by Ray Acheson, Reaching Critical Will of WILPF
On Wednesday
morning, the Chair of Main Committee I released a new
draft text on the goals and objectives of the arms
trade treaty (ATT). The most glaring change to the text was the removal of
language stating that preventing violations international humanitarian and
human rights law is an objective of the treaty. Leaving this out will have
serious repercussions for the negotiation of other sections of the treaty and
for the treaty’s implementation. It is an absolute necessity that this be corrected.
The draft
text introduced today includes five points, apparently constituted as two goals
and three objectives. The only reference to humanitarian issues is bullet four
in the objectives section, which states that the goals of the treaty are
intended to “ensure that the international trade in conventional arms does not
contribute [to] or facilitate human suffering.”
Immediately
after the release of the draft text, there was an onslaught of opposition from
delegations highlighting the problems with this formulation and calling for
remedy. The delegations of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), Costa Rica,
Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Liberia, Mexico, New Zealand,
Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, and Togo insisted that a reference be made to
international humanitarian and human rights law. Norway suggested reintroduction
of text stating that the treaty’s goals are intended to “ensure that the international
arms trade does not contribute to and facilitate human suffering, including
gender-based violence and all other serious violations of international human
rights law and international humanitarian law.” Most of the above delegations
issued support for that formulation.
Without an
explicit reference to gender-based violence, international humanitarian law
(IHL), and international human rights law (IHRL), the treaty is in substantial
danger of failing to meet its original purpose. The representative of CARICOM
emphasized that the ATT was never meant to be “just a trade treaty”—rather, it
has always had a strong human rights and international law component at its
core. Likewise, Costa Rica’s delegation highlighted the importance of ensuring that
the treaty’s goals and objectives are consistent with those of the UN General
Assembly resolutions that established the ATT process, such as resolutions 61/89,
63/240,
and 64/48.
Futhermore, as the Mexican delegation pointed out, each part
of the treaty is interrelated. It is thus important to have strong references
to IHRL, IHL, and gender-based violence in the goals and the objectives of the
treaty so that preventing and reducing violations of these elements guides the
implementation of the treaty. For example, the current
draft of the criteria section stipulates that a state party “shall prohibit
any transfer of any item within the scope of this treaty if the transfer is
inconsistent with the goals and objectives and the principles of the treaty.”
It likewise stipulates that during risk assessments, states parties must ensure
that the transfer is consistent with the goals and objectives of the treaty. If
the goals and objectives do not include preventing violations of IHRL, IHL, and
gender-based violence, they may not be covered by a strict prohibition in the
treaty text.
The absence
of explicit references to IHRL, IHL, and gender-based violence in the goals and
objectives could also affect other aspects of the treaty’s implementation. Current
draft language in the implementation section suggests there may be
provisions indicating that transit and transshipment states parties shall
monitor and control transfers through their territories if they have grounds to
believe the transfer undermines the goals and objectives of the ATT.
