Arms Trade Treaty legal blog

Day 5 of the Third PrepCom - National Implementation

2011-07-15T16:28:00.006-04:00

The final day of the prepcom was, overall, more positive than the previous day, with the US rowing back slightly from its somewhat apocolapytic view of the status of the preliminary discussions. Consensus will remain an elusive beast, however, based on the persistent objections of a (relatively small but vociferous) number of States.

The EU stated that the Chair's paper is a solid basis on which to build in 2012. Even if some elements will not statisfy all delegations, that is normal. More work clearly needs to be done but the structure seems close to what could be the eventual treaty. The ATT should include munitions and ammunition. In their view, the provision on ‘technology structure’ covers ‘manufacture’. They welcome the clause on brokering. The clause on victim assistance should not go further than what is stated in the paper.

Italy called for more work on definitions. Sports and hunting weapons should included be in the ATT, but the focus should be on military weapons, including SALW. They don’t see it appropriate to include victim assistance in the core of the text but only in the preamble.

Chile said victim assistance should be only in the preamble. It called for greater precision on the extraterritorial applicability of the treaty.

Denmark said that it should be assessed carefully which provisions apply to what activities, e.g. criteria are only relevant for export, but not for import, and record-keeping must be linked to transfer authorization.

Germany said a more detailed list of arms should be included in an annex that would be easily amendable. SALW should be included, as well as munitions and ammunition.

Cuba stated that there were several points that were not acceptable to Cuba. Criteria, for example, can be easily manipulated for political reasons. They also want a clause on prohibition of transfers to n on-State actors. Information provision can only be voluntary; the treaty cannot put in danger the national security of a State.

France liked the method of work of the Chair as it allowed for the consideration of all the views of the States. It is also a more "courageous" approach. The text submitted seems coherent. No big surprise should appear now, and it is a good thing for all delegations. What is now the way forward? We are now in between phases of about a year before the Diplomatic Conference. We should then try to establish for the first day of the 2012 conference the best possible basis for how to: 1) take off all the elements unnecessary in the treaty (e.g. victim assistance, even if it should stay in the preamble). 2) clarify the obligations of States (ambiguities remains, such as the concrete consequences linked to risk assessment in transferring weapon); and 3) start to write the text in a ‘treaty’ language.

The UK still calls for a robust treaty with the highest possible standards. The text seems to go on this direction.

The US can support the statement of the EU, UK, and France except for the ammunition provision. The paper provides a good basis and gives elements in moving towards negotiation. Consensus cannot be achieved in all the ideas expressed in the paper. We need to focus our attention on the essential elements to be included in the treaty.

Belgium want to add a small provision in the preamble that could send a positive signal with regard to the problem of child soldiers. The preamble should refer to gender -ased violence and violence against children.

Uruguay in the name of Caribbean, Central and South American States stated that the treaty should include SALW, ammunition, and munitions to avoid loopholes. Clarification needs to be done with regard to criteria and exporting States. They want to replace ‘serious’ violations of human rights law by ‘gross and systematic’ violations. International assistance is a key element. Final provisions should not allow reservations, at least on the scope. Review conference should be given a mandate to eventually broaden the scope. Settlement of disputes should include a reference to Article 33 of the UN Charter to allow a wide range of means of dispute settlements.

Russia said that there was progress if by that we mean a better understanding of the positions of the States. However, the prepcom has not been successful in transferring a balanced proposal to the General Assembly. Instead the Chair proposed a working paper that renders the different views expressed. It is the personal understanding of the Chair of how a treaty could look. Russia does not know if it can become the basis of negotiations. Consensus is very unlikely as the text stands. We don’t have a clear understanding of what the treaty could bring and what its aims are. For Russia, the main aim of a possible document is to counter the transfer of arms to the illicit market.

The Netherlands said that the Chair's text is a good basis for further work. Ammunition and munitions should be included (to include hand grenades, for example). It is a regulation treaty and not a treaty that would ban the arms trade. Denial transfers cannot be negotiated and are a matter of national sovereignty. No provision should be drafted concerning denial transfers. NGOs must be able to participate in the Review Conference and it should be foreseen in the treaty.

Costa Rica said that the objective of the treaty must be to realize what the General Assembly stated, i.e. to contribute to a more peaceful world and stability between nations and reduce human suffering. It won’t suppress wars but it can limit the flow of arms that fuels armed conflicts. Costa Rica is generally satisfied with the text. They also want an inclusion in the criteria regarding risk of transfer to non-State actors.

Switzerland welcomed the inclusion of SALW in the scope of the treaty. They also welcome the inclusion of explosives, such as hand grenades. Some terms should be better defined: for example, what is a military vehicle? Switzerland is pleased to see criteria on peace and security, and serious violations of IHL and human rights. The issue of poverty reduction is also a good criteria, as well as corruption. A reference to the risk of the transfer of arms to the civilian population should be included. 20 years should be the minimum time for record-keeping.

Colombia said that the criteria as drafted can still be subjective and political. It is necessary to refine the wording to avoid that at a maximum. They want inclusion of a provision on non-State actors. Victim assistance should only be in the preamble. Review conferences must be able to amend the treaty.

Sweden sees the paper as a list of issues that need to be tackled during the diplomatic conference and not as a basis of a treaty per se. The paper is a road map and not a text to be negotiated.

Spain wishes a robust and simple treaty to regulate the arms trade and end illicit arms trafficking Provisions will need to be better refined, but still it is a good basis for discussion.

Iran said that the text is not a basis for negotiation. Despite positive changes, it does not include many issues which are essential to Iran. It lacks clarity and vision. Terms are vague and ill defined, such as ‘irresponsible’ trade, which will raise a lot of interpretation issues. Since 85% of the arms trade is dominated by a handful of States, the entry into force should be conditioned by the ratifications of the 15 exporting countries. It asked for the submission of a rolling text.

Day Four of the Third Prepcom

2011-07-14T17:48:00.002-04:00

The Chair opened day four of the third Prepcom by announcing that he was issuing a new chair's text. This is the first complete draft of a possible Arms Trade Treaty that he has elaborated. Based on the discussions that ensued it is clear that several major arms exporters/importers (e.g. Egypt, India, Pakistan, and the US) do not support the general thrust of his current text. Some tough discussions and negotiations lie ahead.

Canada wanted a new clause allowing for legitimate civilian uses of small arms, including sport and hunting, in the principles section. On any right to "acquire", Canada wanted this deleted from the treaty. It also wanted sporting and hunting weapons excluded from the scope of the treaty. It had concerns about the inclusion of ammunition in the treaty.

On Annex A (definitions), there are two different definitions of "transfer". It called for the removal of the word "transport". It also sought clarification on the definition of brokering, including whether brokers should be regulated in the same way as exporters. It also had concerns about the extraterritorial application of national law with respect to brokering.

Algeria sought clarification on whether the Chair's paper would be revised during the week. It also wanted a paper including all the proposals made by different delegations. This would help the Diplomatic Conference, it said. How does the Chair see the status of his paper?

Egypt wanted time to review the document.

Mexico stated that there should not be exceptions based on intended use as it is not a disarmament treaty. Guns used for recreation are some of the most often used for transnational organised crime. Excluding them would leave a big gap in the treaty.

Senegal stated that sanctions should be in place for violations of the treaty. The ATT should cover all conventional weapons, including ammunition.

The Republic of Korea stated that addressing brokering was a good approach, as set out in the Chair's new paper. It wanted the role of the ISU to include maintaining a database of reports. The treaty's scope should be flexible in order to capture new weapon and technologies. It did not think that victim assistance was relevant to the treaty but the wording "may" left sufficient flexibility in this issue.

Sweden thought the definition of transfer should be generic and preferred the one in Annex A to what was included in the section on scope.

India wanted references to non-State actors included. It did not find the document balanced and noted a wide range of views among delegations.

Uruguay called for a stronger provision on victim assistance to be included.

Mexico wanted to replace "serious" violations of human rights law with "grave and systematic" violations. On record-keeping, Mexico wanted records kept for 20 rather than 10 years.

The US stated that the draft does not move States closer to an agreement. This is a treaty about requiring States to have an assessment before authorising transfers. "I do not see how this text moves our discussion forward."

Pakistan stated that it saw the latest draft with disappointment. None of its proposals was contained in the latest draft. "What then is the purpose of this exercise"? It encouraged the Chair to begin in earnest efforts to find a consensus.

Argentina stated brokering should be covered by the treaty.

Ghana stated that that the humanitarian imperative should be kept in view.

The UK stated that the text was a platform for the drafting stage.

-------------

NGO presentations

Jeff Abramson, the new coordinator of the ControlArms Secretariat, gave the first presentation. He called for a broad definition of transfer to be included in the treaty. Second, he said the State Party reports should be made public.

Carole Engome of IANSA Women's Network called for the inclusion of a reference to gender-based violence in the ATT. She applauded the reference in the preamble of the Chair's text.

Suela Lala, lawyer and survivor of firearms injury, from Albania, called for a comprehensive framework for international cooperation and assistance.

Felipe Michelini, a legislator from Uruguay from Parliamentarians for Global Action, pledged that they would work towards rapid ratification of the future ATT and the adoption of detail legislation permitting its implementation.

Wayne Lapierre of the US National Rifle Association said that the right to bear arms was "self-evident". Those working on the ATT said trust us, but they have shown themselves unworthy of that trust. Only "solution" is not to include civilian firearms in the treaty. The treaty is the infringement of US citizens constitutional freedoms.

Ted Rowe, World Forum on the Future of Sports Shooting Activities, stated that more than 60% of all firearms are legally owned by civilians. Civilian firearms should not be included in the treaty. Only military firearms (i.e. those capable of fully automatic fire) should be covered. On ammunition, any marking and tracing is not feasible because of the difficulties in record keeping.

Allen Young of Defence Small Arms Advisory Council stated there is an obvious difference between a arms trade treaty and a small arms control treaty.

----------------

Resumption of preparatory committee

Egypt stated that changes to the Chair's paper were limited. It presents a particular, single model of an ATT. He claimed that there was not yet a set of international standards outlined in the Chair's paper. The text does not deal with regional military imbalances. There is nothing on following up on lack of compliance. Egypt does not like the terms used in the scope section, which it said are not clear, and do not follow those in the UN Register.

On criteria, the language needs to be tightened up. The terminology needs to avoid guesswork at national level. There needs to be oversight of respect for non-discrimination over and above the "potential violator". It would like to see a totally independent secretariat. There is a "sovereign right" to obtain arms for self-defence. The current text lacks any incentive for non-exporting States to adhere to it.

Guatemala stated that all SALW and ammunition should be covered by the treaty. In Guatemala, many weapons seized from organised crime are from hunting and sport. It wanted an independent ISU.

Peru said avoiding diversion of arms was a key objective. On scope, it was pleased to see that SALW and ammunition were included and did not want it to be possible to make reservations to the scope of the treaty.

Norway stated that references to illicit activities were somewhat superfluous; the treaty was also to prevent irresponsible transfer. Armed violence should be referred to in the preamble. There is no obligation to export arms and no right to import them. The dispute settlement provision on transfer denials might contradict the treaty. There is certain ambiguity on terminology, e.g. "transfer". Norway still believes that victim assistance should be included in the treaty. There is no need for a link between the arms export and the victim; it is to reiterate the rights of victims to assistance, in accordance with applicable human rights law. It regretted there was no inclusion of marking and tracing of weapons.

