Leaving hope for further action on the arms trade

by Ray Acheson, Reaching Critical Will of WILPF
 

On Friday, most delegations made a concerted effort to begin substantive work on the arms trade treaty (ATT) in discussions on goals and objectives and on scope. One cross-cutting theme was the perceived tension between the rights and responsibilities of producers and exporters on the one hand and of importers on the other. Some delegates also highlighted the relationship between the production of weapons and the transfer of weapons, arguing that both should be addressed by a future ATT. However, a separate process is necessary for the regulation of weapons production and the reduction of conventional arms.

Addressing loopholes in “assessing”

by Katherine Prizeman, Global Action to Prevent War

As noted by the delegate of New Zealand on Thursday morning, success for the arms trade treaty (ATT) means the adoption of standards “high enough for it to be realistic to expect the treaty to contribute meaningfully to global peace, security, and stability” (emphasis added).  Ambassador Dell Higgie noted that in setting an obligation for states to conduct a “risk assessment” before authorizing any export of arms, the ATT must codify circumstances when states should decline arms transfers. These circumstances include situations where arms are likely to provoke or exacerbate regional conflict, contribute to economic or social destabilization, or be used by criminal elements or terrorists. Codifying circumstances that would require the denial of arms transfers, in addition those already required under international law such as arms embargoes, is essential such that the legal framework provided for in the ATT will have a meaningful, measurable impact on international peace and security.

What are the links between gender and the arms trade?

by the IANSA Women’s Network, WILPF, Amnesty International and Religions for Peace

“What does gender have to do with the Arms Trade Treaty?” is a question we often hear. The following extracts of the Joint Policy Paper on Gender and the Arms Trade Treaty by Amnesty International, the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF), IANSA Women’s Network, and Religions for Peace can provide answers to this question.
 

Underneath it all

by Ray Acheson, Reaching Critical Will of WILPF
 

Thursday marked the first full day of work at the conference to negotiate an arms trade treaty (ATT). Among dozens of statements by delegations, the conference also attempted to reach agreement on its programme of work for the next week. Both the substantive and procedural debates revealed that some governments have interests other than humanitarian imperatives guiding their positions and behaviour at this conference.
 

Forsaking the victims?

by Nerina Cevra, Action on Armed Violence

The Chair of the ATT negotiations submitted a Discussion Paper on Tuesday, 3 July, as a reference for this month’s negotiations. Despite stating that the goal of the treaty is to “reduce unnecessary human suffering,” it is very disappointing to see that the only reference to that same human suffering in the entire paper is a preambular provision expressing states’ resolve to assist victims of armed conflict. 

Escaping the downward spiral

by Ray Acheson, Reaching Critical Will of WILPF

Disarmament and arms control has been on the UN’s agenda since its inception. Its first resolution in 1946 set up a commission to, among other things, make specific proposals for the elimination of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction. The UN Charter itself calls for the lowest level of military expenditure and redirection of human and economic resources. The first of the General Assembly’s specialized committees deals with disarmament and international security. And as UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said in his opening remarks to the arms trade treaty (ATT) conference on Tuesday, 3 July, disarmament and arms control have implications for every other issue the UN covers. “Poorly regulated trade in weaponry,” he argued, “is a major obstacle to everything we do.”

Assessement of changes in the Chair's paper

by Ray Acheson, Reaching Critical Will of WILPF

On Tuesday, 3 July, the Chair released a new version of his discussion paper. He emphasized that the paper in no way prejudices negotiations but is intended to inject some “spice” into the discussions. This assessment only notes the changes between the 14 July 2011 version and the 3 July 2012 version of the Chair’s paper.