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.
The ATT is a diplomatic agreement, plain and simple. Therefore, as in the case of any other treaty, its strengths, obstacles, and weaknesses must be considered in light of the condition of international relations and their influence on multilateral action in general. The state of implementation of the ATT in its first decade should not simply be judged and assessed based on its aims and objectives, but also in consideration of the constraints and opportunities for diplomatic relations, treaty-making, cooperation, and assistance within the global geopolitical context.
Unfortunately, we are not currently in the most promising of times regarding contemporary global action against militarism, the prevention of unlawful weapons use under International Humanitarian Law and the basic principles of International Human Rights Law, and the goal of banning of certain weapons systems, particularly weapons of mass destruction. In such a context, the efficiency, success, and even potential survival of many of these multilateral instruments in the years to come is deeply concerning, especially as tectonic transformations in the world system bring the promise of large-scale conflict.
In hindsight, the disarmament and arms control advances of the early years of the post-Cold War years in the 1990s seem quite exceptional. Now, we find ourselves in a renewed Cold War atmosphere that could quickly escalate into nuclear war; regional conflicts (such as those in Ukraine or Palestine) could potentially burst into global crises. An Arms Trade Treaty would likely not be able to be negotiated in today’s environment.
The fate of disarmament, arms control, and non-proliferation treaties in such conditions is grim. They have seen obstacles and a slowdown in their universalization, increasingly weak and deficient reporting, and inadequate responses to treaty non-compliance and violations. There have been open attacks on multilateralism, a weakening of global civil society due to funding shortfalls, a shrinking civil space, and a multitude of challenges faced by NGOs striving to remain relevant and fit for purpose.
Yet, despite concerns about the current state of affairs, the positive legacy of work by governments, intergovernmental organizations, NGOs, and other stakeholders shows it is still possible to make changes to ensure the ATT’s future success. It is essential to explore avenues for strengthening and improving ATT implementation through decisive diplomatic actions that build upon the successes attained in the structural and functional development of the treaty — within and despite the difficult broader context.
First, a strengthened ATT requires action within the real world of international relations where conflicts and solutions happen. Arms transfers to Saudi Arabia for use in Yemen, to Israel for use in Palestine should be discussed within the ATT context. There has been a lack of collaboration with other international fora and processes (such as the Human Rights Council, the International Criminal Court, the International Court of Justice, and the Security Council, to name a few); encouraging interconnections and synergies between instruments can sharpen the ATT’s impact. In parallel, the ATT can be a major contribution to the defence and construction of the rule of law at the international level. Failing to bring the ATT to bear on the real world — and the real world to bear on the ATT — will have a regrettable impact, not merely on the legitimacy of the Treaty but also on the multilateralism intended to contribute to the prevention of armed violence in all its forms.
Second, important ideas and precedents from different contexts were considered during the negotiations but did not ultimately find their way into the Treaty. Some of those ideas pertained to small arms and light weapons, and ammunition; assistance for victims of armed violence; customs and international trade; women’s rights, combating organized crime and corruption; treaty transparency and reporting; as well as IHL and human rights. Further, good practices and precedents have emerged from regional entities across the globe, including West and South Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean, and Europe, among others. It is crucial to take stock of this influence on the ATT. Now is the time to recover sidelined offerings and ponder their relevance to the ATT as it stands today, contributing to a progressive and humanitarian interpretation of its contents and implementation of its commitments.
We must ensure the ATT’s relevance and legitimacy as we navigate through the uncertain terrain of the second quarter of the 21st century. We need to take a realist 360-degree view of the treaty to better recognize its significant contributions, limitations, and strengths. Within our future work it is crucial to acknowledge global context, to address real life applications of the treaty, to identify potential synergies and possible partnerships within the multilateral system, and to reintroduce original ideas that circulated during the gestation of the ATT. The Arms Trade Treaty cannot operate in isolation.
Hector Guerra, Co-Director, MERIDIONAL
Views on the Arms Trade Treaty
Considerations on Context and Initial Commitments
By Hector Guerra
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.