Brazil stated a greater deal of realism was a mark of this week's negotiations. Brazil still had concern about some of the elements included. It wanted deletion of reference in the preamble to excessive stockpiles. It wanted a new paragraph setting out the right to development through acquisition of technology and equipment. It did not want to see exclusions for certain weapons.

On criteria, some are still too vague. It opposed language on socio-economic development and questioned language on prolonging or provoking instability. Brazil would prefer either voluntary reporting or a more limited scope if reporting was compulsory. On amendments, Brazil wanted adoption by consensus.

Nigeria called for a new criterion on armed violence.

Trinidad and Tobago also wanted a reference in the preamble to armed violence. It stressed the need to include ammunition in the scope of the treaty. It wanted to see a prohibition on transfers to non-state actors.

Malawi stated that on criteria, the language on corruption was not clear. On enforcement, extradition for prosecution should be a possibility.

Saudi Arabia stated that it supported the concerns raised by Egypt. On dispute settlement, what if bilateral negotiations don't resolve the issue?

Algeria stated the Chair's text cannot constitute the basis for negotiations. It asked for an additional prepcom meeting to discuss the draft.

Certain statements are available in full at: http://www.un.org/disarmament/convarms/ATTPrepCom/Statements.html

Day 3 of the Third PrepCom - National Implementation (contd.)

2011-07-13T19:02:00.000-04:00

Uruguay

Prefers Article 18 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties to what is in the Chair’s proposal. For entry into force, it seems there is general agreement on setting the number of ratifications at 30. As for withdrawal, the text of the provision should be as clear as possible. The new provision could be drafted as including extraordinary circumstances, supreme national interest, etc., to justify the withdrawal. Relating to dispute settlement, it suggested using the corresponding provision in the Convention on Cluster Munitions. It also called for a provision on relations with States not party.

Liechtenstein

Joined the Swiss proposal on import and export. It wished to have stronger language on information exchange. On “Jurisdiction AND control”, it wanted to delete the word control altogether. It supported 30 ratifications for entry into force. With regard to reservations, it wanted either to include a clause that says no reservation or to have one that gives more guidance on who decides if a reservation is incompatible with treaty (maybe the Assembly of the States Parties). Practice shows that objections to reservations are often unclear and are a delicate matter for states. Reference to arbitration and the International Court of Justice should be included in the provision on the settlement of disputes.

Algeria

Whishes 60 as a number for ratifications necessary for the entry into force. On withdrawal, there should not be any conditions as it is a sovereign right. On reservations, it would be better to say which organ or entity could declare that a reservation is incompatible with the object and purpose of the treaty. As for settlement of disputes, it seems that the provision only deals with the first stage of a dispute between States Parties and more should be added on judicial means of settlement.

Mexico

Supported 30 as the number of ratifications to trigger entry into force. Considers that the ATT should not allow reservations, otherwise a reserve to the clause of transfer, criteria, etc. would necessarily be a means to avoid the application of the treaty. There should also be a provision on relations with States not party.

Papua New Guinea

Wants to include SALW in the treaty. There should be a regionally based reporting mechanism for reporting and it thinks that assistance will be needed for record-keeping. The mechanism should only have a repository and secretarial role. International assistance will be needed to implement the treaty.

Japan

The purpose of the Assembly and the review conference seems to be the same. It should be clearly stipulated what are their precise roles and functions. The procedures of such mechanisms should be established in the treaty itself. Relationship between States Parties and State not party should also be examined.

Trinidad and Tobago

They are ok with the reservations clause as it is the same as the VCLT and part of customary law. The review conference should also allow States not party and other entities to attend as observers. The provision on dispute settlement should be more elaborated, and a provision on more diplomatic settlement and then traditional judicial means should be included. Inspiration could be drawn from environmental law regime (e.g. the Kyoto protocol), which have original provisions on means of dispute settlement.

Russia

Russia wants more than 30 ratifications, and believes that 60 is a better level for entry into force. Anyway, all of this is hypothetical, as it still doesn’t agree on the scope and parameters.

The EU

To allow the swift entry into force of the treaty the number of necessary ratifications should be fixed at a reasonable level. Regular Assemblies of States Parties and review conferences are a good tool for the treaty.

Peru

Reservation on certain types of weapons cause great difficulties so reservations should not be allowed.

Iran

Denial of transfers should only be based on treaty provisions and not political reasons. So the terms ‘for any other reasons’ is not acceptable to Iran as gives too much leeway to political abuse. Reports should not contain sensitive information related to national security. Law enforcement should not be dealt with at the international but only at the national level. In principle, brokering should not be included in the ATT. Corruption is already dealt with in other instruments and so it should not be included in the ATT. The implementation unit, as presented by the ODA, is not supported by Iran, as it believes that it is a matter of national concern and should be dealt with at the national level.

United Arab Emirates

60 ratifications should be the number required. On reservations, they support the provision as written. Assemblies of States Parties are a good idea. They believe that the limits of the mechanism and their functions should also be determined. A clause which clarifies the relationship with States not party should be included.

India

The text is only a reference as we are not there yet. Assembly of States Parties should facilitate cooperation between States Parties, while review and implementation should be dealt with by the review conference. For amendments and call for an assembly a minimum number of states should be requested (e.g. 30).

Colombia

Ok with 30 ratifications. Colombia has doubts as to the need for an assembly of States Parties and a review conference. There might be a cross-over in functions, so the tasks of the two should be clearly defined. Or we should maybe only have one type of organ, with all functions (review, reporting and implementation). As to the relationship between States Parties and States not party, the ATT should include the important principle stating that a State Party must always respect the provisions of the treaty in transferring the arms whether or not the recipient State is a party to the treaty or not.

New Zealand

The text of the ATT could include a provision specifying which clause could not be object of a reservation. They believe that 30 is a reasonable level for entry into force.

Australia

60 ratifications seems a reasonable level for Australia for entry into force.

United States

We should not get into treaty text as we are not yet there. Entry into force provision: trying to set down a particular set of countries that should be party before the treaty goes into force should not be a path and the US does not want that either. As for the object of the treaty with regard to the reservation clause, this should be very clear. Two elements are clear: a large number of states should be part of the treaty so 30 is too low. Then you also want to have states that are particularly interested States Party to the treaty, but how to know which those are. In general, we use the criteria of value of exports but those vary with time. We should wait for the actual negotiations before getting into the details of the final provisions.

Cuba

Cuba does not see how the treaty can be effective if major exporting countries are not party to it.

Norway

Some states wishes to have 60, 70 ratifications for entry into force arguing that that would ease universal adherence, However, Norway underlines that there is no contradiction between universal adherence and low number of ratifications. Indeed the most universally ratified treaties are the Geneva Conventions and there were only 2 ratifications required.

Switzerland

Clear functions of two bodies should be defined. Are ok with 30 ratifications. Should mention ratification, approval and accession. States should also provide explanations when they withdraw. ATT should also plan how many States Parties are necessary for amendments.

Syria

The question of scope and criteria are intermingled with implementation. So far it is not known what the aim of the treaty is. For some it is a disarmament treaty, for other it is an instrument to fight illicit arms trade, for other only a regulation treaty. It is time to assess the aim of the treaty and the right of States to acquire arms to defend their sovereignty should be included. Criteria should be free from polarization. Reporting must be voluntary. What kind of information will contain the reports? What about military alliances? If the aim is universal participation, in terms of ratifications, a high number must be met. Major exporters must be included otherwise it won’t be useful. Reservations as well as denunciation are sovereign rights of States.

The Netherlands

Exporting countries are not more important that other States in terms of ratifications. Indeed, the ATT will try to deal not with the numerous licit exportations which exporting States do all the time, but will try to address the few problematic ones. Hence, every country is concerned.

Interpol

The proliferation of arms is a major concern. Criminals today can have very easy access to sophisticated armaments which sometimes contribute to fuel violence almost to a war-like degree. The ATT is necessary as we face now not a regional problem, but a worldwide one. International police cooperation is crucial, for example in relation to information exchange with regard to the implementation of the treaty. International police cooperation and how to best put it in place should be included in the ATT.

Day 2 of the Third PrepCom - National Implementation

2011-07-12T20:28:00.002-04:00

Philippines – To effectively implement the treaty there is a need to include reference to international cooperation and the right to self-defence. The distinction between importing and exporting States is important. It also stressed the importance of the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity.

Singapore – Regarding transit, not every State has the capacity to implement all the provisions. It thought they should strive for a treaty that is not too complex and onerous.

Chile called for language to be avoided such as “abuse of power”, which are difficult to understand in a legal instrument.

Malaysia – A potential ATT must be objective and balanced. Linkages to issues such as human rights, poverty, and corruption (which is not measurable and is too broad) are not helpful. Linking these concepts to security matters would unduly burden the subject . The proposal on transfer denials is too ambitious and burdensome, and the proposal on denial notification should be deleted as it affects bilateral relationships. The minimum period of keeping records should be five years, while the decision to share information should be the prerogative of each State.

(c)Jesper Waldersten

The EU and others stated that the guiding principles should be in the preamble, while treaty application remains a national responsibility and the assessment process to be conducted at national level. Importing States should put in place measures to monitor and control transfers of arms and ensure compliance with binding legal obligations. Further details of these measures should be decided at the national level. States Parties should address corruption and money laundering (including by reference to obligations under other instruments)

Russian Federation said that the measures to be implemented are far from being agreed. On national systems, it lacks the key word of control: “national control”. Domestic arms circulation should not be taken into account.

Jamaica stated that implementation must occur at a national level and supported by action at the international level. States Parties should be free to put in place additional measures. Transit States should be notified prior to entry into ports. Jamaica supports the section on transfer denials (which would contribute to transparency). Reporting and record-keeping are vital aspects, and annual reporting should be mandatory. An ISU is important, and the body should be independent, flexible and robust. The ISU would assist with implementation, including identifying implementation gaps at national level, and should be a mechanism for facilitating international cooperation and assistance, and serve as a repository of annual reports.

France (on behalf of the P5) said that the ATT is not a disarmament treaty, and should not affect the legitimate arms trade or the right to self-defence. Any decision to transfer arms is an exercise in national sovereignty, and this must be the core principle of the ATT. An effective ATT would help curb the illicit trade in conventional weapons that is undermining security and prosperity, and all States share responsibilities to ensure that weapons are not diverted to illicit purposes or activities. The ATT should be simple, short, and easy to implement. Domestic implementation in accordance with national legislation and regulations in line with ATT obligations would be the most practical way to address implementation.

Canada said that implementation provisions should be easy, short and simple. It felt that the opening paragraph in paper was sufficient for this. States Parties should retain flexibility, and details in the treaty on implementation should be realistic, since many States may not have capacity/resources to fulfil an ambitious implementation provision.

Canada cannot support a system of controls where imports would be treated in the same way as exports. Information sharing is necessary but much information is confidential (national security, commercial-in-confidence, or privacy considerations). Canada is concerned with any proposed obligation to enforce measures on citizens regardless of physical location (concerns with extra-territorial application of State laws), and would urge caution in this regard.

