The Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) establishes common international criteria to govern the international trade of conventional arms. At the forefront of the ATT’s object and purpose is the enhancement of transparency over international arms transfers and national control systems. The ATT contains legally binding requirements to foster accountability, oversight, and confidence-building mechanisms. ATT reporting has the potential to provide valuable information on national arms transfer control systems, provide visibility into regional and global arms flows, assist in detecting potentially destabilizing weapons accumulations, promote responsibility in the international arms trade, and, ultimately, contribute to international and regional peace, security, and stability.
Under ATT Article 13, States Parties are legally required to submit two reports to the ATT Secretariat. The first is an initial report on measures undertaken to implement the ATT, due within the first year of the ATT’s entry into force for that State Party. State Parties must also report to the Secretariat on any new measures undertaken to implement the treaty, when appropriate. The second required ATT reporting mechanism is an annual report, to be submitted to the ATT Secretariat by 31 May each year, on actual or authorized arms imports and exports that occurred during the previous calendar year.
Initial reports contain information about States Parties’ national systems and how States regulate the international transfer of conventional arms – providing an invaluable mechanism to analyze the ways in which States have enhanced their national systems and how national systems have evolved over time. Annual reports provide a useful resource to evaluate transparency in actual transfers of arms, both in terms of use as periodic indicators of treaty compliance and as a means to assess available information around the international arms trade today compared with before the ATT’s entry into force.
Since the ATT’s entry into force in 2014, these reports have produced a body of data that can be used to evaluate the impact and quality of ATT reporting and determine whether the ATT has lived up to its object and purpose. In the treaty’s first decade, examination of this data has largely been the remit of civil society organizations. From the ATT Baseline Assessment Project to the ATT Monitor, civil society has been the source for comprehensive data and analysis on reporting compliance, challenges, State interpretation of obligations, and opportunities for stronger implementation.1For more, see https://www.stimson.org/project/att-bap/ and https://attmonitor.org/ However, since States Parties have the opportunity to provide initial and annual reports that are only available to other States Parties and the ATT Secretariat, the information necessary to provide a full analysis of ATT reporting on global arms transfers and processes cannot be ascertained from publicly available data and information alone.2Public data on ATT initial and annual reporting is available on the ATT Secretariat website. See ATT Secretariat, “Annual Reports.” https://www.thearmstradetreaty.org/annual-reports.html?templateId=209826., and ATT Secretariat, “Initial Reports.” https://thearmstradetreaty.org/initial-reports.html?templateId=209839#.
The Secretariat has, year after year, provided top-line, numerical statistics for reporting compliance and has produced multiple resources to support States in their ATT reporting.3For the Secretariat’s reporting resources, see the ‘Reporting Requirements’ webpage on the ATT Secretariat website. ATT Secretariat, “Reporting Requirements.” https://www.thearmstradetreaty.org/reporting.html. The Working Group on Transparency and Reporting (WTGR) has tried to identify, through topical discussions and its annual workplan, the ways in which ATT reporting is understood by States and potential strategies to improve compliance.4For work and documents produced by the WTGR, see the ‘Events’ section of the ATT Secretariat website. ATT Secretariat, “Events.” https://www.thearmstradetreaty.org/. On the whole, however, there are no formal treaty processes to comprehensively assess the first decade of ATT reporting.
Due to these outstanding gaps, the true impact of ATT reporting is unknown. Has ATT reporting in practice lived up to the treaty’s objectives and contributed to confidence-building and transparency? Have national governments utilized the required reviews of national control systems to improve their practices and fulfill the treaty’s objectives? Current trends indicate that reporting rates are in decline, momentum for reporting is slowing, and, for many States Parties, other priorities have eclipsed their reporting obligations. A decade past the ATT’s inception, the impact and quality of ATT reporting – and ultimately, whether the ATT has lived up to its object and purpose – needs to be comprehensively evaluated.
The Stimson Center’s 2024 report “The Arms Trade Treaty at 10: A Review of Successes and Shortcomings of a Decade of Global Regulation of the International Arms Trade,” called for the development of a methodology to analyze the impact of ATT reporting and transparency measures, to examine how reporting obligations have been implemented, and to both evaluate challenges faced by States in fulfilling their reporting obligations and identify potential opportunities to strengthen ATT reporting.5Rachel Stohl, “The Arms Trade Treaty at 10: A Review of Successes and Shortcomings of a Decade of Global Regulation of the International Arms Trade.” The Stimson Center, 20 August 2024, pp. 29. https://www.stimson.org/2024/the-arms-trade-treaty-at-10/.
Moving into the treaty’s second decade, it is even more imperative to develop an official treaty process for assessing the first ten years of reporting to inform recommendations and practical steps to ensure the ATT remains relevant and States continue to submit their initial and annual reports. Such a process could consist of yearly public assessments of ATT reporting as well as formal discussions and agenda items as part of the programme of work for the WGTR. In whatever form they take, the formal ATT process needs to identify ways to measure whether the ATT is achieving its transparency goals and objectives. Furthermore, if an evaluation of reporting metrics are undertaken by the formal treaty process, the requisite human, financial, and technical resources and capacity must also be provided on a regular basis.
This brief seeks to aid the development of an official evaluative process by proposing a series of key interrogative metrics that could be utilized to provide important insights into the impact of ATT reporting. Given the Stimson Center’s position as a civil society organization (and thus limited by the information that is publicly available), this report only identifies the metrics that need to be evaluated and does not undertake the actual analysis.
Notes
- 1For more, see https://www.stimson.org/project/att-bap/ and https://attmonitor.org/
- 2Public data on ATT initial and annual reporting is available on the ATT Secretariat website. See ATT Secretariat, “Annual Reports.” https://www.thearmstradetreaty.org/annual-reports.html?templateId=209826., and ATT Secretariat, “Initial Reports.” https://thearmstradetreaty.org/initial-reports.html?templateId=209839#.
- 3For the Secretariat’s reporting resources, see the ‘Reporting Requirements’ webpage on the ATT Secretariat website. ATT Secretariat, “Reporting Requirements.” https://www.thearmstradetreaty.org/reporting.html.
- 4For work and documents produced by the WTGR, see the ‘Events’ section of the ATT Secretariat website. ATT Secretariat, “Events.” https://www.thearmstradetreaty.org/.
- 5Rachel Stohl, “The Arms Trade Treaty at 10: A Review of Successes and Shortcomings of a Decade of Global Regulation of the International Arms Trade.” The Stimson Center, 20 August 2024, pp. 29. https://www.stimson.org/2024/the-arms-trade-treaty-at-10/.