In international negotiations, while the interests and will of the States engaged in the process guide the outcome, the people in the room matter. Stimson brought together some of the original stakeholders involved in the ATT process, including diplomats and civil society researchers and advocates, a decade after its adoption to provide reflections on the ATT’s past decade and key insights into the treaty’s current impact and future trajectory.
Read all the commentaries and the report on the ATT at 10 webpage.
At the outset of the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) negotiations, the non-governmental organisations (NGOs) involved emphasised their cause with the striking tagline that the trade in bananas was more heavily regulated than the international arms trade. This assertion was undeniably accurate at the time. Now, the question arises: has the ATT effectively addressed and rectified this imbalance?
The ATT, like many preceding arms control agreements, is distinctly a product of its era. Historical treaties such as the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, and the Ottawa Treaty against landmines, each emerged under unique global circumstances that would make their negotiation and adoption highly unlikely in the current international climate. The window of opportunity for such agreements is fleeting, making the existence of the ATT itself a significant achievement.
Examining the nature of the ATT reveals that it is not a prohibition of the arms trade but rather a framework of regulations intended to ensure that the trade remains responsible and considerate of humanitarian and geopolitical circumstances. This approach was unprecedented, as it involved pushing a consensus-driven regulatory instrument through the United Nations, culminating in its adoption by a vote. On multiple fronts, the ATT can be considered a major success.
However, the critical question remains: has the Arms Trade Treaty contributed to increased global stability, respect for humanitarian goals, and human rights, or is it merely a symbolic document archived within the United Nations? In my view, the truth lies somewhere in between. The ATT has undeniably brought the issue of arms trade controls to the forefront for many states, prompting some to implement controls where none previously existed. Nevertheless, there remains significant room for improvement, particularly in the enforcement of certain articles and in holding States accountable to their ATT obligations, especially as the world navigates a period of significant political uncertainty.
Furthermore, there is a need to enhance the visibility and implementation of the ATT. Articles 6 and 7 are crucial to the Treaty’s success, yet they are rarely highlighted in references by international lawyers when reprimanding states for arms transfers to conflict regions. This lack of visibility and enforcement diminishes the Treaty’s potential impact. Perhaps one day, these articles will receive the attention they deserve, thereby strengthening the Treaty’s effectiveness.
Returning to the initial question: is the international arms trade now better regulated than the trade in bananas? Given the ATT’s current status, this is not an easy question to answer. While the ATT has certainly made strides in addressing regulatory gaps, its effectiveness and visibility need further enhancement to ensure that it can fulfil its intended role comprehensively. For now, the answer remains open to interpretation, inviting continued scrutiny and advocacy for stronger implementation and accountability mechanisms.
Guy Pollard MBE was the UK Deputy Representative to the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva from 2004 to 2016. He was instrumental in driving the ATT process and worked closely with the President’s team throughout the process. He was seconded to the President’s Team for the final negotiating conference where he helped negotiate and write the final treaty text.
Looking at the ATT at 10
By Guy Pollard
Conventional Arms
In international negotiations, while the interests and will of the States engaged in the process guide the outcome, the people in the room matter. Stimson brought together some of the original stakeholders involved in the ATT process, including diplomats and civil society researchers and advocates, a decade after its adoption to provide reflections on the ATT’s past decade and key insights into the treaty’s current impact and future trajectory.
Read all the commentaries and the report on the ATT at 10 webpage.
At the outset of the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) negotiations, the non-governmental organisations (NGOs) involved emphasised their cause with the striking tagline that the trade in bananas was more heavily regulated than the international arms trade. This assertion was undeniably accurate at the time. Now, the question arises: has the ATT effectively addressed and rectified this imbalance?
The ATT, like many preceding arms control agreements, is distinctly a product of its era. Historical treaties such as the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, and the Ottawa Treaty against landmines, each emerged under unique global circumstances that would make their negotiation and adoption highly unlikely in the current international climate. The window of opportunity for such agreements is fleeting, making the existence of the ATT itself a significant achievement.
Examining the nature of the ATT reveals that it is not a prohibition of the arms trade but rather a framework of regulations intended to ensure that the trade remains responsible and considerate of humanitarian and geopolitical circumstances. This approach was unprecedented, as it involved pushing a consensus-driven regulatory instrument through the United Nations, culminating in its adoption by a vote. On multiple fronts, the ATT can be considered a major success.
However, the critical question remains: has the Arms Trade Treaty contributed to increased global stability, respect for humanitarian goals, and human rights, or is it merely a symbolic document archived within the United Nations? In my view, the truth lies somewhere in between. The ATT has undeniably brought the issue of arms trade controls to the forefront for many states, prompting some to implement controls where none previously existed. Nevertheless, there remains significant room for improvement, particularly in the enforcement of certain articles and in holding States accountable to their ATT obligations, especially as the world navigates a period of significant political uncertainty.
Furthermore, there is a need to enhance the visibility and implementation of the ATT. Articles 6 and 7 are crucial to the Treaty’s success, yet they are rarely highlighted in references by international lawyers when reprimanding states for arms transfers to conflict regions. This lack of visibility and enforcement diminishes the Treaty’s potential impact. Perhaps one day, these articles will receive the attention they deserve, thereby strengthening the Treaty’s effectiveness.
Returning to the initial question: is the international arms trade now better regulated than the trade in bananas? Given the ATT’s current status, this is not an easy question to answer. While the ATT has certainly made strides in addressing regulatory gaps, its effectiveness and visibility need further enhancement to ensure that it can fulfil its intended role comprehensively. For now, the answer remains open to interpretation, inviting continued scrutiny and advocacy for stronger implementation and accountability mechanisms.
Guy Pollard MBE was the UK Deputy Representative to the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva from 2004 to 2016. He was instrumental in driving the ATT process and worked closely with the President’s team throughout the process. He was seconded to the President’s Team for the final negotiating conference where he helped negotiate and write the final treaty text.
Recent & Related