Indonesia said that scope/criteria should be discussed at this meeting, and that the ATT should not undermine primary responsibility of States in controlling export/import/transfer of arms. The ATT should not hinder or generate political restrictions for developing countries. National legislative/administrative measures necessary to implement ATT provisions should be required, but implementation is inseparable from international cooperation and assistance. Indonesia is concerned with references to poverty reduction, socio-economic development, and corruption (which should be regulated by other instruments). Denial notifications should be considered under the section dealing with consultation; there should be a mechanisms for States to express their views regarding denials.

Sweden – dispute settlement mechanism should be related to implementation but not in relation to sovereign transfer control decisions (which would introduce a supernational element that has not been entertained by anyone). An ISU need not deal with implementation assistance, it would be more secretariat functions, and perhaps serve as a clearing house for implementation assistance.

Germany aligned itself with the EU statement. It felt that only brokering of unauthorised transactions should be criminalised. Arms manufacturers may need to undertake brokering activities, and it was unrealistic to require a licence for this. The ATT should not create blacklists for previously denied importers/exporters: each application must be addressed on its merits.

USA said that the national authority should use new technology, such as tracking by electronic means. Transit (recording all transfers across its territory) is unworkable in practice. License and export denials should not be covered in the ATT in the reporting mechanism. The reporting regime should be tailored to its goals and objectives. The US supports an Implementation Support Unit (ISU) as long as it is small and independent and support it financially.

Grenada was in favour of an independent secretariat to support the implementation of the treaty.

South Africa – re. export, it was concerned about the terms used: “transparent and predictable”. Transparent is a vague concept and predictable is a bit ambiguous. On para. 4 of the Chair's text, a State cannot guarantee non-diversion of the arms once they have been exported. On enforcement: brokering (agents) and corruption (State officials) should be kept separate.

The Netherlands – said the term “political abuse” was vague, and might suggest there was an obligation to supply.

India – The language on implementation and application section may raise constitutional issues in many countries. The language should be short and general. India questions the relevance of using the term “National authority”. On validation/authorisation on arms transfer, not every part of the transfer chain is under the control of the exporting States. India questions the need to include a section on transfer denial.

Mexico – On the criminalisation of conduct, Mexico stresses the need to include obligation to try or extradite the persons violating the treaty.

Iran – The ATT should ensure a legal arms trade, and the treaty should be consistent with the UN Charter, and fully respect the sovereign and inherent right to manufacture and conventional arms for self-defence and security needs in accordance with Article 51. The ATT must be balanced in terms of rights and responsibilities of all arms exporting and importing States, and must prevent political abuse of its provisions. An ATT must ensure that refusal can only be undertaken on the basis of treaty provisions, and not for ‘any other reasons’. The ATT must also prevent parties from taking steps to unduly restrict the security rights, needs, and interests of other States Parties. It must also ensure that international transfers for civil purposes will not be restricted or denied as a result of implementation. An ATT will not work if exporters do not join. An ATT will not assist gradual disarmament.

Venezuela – the section on implementation may be more relevant to a disarmament treaty than to a trade treaty. An ATT cannot be considered a disarmament instrument, and the submission of information within the framework of transparency must be done on the basis of a voluntary commitment. Treaty provisions should not pre-judge the right to self-defence, and more consideration needs to be given to an ISU (which States will be represented, will it be within the structure of the DDA or another structure, what will the range of responsibilities be)? Venezuela would not support an ATT being used as a restriction on the legal arms trade between countries. The treaty must preserve States’ rights to manufacture/import/export arms.

Ireland – the scope of the ATT could impose administrative challenges but effective control of these activities will be essential to preventing diversion to illicit purposes. Reporting is a key element, therefore Ireland supports the adoption of the highest feasible level of transparency (noting administrative realities and issues of confidentiality). It has concerns about the provisions on transfer denials.

Algeria – the implementation paper may need some re-organisation. Implementation must respect national sovereignty, and the list of national contact points should be replaced with a support group. The status of the ISU must be defined, and whether it will report to the UN (Algeria hopes it would). It should be funded by States Parties, and the scope and size should be simplified at the start.

Zimbabwe – ATT should uphold States’ rights to arms themselves and engage in arms trade without unnecessary encumbrances. The language should be clear to avoid the ATT being used as an instrument to interfere the internal affairs of other States (e.g. effecting unconstitutional regime change), linkages to human rights should be avoided, since such concepts may permit ATT to be used to deny States to exercise their rights to obtain arms for self-defence. Transparency provisions conflict with confidentiality concerns.

Israel – denial provisions are excessive (confidentiality concerns), while some reporting requirements (existing or new national legislation and procedures) are easy and simple. Other reporting requirements should be carefully considered, taking into account confidentiality concerns. Too-detailed reporting will be burdensome, contentious, and create report-fatigue. The ISU’s main function should be provision of professional assistance to countries which require and request such assistance, and the ISU’s size should fit its designated functions and take into account financial constraints.

Egypt – ATT should not be as focused on national implementation, this would create inconsistencies and subjectivity. National implementation measures should implement the international reference points set out in the ATT. There is limited potential for universality if only exporting States are required to implement provisions, and the paper does not address production and stockpiling. Most States are already dealing with brokering, so the ATT should focus on illicit brokering only, and an international instrument already covers corruption, so the ATT is not the framework to address corruption. Reporting should cover export licensing as well as actual transfers, and should build on existing models (UNCAR) but be more developed and detailed. Reporting denials is necessary in order to allow States to assess effectiveness of ATT, and serves as a safety measure against unjustified denials. An ISU can play a role in checking for unjustified denials, and a legal assistance role can be assigned to ISU along with other roles mentioned in the paper.

UNODA – clarifying different options for implementation support, generally three types: (1) stand-alone independent organisations (eg OPCW and CTBTO), seen as suitable to undertake complex and technical functions (compliance verification, fact-finding, inspection) and would be funded by States Parties only and will need to be built up (advantage is direct control, insulation from UN, high visibility to the treaty; disadvantage is overhead costs and potential politicisation). (2) ISUs (BTWC, CCW, APMBC) are embedded in established inter-governmental organisations (e.g. the UN or GICHD). The advantage is an existing regulatory framework, direct control by States Parties, cost-effective and synergies with relevant expertise and resources, while the disadvantage is potential politicisation. Secretariat functions performed by the UN (e.g. SALW POA, UNCAR), may be suitable for instruments with near-universal membership, funded through UN regular budget. The advantages include use of an existing regulatory framework, benefits from UN capacity and experience, lowest costs, synergies with UN systems. The disadvantages are low visibility, budget not controlled by ATT experts, a perception that it is prone to politicisation. Appropriate modalities will depend on the tasks assigned in the ATT, and the mandate should be clear.

Member States statements may be found in the UN ATT PrepCom website.

First Day of the Third PrepCom

2011-07-11T18:34:00.001-04:00

Overview of the day's discussions

The President's recently circulated paper on national implementation was the subject of discussion on Day 1 of the Third PrepCom.

Barbados on behalf CARICOM want to see provision made for penal sanctions for those who violate the future treaty. They support strong implementation mechanisms.

The EU supports the general approach taken in the President's paper. The implementation of the treaty should remain a national responsibility. No obligations should be imposed with respect to non-State actors. Trans-shipment and brokering should also be included in the implementation section. The EU also stressed the importance of the transparency provision. Obligations should be imposed to regularly report on the respect and implementation of the treaty.

Australia noted that the treaty is not only for exporter States: all States must take the necessary measures to implement the treaty. Functional provisions on implementation are crucial to the success of the treaty.

The United States said that it would be a mistaken assumption that the ATT could solve problems that are beyond the scope. It is not an arms control treaty or a treaty that bans certain activities. It is a regulation of a legitimate activity.

The US noted, however, that it has never been an obligation upon any State to sell arms to certain other States. There is no right to receive arms.

An effective ATT would act as an incentive to push States to implement a national mechanism for implementation. The ATT will not be able to ban certain activities from happening but will make it more difficult for illicit brokering or actors to acquire arms.

The US stated that there should not be a provision of compensation for victims.

The Russian Federation did not believe that there was a clear and common understanding of an ATT, therefore they were building the roof of a house without the necessary foundations. They felt that discussions on implementation should only take place when the objectives of the treaty had been agreed, otherwise there would be an overly abstract discussion.

Norway stated that transparency would build confidence in the treaty. The ATT should be seen as the floor not the ceiling.

Trinidad and Tobago stressed the importance of the duty to cooperate. It wanted to see criminal provisions and criminalization of conduct prohibited in the treaty included (such as illicit brokering activities that take place under the jurisdiction or control of a State Party).

Japan called for a strict national export control mechanism. Japan can subscribe in principle to what the Chair's paper proposed. Transparency measures, such as reporting, are very important. An effective mechanism for information exchange should be provided, such as for example in meetings of States Parties. Japan wondered why brokering and corruption are in the implementation section.

Mexico felt that the ATT should allow for national higher standards. Respect for human rights and IHL should be a fundamental pillar for the treaty. The treaty should avoid to include terms such as ‘political abuse’ which can only undermine the strength of the treaty. International cooperation and assistance will be a key component of the treaty. Cooperation in national implementation, taking into account capacities of different States, is also important.

Tanzania supported the provisions on international cooperation and assistance and on victim assistance in the implementation section.

China said that the sovereign right to trade in arms was the future of the ATT. Consensus was essential. The UN register should inspire the ATT. Transparency was also an essential element.

The UK said that implementation translates words into actions. It agrees with the thrust of the Chair’s paper. The National Authority is fully supported. A control list will also be important. On transfer denials, they see the logic but feel it is not workable at this stage.

Regular reporting will be very valuable. International collaboration should run throughout this part of the treaty. The implementation support unit with a small area of action, created by States to serve States, should be the way forward.

Cuba said that several elements in the Chair's paper were not acceptable to Cuba, but they believe that the text will motivate consensus. Any future ATT must not be discriminatory or be based on political motivations if it is to be acceptable to Cuba. It called for respect for the right to self-defense.

Argentina said that implementation should be a national responsibility, and the ATT should be in accordance with IHL and human rights.

France said that the ATT had two main aims: to regulate international trade and also illicit transfers. Each State must put in place a national implementation system for the treaty. Common elements had to be defined but latitude had to be left to national bodies. Cooperation and information exchange on the control mechanisms was important. The Chair's paper was a good basis. It was also pleased with the provision on judicial cooperation on criminal law.

It did not think linking brokering and corruption was appropriate. One was legal, while corruption was not. It did not support an obligation to notify of transfer denials. This could impede good relations between States. A secretariat could effectively assist in organising meetings of States Parties and circulating State reports.

Israel said that implementation is the responsibility of States. Record-keeping and reporting needs careful analysis. A mechanism which would be excessive and which could touch on sensitive political issues should be avoided.

Switzerland welcomed the content of the Chair's paper. It supports a strong ATT and an ambitious instrument. The text refers to jurisdiction and control whereas it should say or

Pakistan said that consensus has not been reached on key aspects of the treaty, its scope and criteria in particular. This should be done before talking about implementation and final provisions issues.

Germany cannot conceive of how a committee at the national level could work in particular concerning the denial of transfers.

Third Preparatory Committee towards an Arms Trade Treaty starts Monday 11 July in New York

2011-07-07T17:08:00.001-04:00

The events in the Middle East and North Africa over the past few months have demonstrated in tragic detail the importance of an arms trade treaty that effectively regulates arms transfers between States. Conventional weapons and ammunition as well as chemical weapons supplied by arms manufacturing States have seemingly been used to violate the right to life and the right to protest of unarmed demonstrators exercising their rights to freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, right to information, and to liberty and security.

