MORE THAN 740,000 PEOPLE DIE EACH YEAR FROM ARMED VIOLENCE.1 Armed violence affects all societies and impedes human, social and economic development. Yet conventional arms — particularly small arms and light weapons — are only lightly (and often unevenly) regulated.2

In recent years, however, there has been a push to increase transparency in and regulation of the conventional arms market globally. In recognition of the problem, the United Nations General Assembly, in 2006, asked the Secretary-General to establish a group of governmental experts to look into the feasibility and scope of a comprehensive, legally-binding treaty establishing global standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional arms. Work toward such an instrument, which has become known as the ARMS TRADE TREATY, is ongoing.

BY UNITED NATIONS STANDARDS, progress toward an arms trade treaty (ATT) has been a remarkably fast process. Only three years ago such a treaty had not even been referenced in United Nations documents. Now there are a record-breaking number of submissions from states addressing their views on an ATT (almost all think a strong treaty is feasible), U.N. General Assembly resolutions with overwhelming support from member states, and a muted report from a small Group of Governmental Experts (which was packed with an ATT’s strongest opponents).

This year there will be two sessions of an Open-Ended Working Group open to all member states, discussing the nature of a possible treaty. It is possible negotiations on a treaty itself will start as soon as 2010. A major treaty might be signed within four years of its first being mentioned at the United Nations. How did this happen?

The Role of Civil Society

One reason for the success of the ATT initiative is the huge pressure from global civil society. The more than 950 organizations comprising the International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA) which are active in over 100 countries have been campaigning for an ATT through the Control Arms campaign (which is coordinated by IANSA, Amnesty International and Oxfam International). The combined efforts of these organizations have helped to transform the ATT from a noble idea into a working process at the U.N.. Over a million people around the world added their faces to the Million Faces petition in support of an ATT. This pressure has helped to persuade an influential group of governments, including the European Union, Argentina, Australia, Japan, Kenya, Mexico, New Zealand, Nigeria and South Africa, that there is an urgent need to negotiate an ATT.

The original idea of an arms trade treaty came from Costa Rica’s President, Oscar Arias, whose return to the Presidency coincides with the U.N.’s engagement with his initiative. Mr. Arias and several other Nobel Peace Laureates proposed the treaty in the late 1990s, in an attempt to improve regulations on the global trade in conventional arms. Subsequently a group of non-governmental experts, the ATT Steering Committee of Non-Governmental Organizations, developed the central ideas of the treaty, the “golden rules” that must be included in the treaty if it is to be strong and effective in saving lives.

The Essential Elements of an Arms Trade Treaty

These golden rules are relatively straightforward. First, existing rules of international law — in this case international humanitarian law (the “rules of war”) and international human rights law — should be respected in all weapons sales and transfers. Second, the buying, selling and transfer of weapons should be prohibited where there is a reasonable expectation that these arms will be used in the commission of atrocities or armed crime. Third, the buying, selling or transfer of arms should be prohibited if the arms are likely to undermine sustainable development or increase poverty.

U.N. member states have in fact already agreed to most of the relevant law underlying the golden rules, but they have not previously applied it to the international arms trade. Governments must act responsibly when buying or selling weapons. The responsibility for the misuse of these weapons is not simply with the armed group murdering civilians, but also with the original exporter, if the exporter could reasonably have known that the weapons would be misused. Importers are also responsible for ensuring the weapons are not diverted to criminal or armed groups, and for ensuring their own military and security forces do not commit violations of international law.

The golden rules have already been applied to the international arms trade through various regional binding protocols and conventions, though these have tended to focus on guns and ammunition, the weapons responsible for up to 90 percent of armed human rights abuses (as opposed to other, larger conventional weapons, which could also be covered under an ATT). Agreements in Europe, Central and East Africa, Central America and most especially West Africa all contain versions of the golden rules. But without similar global standards, regional standards can be undermined by an unscrupulous exporter not bound by the regional agreements. This is one of the principle reasons why European arms manufacturing companies in fact support a strong ATT, to produce a “level playing field” for their products. And the U.S., the world’s largest arms exporter, has very nearly the “gold standard” for arms transfer legislation. So in practice, the golden rules have already been adopted by a large proportion of the world.

The Challenges Ahead

The golden rules, based on international law, should be supported by most if not all governments. But the diplomats involved in the discussions on an ATT at the U.N. have typically been disarmament and arms control experts, not experts in international law. Unfortunately, they often lack knowledge of relevant international human rights law, and this is probably the major reason why the golden rules have not yet been discussed in the U.N.’s Open-Ended Working Group.3 Lack of knowledge of international law has allowed some opponents of a strong ATT to falsely claim that “human rights” are a subjective criterion imposed from the Global North. But international human rights law is international law, no more subjective than the Law of the Sea or any other form of international law.

As the ATT process moves towards negotiations, it is vital that the debate include reference to the golden rules and the arguments based on international law that support these rules. Without these discussions, there is a risk that the ATT that results will be simply “business as usual” and will do little or nothing to prevent the suffering caused by conventional weapons. A properly informed discussion at the U.N. is critical to making any ATT a useful element in reducing the burden of armed violence.

Alun Howard is a policy officer at the International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA).

FOR MORE INFORMATION

Control Arms Campaign
www.controlarms.org

International Action Network on Small Arms
www.iansa.org

United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs
www.un.org/disarmament/convarms/ArmsTradeTreaty/html/ATT.shtml

Notes
1. The Global Burden of Armed Violence, Geneva Declaration (2008). The full report is available online at www.genevadeclaration.org.
2. Small arms and light weapons are weapons designed for individual use (such as revolvers, self-loading pistols, rifles and machine guns) or for use by two or three persons serving as a crew.
3. The Open-Ended Working Group met in March and July 2009. Read more about the proceedings at www.controlarms.org/en/campaigning-at-the-united-nations.