The ATT: a start to challenging the status quo

by Ray Acheson, Reaching Critical Will of WILPF

The adoption of the first ever Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) is being billed by many governments and civil society organizations as an historic event. And indeed it is. This marks the first time that the General Assembly has adopted legally-binding rules to regulate international transfers of conventional weapons. The ATT is also the first treaty to recognize the links between the international arms trade and gender-based violence. Both of these firsts signify meaningful advancement for international humanitarian law (IHL), human rights, and peace and security. However, the treaty’s deficiencies mean that it could be suseptible to manipulation and abuse by those who want to continue profiting from the arms trade. To ensure that the text adopted on 2 April makes a difference in practice, governments, civil society, and the United Nations, as they begin to implement and interpret the treaty, must avoid legitimizing the international arms trade and irresponsible transfers.

Looking to the future of the ATT: shifting attention to implementation

by Katherine Prizeman, Global Action to Prevent War

After more than a decade of advocating for and working towards a robust and comprehensive arms trade treaty (ATT), relevant stakeholders can now mark a conclusion to the first step in this process. This was an imperfect process that yielded an imperfect treaty. Nevertheless, the task now is to take what has been adopted and ensure that it has the most effective impact possible on the ground so that the human suffering caused by the illicit and unregulated arms trade—the original purpose of and impetus for this process—is prevented to the greatest extent possible.
 

A tale of two treaties

by Ray Acheson, Reaching Critical Will of WILPF
 
Since Friday, when the President released his second draft of the arms trade treaty (ATT), people have asked, “Whose treaty is this?” Is this a treaty that will protect human beings from armed conflict and armed violence, or is this a treaty that will protect the profits of arms manufacturers and exporters? Will it promote the interests of cooperative human security or militaristic state security? The release of the third draft text on Wednesday does not settle these questions.
 

Problems and proposals: how to close loopholes in the draft ATT

by Ray Acheson, Reaching Critical Will of WILPF

With only one day left until the final draft text of the arms trade treaty (ATT) is released, all participants have expended tremendous efforts to either improve or further undermine the current draft text. As it stands, the draft is not reflective of the positions of the vast majority of states. It is certainly not reflective of the urgency of regulating the irresponsible arms trade and preventing its most horrifying effects. As the Liberian delegation said, the current draft elevates the views of arms exporters above those of the victims of those exports. Thus states that want a robust treaty have been actively proposing language to close some of the treaty’s biggest loopholes and ensure the treaty is comprehensive and effective.

Control Arms reaction to President’s Non-Paper of March 22nd (Second Draft ATT)

Control Arms is highly disappointed with the first ‘substantive’ draft from ATT Final Conference President, Amb. Peter Woolcott of Australia. After extensive and broad consultations—following seven years of deliberations inside the UN—the draft should have clearly reflected the voice of the overwhelming majority of Member States.

Scope and criteria: Getting to the “operational” heart of the ATT

by Katherine Prizeman, Global Action to Prevent War
 
After a lengthy discussion on Preamble, Principles, and Goals and Objectives, delegations began debate on Scope, Prohibitions and Criteria. These sections of the Treaty are surely at the heart of any ATT’s effectiveness and will guide how, and under what circumstances, national assessments will be carried out in practice. Given the framework that has been set for the ATT—national risk assessments conducted for transfers of weapons covered under the Treaty’s scope according to an agreed set of criteria—construction of these sections is most vital to determining if the Treaty will actually impact international peace and security and address the many consequences of the illicit and unregulated trade in conventional arms. As has been noted previously in this ATT Monitor, there are certain elements of these sections that simply cannot be compromised if the ATT is to be considered a “success” by those that are working for a text that will positively impact arms transfer policy making it not just better regulated, but also more responsible. 
 

Compelling states to transfer arms?

by Ray Acheson, Reaching Critical Will of WILPF

Over the past two days, delegations have discussed many proposals aimed at either strengthening or weakening the draft arms trade treaty (ATT). Some of the proposals aimed at weakening the text have focused on the so-called “right” of states to import weapons. Exemplified by the intervention by Venezuela on Tuesday morning, a number of importing states continue to seek guarantees that exporting states must authorize arms transfers except in very extreme circumstances. A number of states subscribe to the notion that the ATT should facilitate the arms trade, ostensibly out of concern that an effective treaty could be used as a political weapon. However, provisions that effectively compel exporters to transfer arms are inconsistent with the core objective of the treaty: to prevent human suffering caused by irresponsible trade.