(c)Jesper Waldersten

More to come on the international legal implications of arms trade from the ATT bloggers ...

Final thoughts of the Second PrepCom: A firm step forward

2011-03-04T16:45:00.003-05:00

In many ways, this was a surprisingly positive Second PrepCom. The Chair's non-paper, submitted to governments in advance of the prepcom, was quite poorly drafted in sections and contained some major potential loopholes. The revised paper Ambassador Moritan issued on Thursday (Day Four) was much more skilfully drafted (the definition(s) of transfer notwithstanding), clearer, and far more solid in its provisions. In particular, the section on criteria--the heart of the future Arms Trade Treaty--was a great improvement on its predecessor. As Adlai Stevenson once said, "All progress has resulted from people who took unpopular positions." Credit is thus due to Ambassador Moritan for his second draft paper this week.

For no one should be under any illusions about the task ahead. The ill-fated decision to require the adoption of the treaty by consensus may yet scupper a serious agreement, at least within the auspices of the United Nations. Cuba, Egypt, Iran, and Syria, along with the Russian Federation, all seem opposed to an Arms Trade Treaty, at least in any meaningful sense. More positively, China and India appeared to demonstrate a more mature reflection on an ATT during this Second PrepCom, although both clearly still harbour significant concerns. Algeria and Brazil had little positive input into the process.

A new Chair's paper is expected for the Third PrepCom, which takes place in mid-July, again in New York. This paper is likely to set out the Chair's take on possible implementation measures, as well as revisions to his existing work on the preamble/principles, the goals and objectives of the treaty, scope, criteria, and cooperation and assistance. Look out for the details of a national regulatory mechanism, the national legislative framework sought, as well as provision for an international secretariat/clearing mechanism, presumably within the UN itself.

Given the potential future role of the UN in the implementation of the ATT (whose agencies and bodies have otherwise been eerily silent this week), our final thoughts on this PrepCom should justly go to a former UN Secretary-General, Dag Hammarskjld. He suggested that one should: "Never look down to test the ground before taking your next step. Only he who keeps his eye fixed on the far horizon will find the right road." Great and heart-warming advice ... except, perhaps, when you're entering a minefield...

Fifth and final day of the Second PrepCom - Consultations on the revised Chair's Paper

2011-03-04T16:19:00.004-05:00

Overview of the day's discussions

Discussions continued during the final day of the Second PrepCom on the elements and text included in the revised "Chairman's Draft Paper" issued on Thursday. Delegations varied between support and criticism of the Chair's latest draft proposals.

Delegations' statements

Hungary (on behalf of the EU) supports the incremental improvement of the draft paper. The EU does not consider it appropriate to include provisions on victim assistance, since the ATT "is not a disarmament treaty".

Denmark reiterated its objections to including transportation in the definition of transfer as it is difficult to implement within a licensing system. Sport and hunting weapons should be included, although the reporting measures could depend on the amount/type of weapons transferred (reference was made to the UN Firearms Protocol which foresees the adoption of simplified measures on reporting/licensing.

Algeria suggested deleting any reference to international humanitarian law and human rights law in the criteria section, since this can be "easily politicized" and noted that in any case these issues are covered in the objectives section.

Costa Rica stresses the importance of transparent reporting procedures. As to definition of transfer in Annex A. They suggested to add “or”. This reads as “title to and/[or] control over the equipment”

Norway suggested including a reference to armed violence and not only on armed conflict in paragraph 9 of the Principles section. They also suggested adding a reference to the UNSC resolution on women, peace and security (i.e. Resolution 1820, as well as Resolution 1828 on sexual violence)

Japan suggests that it will not be possible to regulate all the types of transfer, therefore there is a need to redraft the provision on transfer.

Iran called for the need to have an independent section on Principles in addition to the preamble. On paragraph 19 (Recognizing that States may adopt more restrictive measures than those provided in the ATT), they suggested that the provision may be equivalent to a unilateral coercive measures.

Lichtenstein recalled that the three pillars of the UN include human rights and development and noted that these are goals in themselves and should not be dependent on security issues (see Goals and Objectives paragraph 4).

Switzerland referred to ambiguities on transfer (Section 2 of the Scope). They felt there was no specific need to include manufacture under foreign license as a separate item. They proposed new wording to define transfer:

"Section II: International transactions covered by this Treaty include those listed below:

a. Export (includes re-export and temporary export)
b. Transit (includes transshipment)
c. Import (includes temporary import)
d. Transfer of title or control over conventional arms from the jurisdiction of one State to another
e. Transfer, by tangible or intangible means, of information which is required for the design, development, production, manufacture, assembly operation, repair, testing, maintenance or modification of conventional arms (Transfer of Technology).
f. Activities of negotiating or arranging contracts, selling or trading of conventional arms from a third country (Brokering)."

Mexico (on behalf of several American States) proposed the inclusion of diversion in the criteria section (5 F). On paragraph 9 (Principles), they suggests adding a reference to armed violence on this paragraph as well as in the section on goals and objectives. On criteria, they called for only “gross and systematic violations” of human rights to be covered (B3) and argued for the inclusion of a reference to international criminal law (B4).

New Zealand

suggested changing the word “restrictive” in para 19 of Principles, in order to avoid any confusion on the legitimate right of a State to go beyond its own international legal obligations.

Day 4 of the Second PrepCom - Consultations on a revised Chair's Paper

2011-03-03T11:15:00.293-05:00

Overview of the day's discussions

The Chair circulated a new "Chairman's Draft Paper" and presented orally the changes that he had made. In general, the paper represents a significant improvement on the previous draft, most notably by clarifying that in reaching a decision whether or not to authorise any given transfer States Parties "shall apply" the criteria set out in the text. Previously, the drafting language had suggested that States were only being given guidelines that they could choose whether or not to apply in their decision-making.

The paper retains both "small arms" and light weapons" as well as "ammunition" as categories covered by the treaty. Parts and components and technology and equipment are, though, covered only if they are "specifically and exclusively designed" for weapons covered by the treaty. This means so-called "dual-use" items would not be encompassed by the treaty. There does not appear to be a mechanism to include new weapons or other categories of weapons that are not yet encompassed by those set out in the section on scope.

Disappointingly, the definition of "transfer", which is clearly central to the future treaty, retains the ambiguity inherent to similar definitions in the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, the Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention, and the Convention on Cluster Munitions.

"International arms transfers involve, in addition to the physical movement of equipment into or from national territory, the transfer of title to and control over the equipment."

Thus, it is not clear whether physical movement of weapons and the transfer of title must both occur before a transfer is deemed to have taken place. This potentially leaves a major loophole, since a State may undertake the two activities separately (e.g. first move the mines and only later transfer title) and thereby circumvent the obligations laid down in the treaty. Such an interpretation would also not cover the transit of weapons through a State Party, despite its specific reference in the list of activities covered.

Delegations' statements in response to the Chair's new paper

USA stated that there are also responsibilities upon recipient States, not only on exporting States. National implementation by recipient States are therefore also critical. The USA is not convinced that reporting under the treaty should cover all weapons encompassed by the treaty. It stated that the treaty is not a replacement for the UN Programme of Action on Small Arms and Light Weapons (SALW). On ammunition, the USA does not believe that this should be covered by the treaty. It claimed that the object and purpose of the treaty was to set minimum standards for the legitimate trade in arms and not to prevent death. Thus, illicit transfers should not be encompassed as they are already illegal. "Less may be more", and "The better may be the enemy of the good." The US wants the treaty to be "very discriminatory", i.e. to discriminate against the "rogues" who proliferate weapons irresponsibly.

Mexico stated that in the section on goals and objectives they wanted the issue of diversion to be specifically included. On scope, Mexico wondered why military explosives had been excluded. This was a particular concern for Mexico. Mexico also wondered whether electromagnetic arms would be covered. Mexico also asked whether the two elements in transfer were alternatives or cumulative. It suggested an alternative drafting intended to clarify them as alternatives (although their proposal seemed to the bloggers to maintain the ambiguity in the existing definition, using "as well as" instead of "or", which would effectively clarify the issue).

Japan stated that sporting and hunting weapons for recreational purposes should be explicitly excluded from the scope. On the definition of "transfer", it felt that some States would have problems in regulating a transfer of title where no physical movement of arms took place. They appreciated the clarification of the chapeau on criteria.

Hungary (on behalf of the EU) stated that the document had put the discussions "on a good path".

Iran set out its views on the elements to be included "in an eventual ATT". Main objective of the treaty should be to prevent illicit trade in conventional arms. The section on principles is the most important for developing countries. They wanted to see the "sovereign" right of States to acquire and maintain arms reflected in this section, and the right to self-determination of peoples under colonial domination or foreign occupation. Only wanted to see UN register weapons covered, except missiles. They are "flexible" on the issue of transit. Wanted precise and non-discriminatory criteria. Wanted possibility to amend the treaty by consensus. Wanted 100 ratifications, including 15 major arms-producing States, for entry into force. Accepted five-year review conferences. They wanted the establishment of a "denials committee". Finally, they wanted a rolling text with the proposals of all States.

Pakistan stated that arms control was central to the proposed treaty and called for language in this sense to be included in the principles section.

Ecuador restated its objection to the criteria of poverty reduction and impact on socio-economic development in a recipient State.

Cuba said that positions between States remained very divergent. Many elements in the Chair's paper were unacceptable to Cuba. The scope was excessively ambitious. Transfer of technology and equipment should not be covered by the treaty. Many criteria were not objective. In contrast, there was no prohibition on transfers to non-State actors, which Cuba wished to see.

Switzerland stated that it was not clear whether hand-grenades are covered by the proposed scope. It supported Mexico's views on the definition of transfer.

Sweden stated that the list on scope needed to be "right". Sweden felt that military explosives are actually a component and would therefore be covered. In contrast, the deletion of "munitions" meant that bombs, mines, and grenades were not explicitly covered. On criteria, they were pleased to see the risk of corruption covered, but wanted it also to be broader, not merely with respect to diversion but also market competition. On C&A, they were surprised to see the phrase "industrial cooperation related to the treaty and its practical implementation" included.

Australia stated that transparency and accountability were important elements in the treaty. They wanted to see references to the impact of conflict and armed violence.

Norway stated its support for the revised chapeau on criteria. They wanted military explosives explicitly covered. They wanted transfer used as a generic term and said it should not be given an additional separate definition. Norway was concerned about the language used on victim assistance.

Nigeria stated its support for a dedicated secretariat to facilitate national implementation and international C&A.

UK stated that good progress had been made during the Prepcom.

Uruguay stated that the list of weapons in scope should not be exhaustive as it should cover new weapons. It proposed that the section on scope cover "future developments of conventional arms". It also wanted the issue of "abandonment" of weapons following a peace-keeping mission to be explicitly covered by the treaty.

New Zealand stated that the language on self-determination needed to be in compliance with existing international law. The reference to transfer and then also to import and export was not helpful. They completely disagreed with Iran's call for 100 States to ratify prior to entry into force of the treaty.

Poland stated that transfer should include technology transfer.

Germany stated that transfer should be defined as physical contrrol of weapons and not necessarily transfer of title.

