation’s
statement to the plenary meeting on Friday morning, Assistant Secretary of
State Thomas Countryman stated that the US seeks “a treaty that establishes high
international standards for controlling the transfer of arms on par with
current best practices.” It is important to underscore that with this
opportunity to negotiate an ATT, an entirely new instrument of international law, there must be a higher degree
of ambition in this process than only endorsing standards reflective of current
best practices. While there are examples of ‘good practices’ in arms export
controls currently in existence, the forthcoming ATT must do more than improve
on national control systems. Improving the quality and functioning of national
control systems and encouraging sound national legislation will be essential to
successful implementation of an ATT, but attempting to maintain complete
sovereign control over the Treaty process in the form of weak language around
criteria for transfers and singular focus on “national export control” is not
ambitious enough. Furthermore, this strategy has the potential to undermine the
meaningfulness of the Treaty itself by providing potential political cover for
future dubious transfers. The goals and objectives of the ATT require more of
member states.
The provision included in
the Chair’s most recent ‘Discussion Paper’ from 3 July notes in its Preamble
that “States Parties may adopt more restrictive measures than those provided in
the Arms Trade Treaty.” This is a welcome addition insofar as the ATT should be
viewed as a floor, not a ceiling, for the regulation of the arms trade. States
should be encouraged to adopt stricter standards of verification to the
greatest degree possible and progressive states, along with NGOs, should
continue to push governments to go beyond the consensus-driven standards in the
Treaty that (hopefully) will be adopted at the end of the month. Moreover, any
ATT must not be used as an excuse for the UN to limit or curtail its advocacy
for better controls of illicit small arms, or for stronger application of
international humanitarian and human rights law related to the production or
use of armaments. Nonetheless, sufficient emphasis should also be placed on
making the Treaty obligations themselves robust, effective, and meaningful for
addressing a comprehensive set of goals and objectives of an ATT—to contribute to international and regional peace, security, and
stability by preventing transfers that contribute to or facilitate human
suffering, serious violations of international human rights law and
international humanitarian law, the displacement of people, transnational
organized crime, gender-based violence, and terrorist acts.
As referenced by several
delegations during the formal debate on ‘Goals and objectives’ in Main
Committee I on Friday, UN General Assembly Resolution 64/48, which provides the
mandate for this process, clearly lays forth the principle goals and objectives
of negotiating an ATT as expressed in Paragraph 3: “Recognizing that the
absence of commonly agreed international standards for the transfer of
conventional arms that address, inter alia, the problems relating to the
unregulated trade of conventional arms and their diversion to the illicit
market is a contributory factor to armed conflict, the displacement of people,
organized crime and terrorism, thereby undermining peace, reconciliation,
safety, security, stability and sustainable social and economic development.”
Although some delegations continued to assert that the goals and objectives of
an ATT are still ‘unclear’ and lack consensus, the delegations of Norway,
France, Trinidad and Tobago, and Switzerland rightly stated that these goals
and objective are plainly provided for in Resolution 64/48, at the very least
as a starting point for the discussion. Therefore, the argument would follow
that the ATT’s intent is clearly more than facilitating the legal trade of
conventional arms through a process of improving national export controls.
As delegations continue to
tackle the substantive work of treaty text proposals in the committee bodies,
it is imperative to bear in mind that striving for harmonization with “current
best practices” of export controls is not ambitious enough, as evidenced by the
original UNGA resolution that calls for an ATT that addresses a myriad of
issues related to human security. Focusing only on current standards for
national export controls—even the best of them—will not entirely address the
problem of transfers that contribute to the human security
problems underscored in the goals and objectives provided in the original UNGA
resolution. It is essential to aim higher.
