by Katherine Prizeman, Global Action to Prevent War
Tuesday afternoon’s discussion of final
provisions illustrated just how important these seemingly ‘organizational’ and
‘technical’ matters are to a successful ATT process. Allowances for reservations
and amendments will undoubtedly have a significant impact on how robustly and
uniformly the Treaty will be implemented and, in turn, how effective it will be
in preventing the irresponsible and illicit trade in conventional arms.
Moreover, reservations related to scope and criteria would be particularly
alarming given the nature and intent of the ATT’s obligations. Likewise,
provisions for Review Conferences are essential to the long-term success of the
Treaty. Incorporating a concrete review process is imperative in order to
establish regular meetings of states parties that can assess and adjust the ATT
to better reflect evolving security circumstances. Such a process would provide
opportunities to make the treaty stronger both in its provisions and
implementation.
Perhaps most importantly, the provisions
for entry-into-force (EIF) will have a direct impact on not only when the
Treaty will enter into force, but also (based on the number of ratifications
required) how universally its provisions will be implemented. As noted by the
delegation of Costa Rica, provisions that facilitate rapid and widespread EIF
should be a priority. A Treaty that is seeking to craft international standards for the trade in conventional arms by its
nature requires widespread, if not universal, adoption. However, this desire
for universality must not entirely stifle the opportunity to begin a process of
implementing uniform arms transfer standards. It will be important to strike a
balance between the need for rapid EIF and ensuring participation is widespread
enough to guarantee that the Treaty’s implementation is meaningful in achieving
treaty goals and objectives.
While some delegations have proposed a
single-number formulation of approximately 60, reflecting nearly one third of
UN membership, others including Mexico, Costa Rica, and CARICOM have supported
a smaller formulation of 30 ratifications. Some delegations have also called
for a qualitative provision for EIF requiring that the “major exporters and
importers” of arms be among those ratifications required for EIF. While the
logic behind including such a provision in the EIF requirements makes sense for
a treaty aimed at setting standards for arms transfers, it would be difficult
to identify those “major” arms traders in an objective manner in the context of
a legally-binding treaty that would be acceptable to all member states.
Therefore, it would be wise to seek as many ratifications as possible without
placing too much emphasis on exporters or importers as separate categories of
signatories. It is important to communicate in all provisions of the ATT that
transparent and robust transfer regulations are the responsibility of all states.
The majority of treaties dealing with
international humanitarian law, human rights, and international peace and
security require between 20 and 35 ratifications for EIF with the major
exception being the Chemical Weapons Convention, which required 65. For
example, the Convention on Cluster Munitions required 30 ratifications and the
Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions of the Use of Certain Conventional
Weapons required only 20. There is, of course, the case of the Comprehensive
Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) that requires that 44 specific nuclear technology holder
states sign and ratify the treaties before EIF. As such, the CTBT has not yet entered
into force and, as a result, remains outside the body of international law
because of a hold-up on ratifications of a very small (8) number of member
states. This type of scenario must be avoided for the ATT. Rather than waiting
out a series of meetings on “facilitating the entry-into-force” of the ATT,
states parties that have ratified the Treaty must take forward these
legally-binding regulations, encouraging universal participation, but not being
limited by the lack of it.
Identifying a
reasonable EIF formula is a challenge to those crafting all new treaties and
conventions and the ATT is no exception. In light of this challenge, the EIF
provisions must be understood as facilitating the long-term success of the ATT
so that legally-binding, international standards for the trade in conventional
arms are implemented as soon as possible rather than being held up due to a
lack of sufficient ratifications. If the single-number formulation is kept at a
reasonable level, states parties that have signed on will be able to begin
implementation of the Treaty’s provisions while encouraging others to do the
same.