France stated that reference to universally accepted definitions might be needed. They wanted evaluations of transfers to be done on a case-by-case basis. They wanted the reference to corruption to be strengthened. On C&A, on the issue of VA France was not convinced that it should be included in the treaty.

NGO presentations

The afternoon of Day Four began with presentations by NGOs.

IANSA made particular mention of the need to prevent the supply of weapons for use in gender-based violence. It also called for provision for gender-, age-, and culture-specific victim assistance to be included in the treaty.

Roy Isbister of Saferworld stated that all weapons, munitions, and ammunition supplied for armed forces and law enforcement should be covered under the treaty. This, he said, is what most major arms-exporting States already do. He gave the example of language used by the Security Council in the recent decision on Libya. He was pleased to see ammunition covered in the Chair's latest non-paper, as well as small arms and light weapons, and parts and components specifically designed for use in weapons.

Mr Isbister would like to see explosives, laser weapons, communications, night vision, robotic, and counter-measure equipment also covered by the scope of the treaty. He further called for internal security and law enforcement equipment to be covered by the ATT. He said that the annex was an elegant approach to retaining flexibility to enable the treaty to cover new weapons.

Amnesty International (Morocco) stated that the arms embargo on Libya was late but nonetheless welcome.

Anna Macdonald from Oxfam called on States to show greater transparency in military budgets. She applauded the criteria relating to the potential impact of an arms transfer on socio-economic development. She stated that corruption was a major driver in diversion, and called for stronger inclusion of the criteria on corruption in the treaty.

A second representative of IANSA stated that 490,000 out of 740,000 deaths from armed violence each year took place in situations other than armed conflict. He repeated the importance of criteria relating to homicides and gender-based violence. He called for verification that end-user certificates translated into reality. He also repeated the call for victim assistance to be covered by the treaty.

The Defence Small Arms Advisory Council stated that the only opportunity for industry to input into the treaty was short prepared statements such as this one, which was not conducive to its acceptance.

The World Forum on the Future of Sports Shooting Activities stated that the ATT should "by definition" only cover military firearms and fully automatic weapons and should cover government not civilian transfers. He claimed that the inclusion of small arms ammunition was unworkable. It was not possible to mark and trace small arms ammunition.

Delegations' statements in response to the Chair's new paper

Brazil stated that the ATT should not cover dual-use goods and were dubious about the inclusion of parts and components. They were not clear whether sporting weapons are covered or not under SALW. They also believed that the criterion on socio-economic development constituted intervention in the internal affairs of a State. They also stated that the information provided by a potential recipient State should be taken into consideration in the assessment made by the potential transferring State.

Colombia wishes tostress that arms should not be diverted to NSAGs. They also had a problem with the different criteria, except the one dealing with Security Council embargos. It further stated that the treaty must lay down similar rules for buyers and sellers.

Egypt believes that the new proposal submitted by the Chair is too ambitious and regrets that their views seemed not to have been taken into account. They made particular reference to the inclusion of SALW and ammunition in the proposed scope of the treaty. They also recalled their view that developing countries need incentives to adhere to the treaty. Hence there should be the inclusion of a provision that if the criteria are met, there should be an right to receive weapons.

Italy agreed with a positive listing of weapons. They are of the opinion that sporting and hunting weapons should not be included in the scope of the treaty.

Malawi is in favour of including SALW and ammunition in the scope of the treaty. The protection of civilians in armed conflicts from illegal acts committed both by State and non-State actors must be referred to in the preamble.

Japan states that if transfers cover a broad definition of activities (see annex) then it would be too complicated to assess "all" transfers according to the criteria set out in the paper (e.g. for transport, transfer of titles, etc). They would like that transfers should be assessed according to what the national system of the transferring State can effectively regulate.

Israel repeated its question as to the status of the annex and to what extent it can be easily amended.

India stated that it is important that the views of all States be taken into account to reach universal participation. Regarding the principles, they stressed the rights and obligations of both exporters and importers. They again stressed that the terms used in the scope differ from those used in the Register. They wanted clarification with regard to manufacturing of arms and the ATT. They also want to include a provision prohibiting transfers to NSAGs.

Trinidad and Tobago stated that an ATT should also foresee changes and development in weapons. They are keen to have attention being paid to corruption.
Indonesia stated that the criteria on IHL and IHRL should only cover "serious and systematic" violations. It also believed that the reference to international law was too broad in the criteria. They also believed that the criterion on socio-economic development constituted intervention in the internal affairs of a State.

Tanzania wants an provision on follow-up mechanisms to address the issue of non-compliance.

Zimbabwe stated that they want a provision addressing the risk of diversion to illegal end-users, in particular NSAGs.

Peru stated that a provision on the addition of new weapons in the scope should be envisaged, maybe though the recommendations made by a committee of experts. The regulation of transfers to illegal end-users, in particular NSAGs, needs to be strengthened. Scope in their view should encompass ammunitions. Decisions made in relation to transfer of arms should also be assessed with regard to the information provided by importing States.

Day 3 of the Second PrepCom - Cooperation and Assistance

2011-03-02T12:21:00.037-05:00

Overview of the day's discussions

Many delegations stressed the critical role that international cooperation and assistance would play in the implementation of the future treaty. There was a surprisingly high level of support for the establishment of a secretariat, perhaps located within the UN, to facilitate treaty implementation. In contrast, relatively few delegations supported the inclusion of a provision on victim assistance in the treaty.

A wide-ranging discussion in the afternoon raised a number of points on different aspects of the treaty. The Chair announced that a new Chair's non-paper would be issued on Day 4 of this PrepCom.

Delegations' statements

Australia strongly supports the humanitarian objective of ATT of reducing armed conflict and violence. Cooperation and assistance (C&A) is a key element in the treaty, in accordance with the Paris and Accra Declarations on Aid Effectiveness. Will provide amended language to the Chair (e.g. in certain cases, changing "shall" to "may" or "accepts to"). It called for a gender perspective to C&A. It supports an amended victim assistance provision, which focuses on national planning and service delivery.

Antigua and Barbuda (on behalf of CARICOM) stated that C&A is an integral part of the treaty: financial, technical and legal assistance and sharing of best practice. ATT implementation will require training of personnel and acquisition of sophisticated equipment. Also need assistance in the legal aspects of the treaty and its domestic implementation.

Hungary (on behalf of the EU) said that the EU takes C&A very seriously, and has already been supporting such efforts (e.g. through UNIDIR project). ATT should include C&A measures in it. Supports "gist" of Chair's proposals. All C&A activities should be provided on a voluntary basis. If a UN structure is set up under the treaty, this entity could facilitate C&A. On victim assistance, EU feels that it is not appropriate to include specific provisions on this issue in the treaty.

Papua New Guinea (on behalf of the 11 Pacific Island States) stated that States "in a position to do so" could assist the Pacific Island States in implementing the treaty, especially in domestic enforcement of the treaty's provisions. It encouraged best practice to be followed in determining treaty reporting obligations.

Algeria stated that it endorsed the majority of the Chair's provisions. It also wanted to see national capacity building to ensure effective treaty implementation. It felt that victim assistance provisions should be deleted as this fell under national obligations.

Egypt stated it was not clear whether C&A was focusing just on implementation or also on advocacy for adherence. It was complicated to discuss these issues without agreeing on the objectives of the treaty. It wanted, though, stronger language, requiring the provision of assistance and to see the treaty focus on treaty members. It felt that straying into "gender discussions" was "extremely unhelpful". On victim assistance, it wanted to see some measure of responsibility for those providing arms that were then used for abuse.

USA stated that the ATT is a treaty to regulate the legitimate trade in arms, not an arms control agreement. Implementing it will require a robust national review of proposed transfers. This is expensive and requires considerable effort. Therefore, C&A will be needed for certain States. Also support a "clearing house" for requests. Do not support language giving a "right" to receive assistance as it might imply a corresponding duty to provide it. The concept of victim assistance "has no place in this treaty" and recommend deletion.

Norway welcomed the Chair's proposals. It stated that this is not an ordinary trade agreement because of the nature of arms. A humanitarian approach was needed for a treaty whose aim is to prevent the illicit or irresponsible trade in arms that results in armed violence and human suffering. Norway is convinced that the treaty should include VA provisions, although it was not suggesting that new obligations should be created. The value of the ATT would be ultimately to reduce armed violence and human suffering. Norway supported Australian call for gender perspective to C&A.

Trinidad and Tobago stated that it was imperative that consultation took place between States Parties to facilitate implementation combined with a comprehensive framework for C&A. Called for dedicated secretariat to support treaty implementation.

Japan said that effective national import and export mechanisms was critical to ATT implementation, and therefore certain States would need C&A to meet their obligations. Most important part of C&A was national capacity building for national control systems and enforcement agencies. Not convinced that VA should be in the treaty.

Singapore stated that technical assistance should be provided by States in a position to do so and on a voluntary basis.

Switzerland stated that there was some overlap and ambiguity in the Chair's draft. It proposed specific language on C&A.

UK stated that C&A was essential for treaty implementation. It also felt there was overlap between several paragraphs and suggested text to merge paragraphs 2 to 4 of the Chair's draft. Supported Australia's view that assistance should take account of the impact of armed violence on women.

India stated that broader provisions should be included on C&A. It did not believe that VA provisions were appropriate to the treaty.

Indonesia stated that comprehensive C&A provisions were needed in the treaty. It also felt that insufficient time was allocated to discussion of these issues in the PrepCom.

Iran stated that C&A can play a decisive role in encouraging treaty adherence and implementation, especially among developing States. Support establishment of a "committee" to facilitate treaty implementation.

The Netherlands stated that many C&A activities have already been undertaken in analogous fields.

France stated that Chair's proposals were an excellent basis for discussion. It wanted to see more included on efforts to combat the illicit trade in arms. This required penal cooperation at domestic level. On VA, France felt it was not appropriate to include such provisions in a treaty regulating the trade in arms.

China stated its support for C&A provisions in the treaty. International C&A should be provided on a voluntary basis and should not be imposed on recipient countries.

Israel stated that C&A should be provided on a voluntary basis. Assistance should focus on capacity building for legal and control frameworks. VA should not be included in the treaty.

Nigeria stated its support for the Chair's proposals and endorsed Norway's views on the provisions. It wanted to see VA provisions in the treaty.

Tanzania stated that C&A would give the ATT a positive human face. Wanted the word "shall" to remain in the draft.

Brazil stressed the capacity-building aspect of industrial cooperation.

The Philippines stated its support for the Chair's proposals.

New Zealand supported a greater emphasis on capacity building and mutual legal support. Also supported a secretariat to facilitate treaty implementation. Supported Papua New Guinea's views on treaty reporting.

Argentina stated that VA should not be included in the ATT.

********************************************************

The day continued with informal consultations on the treaty.

Japan (on transaction activities) suggested for practical reasons to focus on the regulation of physical movement of arms, instead of controlling titles. They also supported the UK's proposed amendments to the introductory sentence (chapeau) for the criteria, calling for the replacement of the text with “State shall apply the following criteria.”

Malaysia prefers the language of the UN register. On parameters: risk transfer analysis can be highly political, and suggested that Article II be redrafted.

Canada referred to the common international standard, which would serve as a floor and not a ceiling, but which should not mean a low standard (“upper level loft”). On dual-use technology, there was a need for clarification in order to avoid impediments to economic developments as an unintended consequence.