The ATT is a diplomatic agreement, plain and simple. Therefore, as in the case of any other treaty, its strengths, obstacles, and weaknesses must be considered in light of the condition of international relations and their influence on multilateral action in general. The state of implementation of the ATT in its first decade should not simply be judged and assessed based on its aims and objectives, but also in consideration of the constraints and opportunities for diplomatic relations, treaty-making, cooperation, and assistance within the global geopolitical context.
Unfortunately, we are not currently in the most promising of times regarding contemporary global action against militarism, the prevention of unlawful weapons use under International Humanitarian Law and the basic principles of International Human Rights Law, and the goal of banning of certain weapons systems, particularly weapons of mass destruction. In such a context, the efficiency, success, and even potential survival of many of these multilateral instruments in the years to come is deeply concerning, especially as tectonic transformations in the world system bring the promise of large-scale conflict.
In hindsight, the disarmament and arms control advances of the early years of the post-Cold War years in the 1990s seem quite exceptional. Now, we find ourselves in a renewed Cold War atmosphere that could quickly escalate into nuclear war; regional conflicts (such as those in Ukraine or Palestine) could potentially burst into global crises. An Arms Trade Treaty would likely not be able to be negotiated in today’s environment.
The fate of disarmament, arms control, and non-proliferation treaties in such conditions is grim. They have seen obstacles and a slowdown in their universalization, increasingly weak and deficient reporting, and inadequate responses to treaty non-compliance and violations. There have been open attacks on multilateralism, a weakening of global civil society due to funding shortfalls, a shrinking civil space, and a multitude of challenges faced by NGOs striving to remain relevant and fit for purpose.
Yet, despite concerns about the current state of affairs, the positive legacy of work by governments, intergovernmental organizations, NGOs, and other stakeholders shows it is still possible to make changes to ensure the ATT’s future success. It is essential to explore avenues for strengthening and improving ATT implementation through decisive diplomatic actions that build upon the successes attained in the structural and functional development of the treaty — within and despite the difficult broader context.
First, a strengthened ATT requires action within the real world of international relations where conflicts and solutions happen. Arms transfers to Saudi Arabia for use in Yemen, to Israel for use in Palestine should be discussed within the ATT context. There has been a lack of collaboration with other international fora and processes (such as the Human Rights Council, the International Criminal Court, the International Court of Justice, and the Security Council, to name a few); encouraging interconnections and synergies between instruments can sharpen the ATT’s impact. In parallel, the ATT can be a major contribution to the defence and construction of the rule of law at the international level. Failing to bring the ATT to bear on the real world — and the real world to bear on the ATT — will have a regrettable impact, not merely on the legitimacy of the Treaty but also on the multilateralism intended to contribute to the prevention of armed violence in all its forms.
Second, important ideas and precedents from different contexts were considered during the negotiations but did not ultimately find their way into the Treaty. Some of those ideas pertained to small arms and light weapons, and ammunition; assistance for victims of armed violence; customs and international trade; women’s rights, combating organized crime and corruption; treaty transparency and reporting; as well as IHL and human rights. Further, good practices and precedents have emerged from regional entities across the globe, including West and South Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean, and Europe, among others. It is crucial to take stock of this influence on the ATT. Now is the time to recover sidelined offerings and ponder their relevance to the ATT as it stands today, contributing to a progressive and humanitarian interpretation of its contents and implementation of its commitments.
We must ensure the ATT’s relevance and legitimacy as we navigate through the uncertain terrain of the second quarter of the 21st century. We need to take a realist 360-degree view of the treaty to better recognize its significant contributions, limitations, and strengths. Within our future work it is crucial to acknowledge global context, to address real life applications of the treaty, to identify potential synergies and possible partnerships within the multilateral system, and to reintroduce original ideas that circulated during the gestation of the ATT. The Arms Trade Treaty cannot operate in isolation.
Hector Guerra, Co-Director, MERIDIONAL
Recent & Related