Arms Trade Treaty
On 2nd April 2013, the UN General Assembly has adopted the Arms Trade Treaty as a resolution by a 154-to-3 vote with 23 abstentions.
- North Korea, Iran, and Syria voted in opposition.
- 23 countries abstained from voting, which include China, Russia, India, Cuba, Myanmar, Nicaragua, Saudi Arabia, and Sudan.
The treaty will be open for signature from 3 June 2013. It will come into force when 50 signatories ratify it.
Note: The Arms Trade Treaty is not a weapons ban treaty, but a legally binding instrument to set global standards for regulation of trade and international transfers.
Philosophy:
Around 2.5 Lakh lives are lost every year around the world due to armed conflict. However, 3 Lakh people lose lives due to the arms out side the war zones. More than half of the human rights violations recorded by the Amnesty international have involved the use of small arms and light weapons.
The ATT is based upon the philosophy that the poorly regulated global trade in conventional arms, such as guns, tanks, rockets, planes and ammunitions, carries an enormous human cost. Serious human rights abuses have been committed around the world and thousands of people have been killed, injured, raped and forced to flee from their homes as a result.
Many of these occur because many governments have failed to prevent the international sale and transfer of weapons, ammunitions and armaments to those countries where they are used in the violation of the human rights and international humanitarian laws.
Current Standards
There are no global standards controlling the international trade in conventional arms except the UN Firearms Protocol to the Convention on Transnational Crime but this Protocol is a very limited instrument only applicable to firearms with no reference to human rights or International humanitarian law.
It’s worth note that last attempt to establish a treaty on the conventional arms trade failed under the League of Nations in the 1920s and 30s, ending with the arms race of the great powers and the outbreak of the Second World War. Since that War, it is estimated that more than 250 armed conflicts have taken place.
The ATT is a part of efforts that began in last decade of last century. In 2001, a non-legally binding program of action at the United Nations Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects, was adopted. It is also called PoA.
But there have been some issues with PoA. In 2006, the ATT was again put forward by some Nobel Laureates and this led to an UNGA resolution titled “Towards an Arms Trade Treaty: establishing common international standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional arms“.
Later it was negotiated and finally, UNGA has adopted the treaty.
How ATT is different from PoA?
Both the ATT and PoA are based upon a philosophy that illicit trade in small arms is a large and serious problem requiring global action through the UN. But there are some fundamental differences which all of you have to note for your examination. These differences have been listed in the following table:
PoA | ATT | |
What is it? | Adopted in 2001 UN Conference on Small Arms. It is a nonlegally binding agreement covering aspects of processes, regulations and assessment of measures to address illicit trade of Small Arms | Recently adopted. Legally Binding |
Types of weapons | Small arms & light weapons and their ammunition | A comprehensive ATT would cover all conventional arms, including SALW and possibly ammunition |
Commitment | UN Member States have affirmed their ‘will’ to implement the PoA but on a voluntary basis only | Will be a legally binding treaty i.e. provisions of the ATT will become international law |
Implementation | Each State can implement the PoA as it wishes, usually guided by National Commissions in line with National Action Plans | After the treaty text is agreed, states that ratify the ATT will need to modify national arms transfer legislation and procedures to comply with its provisions |
Monitoring | Voluntary biennial reports on implementation | Annual reporting obligations should be included in the treaty. |
Enforcement | None. Implementation is on a voluntary basis | National legislation meeting a minimum standard would enforce the treaty |
Current Issues
Iran, North Korea and Syria voted against the treaty because they say that the treaty fails to ban sales of weapons to groups that commit “acts of aggression.”
For India, the treaty has caused some discomfiture. India participated actively in the negotiations but could not endorse the final text because India says that the treaty lacks clarity, fails to balance the rights and obligations of both exporting and importing countries, protects specific interests, and is difficult to implement.
The scope of this treaty is not limited to some weapons. It covers not only the assault rifles, light machine guns, rocket propelled grenades etc. but also the tanks, armoured combat vehicles, large calibre artillery, combat aircraft, attack helicopters, warships, missiles and missile launchers.
The country which have not favoured the treaty say that barring the small arms such as assault rifles, light machine guns, rocket propelled grenades, most of the defense items are handled officially by the government. The illicit trade of arms is generally limited to those weapons which are traded by the unauthorized arms dealers. Further, the dimension of the illicit trade in them is not clear.
The ATT covers the export, import, transit, trans-shipment and brokering. This means that it covers the entire chain of transfer. But it does not cover the international movement of conventional arms by a state party. This means that it does not cover the stockpiling of weapons by various countries.
This treaty requires that each party should maintain a transparent national control system, including a national control list, to regulate the export of ammunition / munitions fired, launched or delivered by all the conventional arms covered by the treaty. Detailed national records of export authorizations shall be kept for a minimum of 10 years and annual reports submitted to the treaty’s secretariat. It is doubtful if this elaborate provision will be complied with by some countries such as China.
The treaty prohibits authorization of arms transfers intended for the commission of genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes. How to ascertain that these crimes will not be done when US supplies arms to Syria?
Not many countries openly transfer the weapons. The rebels get arms secretly and state support is needed to control such transfers. But such transfers are mainly done by a handful of countries, with “rogue states” having little capacity to do so.
The treaty favours the arms exporting countries and does not protect the interests of importers. “The treaty may be seen by many as essentially a product of and by exporters only. It falls short of striking an appropriate balance of interests and obligations among exporters and importers as well as the affected states. (CGS-25 / Target 2013 Content)