Burundi (on behalf on the Community of East African States) strongly support the inclusion of SALW; and C&A.

Spain stated that there should not be distinction between munition and ammunition. The scope must be broad, but there is no need to have a section on exceptions. In relation to violence against women, Spain stated that such an issue is consistent with the mandate to negotiate an ATT; reference was made to the UNSC 1325 (2000), on Women.

The Netherlands stated the need to expand the criteria of the UN register. Technical assistance and technology transfer need to be covered; this would foster cooperation of defence industries. In Annex A, they suggested to add troop transport on military aircraft.

Nigeria (on behalf of ECOWAS) stressed the need to include explosives, munitions/ammunitions and SALW. On criteria - Article I - they suggest to replace the word “should” with “shall”. On Article I A.2, they suggest to replace the word “should” with “shall”. They strongly support the provision on sustainable development (I B.3).

Zambia supports a strong provision on C&A.

The Chair acknowledged the difficulties for the delegations to work in abstract, which does not conduce to a full understanding of the topic. He stressed the importance of the interrelationship of the different elements of an ATT, which are intrinsically linked with the implementation and the applicability of many concepts exchanged. He then announced the production of a new paper for Thursday, which is meant to be thought-provoking. The structure of the paper will take the following form:

1) Scheme (a model identifying the elements)

2) Principles

3) Objectives

4) Scope

5) Criteria

6) International cooperation and assistance

Day 2 of the Second PrepCom - Criteria/Parameters

2011-03-01T11:56:00.505-05:00

Overview of the day's discussions

On Day Two very broad differences were evident between the majority of delegations and a significant minority during the discussion on criteria/parameters (i.e. the basis on which a State must or should deny a request for an arms transfer from another State).

Many delegations supported Ambassador Moritan's paper as a basis for discussion. Several States (e.g. Canada, the Netherlands, Norway, Senegal, Switzerland, UK) as well as the ICRC did, though, point out the potentially fatal drafting flaws in the chapeau paragraph that introduced the various criteria in his "non-paper". They called for the deletion or strengthening of the offending text, which called only on States to "take into consideration, as appropriate" the criteria set out in the rest of the proposal. This could imply that the criteria were not legally binding. (For an analysis of the Chair's draft on Criteria/Parameters, see the following post on this blog: Informal Draft Paper on Criteria/Parameters by the Chair of the Preparatory Committee for an ATT.)

In contrast, Cuba, Egypt, Pakistan and the Russian Federation sought deletion of criteria relating to international human rights and humanitarian law, to development, and to corruption on the basis that such criteria are subjective. These States clearly remain to be persuaded of the merits of an ATT.

Many States called for a prohibition on transfers to non-State armed groups (NSAGs), including Brazil, Burkina Faso, Côte d'Ivoire, India, Iran, and the Russian Federation.

Delegations' statements

Iran stressed the need for a realistic approach to the ATT. It was only in favour of the inclusion of the 7 categories under the UN register. It further called for missiles not to be covered by the ATT while proposing adding a new category of electromagnetic weapons (some of these weapons can be used to destroy incoming missiles).

Hungary (on behalf of the EU) noted that the introductory paragraph needed stronger language. It supported many of the criteria included in the Chair's paper, notably compliance with UNSC decisions on arms embargoes/IHL, and International Human Rights Law, intra-State conflict, and the risk of corruption. It stated that lack of compliance with any criteria should result in the automatic denial of the proposed transfer.

Bangladesh claimed that Article 51 of the UN Charter provided a legal basis for a right to the acquisition of arms. However, it also called for a broad range of transactions and weapons to be covered by the treaty, and noted that capacity-building needs, cross-border monitoring and treaty implementation all needed to be included in the treaty. It called for a prohibition on handing over weapons to non-State armed groups (NSAGs).

Brazil also called for no "unauthorised" internal transfers to NSAGs. It also called for strengthening of the criteria, claiming that the proposals on development and corruption were too vague.

Liechtenstein supported the inclusive approach adopted by the Chair, while noting that no single delegation had a right to a veto.

Burkina Faso stated that any proposed transfers that fell foul of the criteria should be denied.

UK stated that the eight criteria as a basis for the risk assessment are a good basis for discussion. They proposed amendments to the introductory sentence for the criteria, calling for the replacement of the text with “State shall apply the following criteria”.

Ecuador also suggested that the criteria should include the violation of territorial integrity. It was concerned that certain criteria were too subjective, especially those relating to development, which it thought should be deleted.

China stated that the criteria used must be objective, pragmatic, balanced, and practical, and claimed that the criteria of transfer fell within the prerogative of States. On the issue of human rights and IHL, China stated that different States had adhered to different treaties. [Bloggers note: This is of course true, but customary IHL and IHRL, such as the right to life and to freedom from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment apply to all States, irrespective of their treaty obligations.] On the proposed criteria of development and corruption, China felt that these criteria should be deleted. Finally, it called for a prohibition on export to NSAGs.

Côte d'Ivoire made a long statement, accusing at least two States of supplying weapons in violation of an arms embargo. It warned of the problems of transfers to NSAGs.

Norway supported the UK's statement on the chapeau paragraph. It stated that the ATT would be a complex instrument.

Switzerland called for the deletion of the second sentence of the chapeau paragraph. Switzerland suggested that the criterion on corruption might be redrafted in a way to actually linking the issue to the transfer of arms.

Sweden made an interesting intervention on the possible obligations under the treaty for States importing weapons or through which weapons transited, suggesting that different criteria would be needed.

Singapore stated that universality would be needed for an effective ATT. It said that the standards laid down should be comprehensive, objective, and should command consensus.

Egypt said that the ATT should apply to all States, not just those exporting. It felt that many of the criteria proposed were subjective and should be deleted, notably the references to IHL and IHRL, development, corruption, and organised crime. It even suggested a new provision whereby when a State met the remaining criteria, there should be an obligation to transfer "on favourable conditions", and "without delay".

The Netherlands supported other delegations calling for the chapeau to be strengthened. It stated that in no way should an ATT be considered to lead to an obligation to supply.

Russia called for the treaty not to be "politicised". It must be universal, and with clear wording, and the provisions must be practically implementable. It called for only criteria that can be interpreted objectively to be included.

Canada supported other delegations calling for the chapeau to be strengthened. It stated that although Canada believed in equality, "not all criteria are created equal". It suggested that certain criteria could be more hortatory (e.g. relating to development and corruption).

Mexico stated that the ATT should not be limited to exporter's obligations. It should provide for a dialogue between exporting and importing States. It called for criteria relating to IHL and IHRL to be dealt with separately.

Nigeria (on behalf of the African group) stated that the UN Register is not comprehensive enough for the ATT. It supported the 7+1+1 approach. Among the important issues to be covered by a future treaty, were victim assistance, respect for IHL and IHRL and the impact of the arms trade on the socio-economic situation of the recipient country. Nigeria also insisted that the ECOWAS convention was a good model for the ATT.

Austria stressed the need to deal with corruption within the framework of the ATT to ensure an effective control of the arms trade.

Cuba stressed that the parameters for the future treaty must respect the right to self-defence, be non-discriminatory and objective. It believed that the references to arms embargoes was redundant since they are already obligations upon States. Cuba did not want any references to IHL, IHRL, or development as criteria. Cuba also believes that corruption is too vague as a parameter.

Liberia referred to States in Africa using arms to oppress their own people.

Spain does not support the proposed deletion of criteria relating to IHL, IHRL, or development. It also supported the deletion of “as appropriate” in the chapeau.

Thailand stated that human rights can be highly politicized unless there is a clear link between human rights and a proposed arms transfer.

Burundi supports the inclusion of SALW in the scope of the treaty.

Finland stated that the criteria proposed are similar to those used in their national practice. The following criteria merit highlighting: compliance with the State's international obligations in assessing transfers; compliance with IHL and IHRL; and risk of diversion. It welcomed the criterion dealing with corruption.

USA stated that the ATT should be considered as a floor and not a ceiling. Additional factors can be taken into account based on the state decision-making. The list of criteria/parameters is partly dependent on scope and national implementation. The chapeau of the paper should be modified. The US delegation was not supportive of language on development and corruption. Section II on sources of information to assess situations before transfers, should be deleted.

India stated that the parameters should be objective, non-discriminatory, and predictable. Transfers to NSAGs should be prohibited. Criteria on development should be based on assessment made by UN bodies and be made objective and predictable.

Uruguay referred to the value of looking at, for example, the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, which is a binding instrument addressing the transport of certain hazardous material.

Algeria stated it endorsed all human rights instruments but does not adopt the approach of regulating the trade of arms though IHRL.

Pakistan are of the opinion that the objectives of the ATT must be settled before working on the criteria. In any case, they want a treaty which is based on objective parameters.

Russia reminds that vague criteria cannot be truly effective. There should be measures to ensure that the flow of arms that goes to illegal armed groups and organized crimes committing violations of human rights, be controlled and national control systems to regulate arms flow must then be strengthened. In Russia, for example, any illegal arms activity are severely punished by national criminal law.

France noted that states seem to have two visions of the goals of an ATT. For certain states, the ATT should focus on the regulation of the illicit trade, for others, the ATT should deal with the issue of the international trade of weapons in a broad way. France wants a treaty that seeks to regulate legal as well as illegal trade. With regards to the text distributed by the Chair, this would not be the case now. For example, looking at the corruption provision, it can be thought either as a parameter for trade (assess the substantial risk of corruption before transfer), or it could be considered as a crime that should be dealt with along the lines of the relevant treaties on the issue.

Senegal called for the chapeau language to be strengthened.

Syria stated that an ATT should be based on the principles set out in the UN Charter. It should be free from politicisation and double standards, and therefore be non-discriminatory. Syria wanted to remove reference to human rights and IHL.

Iran made similar suggestions to Syria and called for a prohibition on arms transfers to terrorist groups.

ICRC called for the chapeau language to be strengthened and noted that it has published a guide on applying IHL criteria to a proposed arms transfer.

Day 1 of the Second PrepCom - Scope

2011-03-01T11:06:00.011-05:00

Overview of the day's discussions

The first day of the Second Prepcom was devoted to discussion on the scope of the future treaty based on the Chair's proposals, which is not intended as legal drafting or actual treaty provisions.

The detailed discussion demonstrates that most governments wish to move swiftly beyond general statements in the preparatory work on the treaty. Only the Russian Federation and Pakistan seemed to question whether an ATT was needed, although many delegations stressed that consensus has to be the basis for agreement.

Many countries (in particular from the Arab Group, but also China and Iran) reaffirmed the principles of the UN Charter as a background for the ATT (right to self-defense, the principle of non-intervention, territorial integrity, self-determination).

An overwhelming number of countries were in favor of the so-called 7+1+1 coverage (i.e. the seven categories of conventional weapons on the UN Arms Register plus small arms and light weapons (SALW) plus ammunition). Some countries still oppose this, notably Egypt, while China stated that it was already covered in other fora such as the platform of action within the UN or the UN Firearms Protocol. The issue of ammunition provoked considerable discussion, with a few States claiming that the quantities of ammunition would make it difficult to include in the treaty. A good number of delegations were also in favor of the inclusion of the parts and components in the ATT to avoid the risk of its provisions being easily circumvented.

Many delegations noted that the definitions and wording of the list of weapons that should be covered differed from the language used in the UN Register. As the Register was agreed language, some delegations (China, for example) stressed that it should be the one used to avoid further conflicts.

