by Ray Acheson, Reaching Critical Will of WILPF
After a round
of negotiations over the weekend, which resulted in several new draft texts on
various sections of the treaty, delegations met in closed meetings all day
Monday in order to continue negotiations. In the morning the Chair of Main
Committee I introduced a new
draft preamble and principles section, which delegates were to continue
debating throughout the day. While the text is largely positive, some troubling
concepts remain. In particular, the language around women, gender, and victims
is especially disconcerting, as it fails to adequately address the realities of
the impact of the arms trade on these groups and instead perpetuates the myth
that women are vulnerable and victims are powerless.
In paragraph
10, the term “gender-based violence” is in brackets along with the alternative
option “violence against women”. This mirrors the debate in last week’s
meetings on the criteria section, during which the Holy See, Egypt, Iran, and
South Sudan objected to use of the term “gender-based violence,” with the Holy
See arguing that gender is a “vague” and “undefined” term. However, these terms are actually very well established within the United Nations. (Information on existing definitions of
gender-based violence will be published in the next edition of the ATT Monitor.) The term
“gender-based violence” recognizes the broader context and some of the
fundamental root causes of armed violence, which is why the Irish delegation
and others indicated on Friday that they would only accept the term
gender-based violence in the criteria section.
The preamble
also contains a separate paragraph describing “women and children” as
“particularly vulnerable in situations of conflict and armed violence.” As
Rebecca Gerome (IANSA Women’s Network) and Maria Butler (PeaceWomen/WILPF)
argued in ATT
Monitor Vol.5, No. 11 that “references
to ‘women and children,’ put together as though a homogenous group, are
unhelpful as they imply that women, like children, are powerless victims,
rather than adults with agency and therefore a key resource in combating gun
violence.” Gerome and Butler note, “It is vital to make the distinction between
women and children to ensure both that each group gains the specific attention
it requires and is enabled to make the contributions of which it is capable.”
A better
alternative for the preamble would be drawn from UN
General Assembly resolution 65/69 on “Women, disarmament,
non-proliferation, and arms control,” which recognizes “the valuable contribution of women to practical disarmament measures
carried out at the local, national, regional and sub-regional levels in the
prevention and reduction of armed violence and armed conflict, and in promoting
disarmament, non-proliferation and arms control.”
Member states
must not take steps backward from existing UN resolutions and treaty bodies,
given the gravity and urgency of preventing all forms of gender-based violence
in the context of the international arms trade.
The second
issue is the treatment of “victims” of armed violence and conflict. First,
those who are killed, wounded, displaced, raped, or otherwise impacted by armed
violence—as well as their families and communities—should not be referred to as
victims but as survivors, in order to recognize that they have agency.
Survivors are not any less entitled to assistance than “victims,” but using the
term survivor can often serve to empower and heal, whereas treating people as
victims can allow the source of the violence to remain in control.
In terms of
providing assistance to survivors of armed violence in the ATT, the Main
Committee I Chair has provided two options in the draft preamble. The first
indicates that state parties are “resolved to do their utmost to provide
further assistance to the victims of armed conflict” while the second
“recognizes the challenges faced by victims of armed violence and armed
conflict, and their rights to adequate care, rehabilitation and social and
economic inclusion.” Neither of these paragraphs is strong enough. The second
paragraph’s reference to the rights of victims is important, but is
insufficient on its own.
In a
publication called States’
obligations to provide victim assistance, Amnesty International
suggests that if governments agree that victims’ rights should be addressed in
the ATT context, the best language would be a reaffirmation of existing rights.
The treaty should have each state party undertake “to meet its existing
obligations to ensure the provision of effective remedies and reparations to
victims of violations of international law,” which include the survivors’
rights to “equal and effective access to justice; adequate, effective and
prompt reparation for harm suffered; and access to relevant information
concerning violations and reparation mechanisms.”
The preamble
is not the most important element of the ATT. But it will provide the context
for its application and sets the stage for the treaty’s provisions on criteria,
scope, and implementation. It is therefore important that women and survivors
are accurately represented and their rights and challenges adequately addressed
in the preamble. Thus the preamble should refer to gender-based violence in
paragraph 10, reflect the agency rather than vulnerability of women in
paragraph 13, and emphasize existing international obligations to survivors in
paragraph 12.