Different wording was in particular chosen for the definition of the weapons in the Annex A. Some delegations stressed that in some cases, the ‘new’ definitions of weapons as proposed in the annex could even mean other weapon than those listed in the core text.

There was also brief discussion of the legal status of annexes in treaty law. Many delegations believe that annexes give greater flexibility than would the inclusion of weapons and their definitions in the body of the treaty to update the treaty. Further research on the legal status of annexes in treaty law is therefore needed.

Another interesting debate concerned the "calibre" of weapons, as some delegations noted that the specification of a specific calibre for weapons (regarding tanks, for example) could unduly limit the scope of the treaty.

There was also discussion on the structuring of the text on weapons to be covered by the treaty. One delegation proposed that the ATT should stick to a strict "positive" listing, i.e. listing those weapons that should be covered and not listing those excluded. Others preferred an "it's all in unless it's excluded" approach. With regard to the exceptions, some countries noted that the issue of national transfer and domestic ownership should be mentioned in the preamble and not be included a exclusion in a specific provision.

Two other proposed exceptions (sporting/hunting rifles and antique weapons) also led to debate. Mexico emphasised that sporting rifles imported from abroad were extensively used by criminal gangs in their country and in others after having been technically modified. On antique weapons, issues of definition were raised. One delegation (Iraq) recalled that in the Firearms Protocol a weapon was considered antique if manufactured before 1927.

On the list of activities, many delegations noted that the list could be simplified. The definition of brokering should also be simplified. Many delegations were not in favor of including technical assistance, R&D, and financing in the scope of activities covered by the treaty. For many developing countries, including those activities might mean that obstacles were being placed on development.

The need to include military explosives was cited by Norway, among others, and several interventions referred to the issue of "post-transfer" (follow up of exports, tracing of exports). Finally, several delegations stated that the transfer of arms for their own military troops abroad should not be covered by an ATT.

Delegations' statements

Costa Rica made a general statement about the objectives of an ATT and its fundamental elements, reaffirming States' responsibilities under the UN Charter and the substantial risk that arms may used be commit or to facilitate violations of international human rights law, international humanitarian law or other international obligations. The minimum requirement to eliminate the gaps in international law. Costa Rica supports the 7 + 1 + 1 formula.

CARICOM stated that the 7+1+ 1 formula is the only way for a comprehensive ATT. Reference was made to data and figures relating to the Geneva Declaration on armed violence and development.

Bahrein (on behalf of the Arab Group) called for the treaty not to politicize human rights through interference with the internal affairs of States.

Hungary on behalf of the EU stated that an ATT could also include in its scope military explosives, specifically designed or modified for military purposes, provided that they are clearly defined. Parts and components, specially designed or modified for military use, of all items included in the scope of an ATT should also be covered. It proposed to redraft para II (l), so that the notion of "parts and components" applies to all categories of the scope of an ATT, including category on technology and equipment. This category could include electronics, computers, telecommunications, information security, sensors and lasers, transportation and training devices that are specially designed or modified for military use.

The EU also stated that definition of brokering should be simplified. Finally, R&D and financing should not be included in the scope. The EU is not convinced about the appropriateness of having a specific section devoted to exclusions. Any item or activity not explicitly mentioned in the positive definition of scope should not be covered by the treaty.

Egypt preferred to limit the scope to the seven categories, since SALW are covered in the UN programme of action. Concerning munition/ammunition, Egypt claimed that there was no consensus on their definitions. Egypt did not wish to see "parts and equipments" fall within the mandate of the negotiations (reference was made to dual-use parts, and the impact of their control for civilian industries).

UK stated that since time is pressing and the issues are complex, there is a need to go beyond general statements, because "the negotiation has started". Since the first PrepCom (July 2010), the world is facing continuing new security challenges (economic, piracy, insurgency) and States have responsibilities to take collective action. It claimed that an "ATT can increase confidence in today uncertain world".

India stated that the issues of scope, parameters and implementation are linked and mutually interdependent and need to be evaluated together. India was concerned that the list of conventional weapons in Annex A (a. to g.) does not reflect the one in the UN register. Such a proposed list needs further technical expertise. India proposed a more pragmatic approach, which would be to use the language used in the UN register. Technical assistance and technology, which are hard to define, should not be include in the scope of an ATT and may lead to discriminatory practices.

Indonesia stated that with regard to the parameters of the ATT, embargoes by regional organizations should not apply to other States. It referred to the principle of territorial integrity and the right of States to acquire conventional arms. The draft should endeavour to cover protection of democratic States against separatist movements. Indonesia supports the 7 + 1 + 1 formula.

Tanzania stated the importance of international and cooperation to victims.

Norway declared that the goal of an ATT is humanitarian, and should therefore include all categories of arms and weapons.

Japan declared that the wording "shall include" does not preclude States from adding other categories. It supports the 7 + 1 + 1 formula.

Cuba stated that an ATT must be aimed at preventing the illicit trafficking and should not be discriminatory and selective. It referred to the UN Charter principles (non-interference in domestic affairs, sovereignty, territorial integrity and legitimate self-defense).

Brazil supports the 7+1+1 formula. It is against the inclusion of certain type of transfer involving technical assistance, R&D, and financing.

Argentina declared that the treaty must be non-discriminatory in nature and be based on consensus.

China stated that the ATT is intended to regulate actions in arms trade, prevent and combat unregulated arms trade. It is not a treaty for arms control. The ATT should only address the problems in arms trade and not include issues related to human development or human rights. It should not hamper the legitimate defense needs of the State nor affect security and sovereignty of States.

On scope, it noted that the seven categories of weapons in the draft paper are not consistent with the UN register list, therefore any extension or amendment of the 7 categories should be conducted with extreme caution. As to the inclusion of SALW, China stated that this is already covered in other fora, notably the UN Programme of Action or the UN Firearms Protocol.

Pakistan called the ATT process "a time-bomb process". It declared that the current discussion gives the impression that we are in an advanced stage of negotiations and it underlined the importance of the principles and objectives of an ATT. Focusing on transfers alone is not sustainable, there is a need to look at the symptomatic side of the purported problem: there is nothing about production and development of arms. As to the criteria of human rights issues and development, Pakistan is concerned that the outcome will not command consensus.

New Zealand stressed the importance of looking at the post-transfer process (i.e., marking, and tracing/tracability).

Russia stated that the goals of the ATT process needed to be more clearly settled in order to enable a discussion on other aspects, including scope and parameters. It thus proposed to define the goals of the documents, which must reach two requirements:

1) It should be clear and agreed by all States and focus on the greatest threat: conventional weapons

2) It should include concrete workable goals to achieve consensus.

It then stressed the important goal of preventing weapons falling within illegal channels.

Switzerland supports the 7 + 1 + 1 approach + also parts and components and military explosives. The section on brokering should be simplified.

Sweden stressed the need to include "parts and components". It gave two reasons: if they are not covered, it can enable controls to be circumvented; and because parts and components can enable the life of weapons to be prolonged and new capabilities to be incorporated. An ATT can increase confidence in export control capability and pave the way for technology transfer. It supports the positive list approach: anything that is not mentioned is not controlled, and recommended not to use a negative list (setting out exceptions to general rule), unless it is comprehensive.

Mexico stated that it is not advisable to include a section on exceptions. The representative raised the serious issue of sport and hunting weapons. They are becoming more and more similar to military weapons, easy adaptable and modified for other purposes, such as terrorism and transnational international crimes.

Uruguay stressed the need to have a broad approach such as the UN Security Council arms embargoes, which go far beyond the 7+1+1 formula, e.g. military equipment, parts and components. It stated that sport and hunting weapons and antique rifles can be as lethal as military and law enforcement arms.

Venezuela declared that any modification on the language of the UN register should be done by technical experts.

United States stated that regulating the arms trade is an issue of national implementation and shall not fall within the purview of an international organization. The ATT should be a framework for improving legitimate transfer decision-making. On scope, the US stated that the following should not be included:

- munitions and ammunition,

- explosives,

- parts and components,

- technology,

- technical assistance,

- R&D,

- technology transfer,

- financing.

France stated that an ATT embodies two pillars that distinct but linked 1) Regulation of legal trade, 2) Combating illicit activities. It said that anything that is not explicitly covered in the scope of the ATT is outside it. It claimed that there were omissions in Annex A, such as aircraft and definition of missiles.

Algeria shares the position of the Arab group but recalled the importance of UN Charter principles. Scope and parameters are linked. The scope of the treaty will inform the parameters and vice versa.

Denmark noted that the scope of the treaty should be considered in relation to the scope of weapons as defined in UNSC embargo decisions. At a minimum, those weapons addressed by UN embargoes should be covered by an ATT. Denmark is against including transportation in the definition of transfer as it is difficult to implement within a licensing system. In addition, a definition of arms brokering should not include transportation (problem of licensing).

Colombia mentioned the usefulness of an international mechanism for the regulation of the arms trade. It is in favour of including transport in the scope of the treaty. It was opposed to the inclusion of an exception provision.

Israel stated that the ATT should not cover financing. As to the possible amendments of Annexes, it believed it may involve the same procedure as amending the treaty itself.

Ghana declared that victim assistance provisions should not be treated under international cooperation and assistance.

Germany noted that it is possible to find a procedural solution in relation to State reporting on ammunition. Parts and components are to be distinguished from dual-use goods, the former are used for military purposes and dual-use goods are used for civilian and military purposes.

Russia insisted on the need to agree first on the goals and principle of an ATT before embarking into discussions on the scope. Russia referred again to restricting the illicit arms trade as the primary purpose of an ATT.

ICRC said that the scope should be a function of its object and purpose: to reduce the human cost (IHL and human rights law). It noted that UNGA Resolution 64/48 does not limit itself to any type of arms, e.g. SALW should be included. It welcomed the word "include" on conventional weapons to be covered as not being exhaustive and proposed to redraft the phrase to make this clear.

Informal Draft Paper on Criteria/Parameters by the Chair of the Preparatory Committee for an ATT: Good basis for discussion or cheap hamburger?

2011-02-25T12:22:00.002-05:00

Ambassador Moritan, the Chair of the Preparatory Committee, has circulated his informal draft papers, which are expected to serve as the basis for discussions at the Second PrepCom for an ATT, which opens on Monday 28 February. At first sight, there is much to commend the draft, which covers a broad range of activities and conventional weapons, and lays down valuable criteria for determining the legality of any proposed transfer of arms. Ultimately, however, one is left with the impression that this is really a cheap hamburger: it looks good in the photo, but when you taste it, there's actually no meat in it.

First and foremost, the paper on criteria/parameters has a critical flaw. It starts by requiring States to evaluate on a case-by-case basis the decision whether or not to authorise a transfer of arms. So far, so OK. But it then provides that: "States should, as appropriate, take into consideration [the] following criteria." This introductory phrase appears to deprive the criteria laid out in the remainder of the provision of all objective force.

First, the use of the word "should" (as opposed to "shall") already shows that this is not an absolute obligation being proposed.

Second, who determines whether or not it is appropriate? The State? Is this an absolute discretion?

Third, and most serious of all, even this light hortatory language is rendered almost meaningless by the phrase "take into consideration". This means that all of the following criteria, however unequivocally they are phrased, are only to be "taken into consideration". Even a Security Council Chapter VII decision that is binding on every UN member State? The provision as a whole only becomes meaningful if this second sentence is deleted.

The criteria proposed are generally helpful. Section A (International Obligations of a State) merely repeats, in rather weak drafting language, that a State must respect the UN Charter law and its treaty and customary international law obligations.

Section B (Potential consequences of the arms transfer on internal, regional and international peace) introduces another subjective element whereby the substantial risk of misuse preventing a transfer must be "in the view of the potential transferring State", thereby further weakening the text.

The relevant provision on IHL and IHRsL suggests that a potential violation must be both of international humanitarian law and of international human rights law, which will certainly not be the case outside of an armed conflict. The "and" should become "or".

Section C (Consideration of the illegal use of the transferred) includes, with respect to genocide or crimes against humanity, a substantial risk that they would "likely be used" whereas all other criteria refer only to a substantial risk that they would "be used".

Section C 3. The wording of "any other crimes of international" should be clarifiied to identify which crimes are being referred to.
Section C 4. The phrase "Be used to perpetrate acts of terror" should be clarified to identify which entity can perpetrate acts of terror (states as well as non-state actors?) and based on which parameters.

Finally, the criteria dealing with diversion refers to "unauthorised end users" without defining whether this means any individual or entity other than the stated end user on the relevant certificate.

Second Preparatory Committee towards an Arms Trade Treaty starts Monday 28 February in New York

2011-02-22T03:48:00.018-05:00

The events in the Middle East and North Africa over the past few weeks have demonstrated in tragic detail the importance of an arms trade treaty that effectively regulates arms transfers between States. Conventional weapons and ammunition as well as chemical weapons supplied by arms manufacturing States have seemingly been used to violate the right to life and the right to protest of unarmed demonstrators exercising their rights to freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, right to information, and to liberty and security.

(c)Jesper Waldersten

More to come on the international legal implications of arms trade from the ATT bloggers ...

EU-UNIDIR Regional Seminar for Countries in Central, Northern and Western Africa, 2-3 February 2011, Casablanca, Morocco

2011-02-07T09:35:00.002-05:00

‘Supporting the Arms Trade Treaty Negotiations through Regional Discussions and Expertise Sharing’

Participating countries: Algeria, Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo, Cote d’Ivoire, DR Congo, Gabon, The Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Sao Tome & Principe, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Togo, Tunisia

Unofficial summary

Most of the countries of the region are importers of arms. Nevertheless, it was felt that the ATT was important for them for several reasons. First and foremost, African countries are among the most negatively impacted by the circulation of weapons, especially small arms and light weapons (SALW). Indeed, several participants stressed that the proliferation of weapons has fuelled armed conflicts and prevented the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals. In addition, the ATT could set up valuable cooperation mechanisms in terms of arms regulation between exporters and importers, benefitting from the sharing of experiences. Finally, the dichotomy ‘exporting/importing’ countries was not reflecting adequately the reality of the arms trade. Indeed, even though most of the countries concerned by this seminar were importing rather than exporting arms, these weapons could still be transferred to other countries, or could transit through their territories en route to other destinations.

The seminar showed that most of the countries, if not all, were in favour of better regulation of the arms trade at international level, and specifically supported the adoption of an ATT. As for the treaty’s legal framework, emphasis was put on the importance of the principles of the UN Charter, notably the principle of territorial sovereignty. The arms trade should not be an excuse for intervening in the domestic affairs of a State, according to the view of several participants. Some participants also underlined the fact that States had the responsibility to ensure that their level of armaments corresponds to their actual needs and be proportionate to the necessity to ensure peace and stability.

Among the many issues to be addressed, participants referred specifically to terrorism, armed non-State actors, and arms brokers. The challenge of regulating new ways to trade arms, such as through the internet, was also raised. Furthermore, the advantage of the treaty would be to contribute the harmonisation of the different juridical regulatory frameworks at national level. In that perspective, many countries from Central Africa underlined that their regulatory framework was going to be the one set up by the Kinshasa Convention of 2010 on the Regulation of Small Arms and Light Weapons (see also UNREC website).

As for the scope of the treaty, most countries were in favour of including the 7+1+1 scenario (the regulation of the trade in ammunition was considered crucial). Discussions also took place regarding so-called ‘traditional’ manufacturing of weapons. Some African countries were concerned by such manufacturing and while some participating States considered it should be regulated by the ATT, others were of the opinion it was part of the national sovereignty of States.

Concerning the parameters to be included in the treaty, most countries were in favour of including a UN Security Council arms embargo clause, an international humanitarian law clause, as well as a human rights clause, even though some countries admitted this was controversial. A clause concerning the prohibition to supply arms to non-State actors was also considered necessary. Some countries underlined that such clauses were necessary because the treaty would not only be a political and legal instrument, but would also be of a moral and symbolic nature. Thus, a prohibition on the supply of arms in situations where it could facilitate gross human rights violations was considered to be of a great moral weight.

Finally, many states put an emphasis on the need for the treaty to elaborate effective monitoring mechanisms and cooperation clauses between countries to ensure the better regulation of the arms trade.

EU-UNIDIR Regional Seminar for Countries in South and Central Asia 10-12 November 2010, Kathmandu, Nepal

2010-11-12T10:59:00.067-05:00

"Supporting the Arms Trade Treaty Negotiations through Regional Discussions and Expertise Sharing"

Regional Seminar for countries in South and Central Asia, 10-12 November 2010, Kathmandu, Nepal.

Organized by UNIDIR - European Union - UNRCPD - Government of Nepal

Participating countries: Afghanistan - Bangladesh - Bhutan - Cambodia - Kazakhstan - Kyrgyzstan - Laos -Malaysia - Maldives - Mongolia - Myanmar - Nepal - Pakistan - Sri Lanka - Tajikistan - Thailand - Turkmenistan - Vietnam - Uzbekistan (UNIDIR website for the Seminar)

Unofficial summary

Many countries from South and Central Asia are recipients of arms rather than exporters. A particular concern is the illicit trafficking of arms to armed non-state actors, in particular those designated by States as ‘terrorists’. Most participants in the regional seminar stated that the scope of the future Arms Trade Treaty should be limited, focusing especially on small arms and light weapons (SALW) and ammunition since this is the principal subject of illicit trade to armed non-state actors. The argument against a broader scope was that it would discourage adherence to the ATT. The desire was expressed for broad participation, in particular of the exporting countries. The call was also made for a succinct and clear treaty with an annex listing weapons covered by the treaty. Such annex could be easily updated. There was no agreement among participants on how to regulate private arms manufacturers.

The risk of having weapons falling into the wrong hands (in particular terrorists) was often referred to during discussions. The need to ensure ‘peace and stability’ and especially to avoiding large quantities of weapons in any given region was cited as an important criteria in efforts to limit the arms trade. With regard to human rights criteria for assessing the legality of transfers, a fear was expressed by some participants that the criteria would be used for political reasons as the criteria might be quite subjective. It was asked whether an exporting state's assessment of the situation in an intended recipient state would be communicated to the recipient state.

With respect to implementation, there was a reluctance among many participants to establish an international monitoring body. A meeting of States Parties seemed to be a preferred mechanism to promote the treaty's effective implementation. A lot of importance was accorded to cooperation between states on the sharing of best practices as well as assistance to enable them to control illicit access to arms by non-state actors.

Boston Symposium: Official Summary Report (October 2010)

2010-10-19T09:21:00.001-04:00

Official Summary Report of the international conference on the ATT held at the University of Massachusetts Boston on 28-30 September 2010.

For further insights on the discussions and ideas that were generated at the Boston Symposium you may consult the unofficial report from the ATT bloggers.

Unofficial Summary of the Boston Symposium

2010-09-30T11:59:00.003-04:00

The organizers of the Symposium provided the participants with background papers for the three breakout sessions (on the issues of scope, parameters, and implementation) and the informal working lunch (on the issue of transparency) that was held on 29 September. They also submitted discussion questions that have helped to frame the debate during the sessions.

Parameters Background Paper and Discussion Questions

Implementation Background Paper and Discussion Questions

Scope Background Paper and Discussion Questions

Transparency Background Paper and Discussion Questions

Sessions on Scope

Having examined the limited scope of the UN Register of Conventional Arms Categories is broader inclusion of the scope of an ATT necessary? The inclusion of SALW appears to have broad agreement, but would the illustrative definition from the UN Register background information provide the best basis for the Treaty?

There was very broad agreement among the participants on the fact that the UN Register has a limited scope and is thus incomplete. The 7 categories are a good basis to start with, but there is a need to have broader coverage such as the formula 7 +1 + 1, which could be revised and updated by annual meetings of States Parties.

It was recommended that a negative definition should be included, “It is included unless it is excluded” with specific exception such as sport guns.

One participant raised the issue of including non-kinetic-energy weapons termed "non-lethal", such as tear gas or Tasers in the list, which led to discussion on the coverage of military weapons vs law enforcement weapons. Participants generally agreed on the need to include both types of weapons into an ATT, however definitions remain to be clarified.

Are the UN ODA guidelines sufficient in defining SALW? Participants agreed that it is wise to use it as a good starting point.

Does the term “ammunition” or “munitions” best serve the purposes of an ATT? Is the term "munitions" too wide both for scope and reporting purposes?

Participants were not able to explain the proper differenciate between the two categories. Generally it was understood that “munitions” is a broad definition and ammunition being a sub-category. “Munitions” could be used as an umbrella. The precise distinction was, though, unclear.

What are the complexities of parts and components in the context of a global supply chain? What balance should be struck between control and facilitating movement while maintaining control? Is design intent i.e. “specially designed for military use” the appropriate guide in this context?

There was general agreement on the need to include parts and components. Although one participant raised the fact that it would be a burdensome excercise to issue a licence for all parts related to one type of weapon.

Does the Treaty require definitions for each of the types of transfer?

There was broad agreement that the term “transfer” should be refined. One participant raised the issue to take into account the entire supply chain in all its aspects.

In the context of discussions during the Open-Ended Working Group (OEWG) and the PrepCom the following activities have been identified as potentially falling into scope:

Import, Export, Re-export, Temporary Re-export, Transshipment, Transit, Brokering, Artisanal Manufacture, Technology Transfer, Manufacture under Foreign License, Leases, Loans, Gifts, Technical Assistance, Promotion and, Research, Financing, Training.

One participant suggested including “financing” in the list, since financial institutions play an important part in the supply chain.

There was discussion on whether there might be any useful WTO rules in this context.

Is Foreign Licensed Production is an essential component of scope?

Foreign licenced production can be considered as an essential component of scope, but there was uncertainty in the discussion as to how it should be dealt with in an ATT. Transfer of technology should be included as well, in the view of some participants, although it was suggested that it might be already captured by an obligation to report on technology for manufacturing. When a license is granted, does a transfer occur? To whom the reporting obligation would fall? E.g. if the State X helps State Y to build a tank, the State X would report on the export of technology and State Y would report on the transfer of the product (export).

Do broad headings, accompanied by illustrative Annexes provide the most effective means by which a Treaty can be negotiated, implemented and kept up to date? Should the principle of “keep it simple provide” a compass for eventual drafting and negotiation?

Participants recommended keeping it simple. A negative list could be useful, and an amendment of the treaty could be a way to expand it.

Dual-use goods might be difficulty to include in an ATT for it could be difficult to investigate all items; it would be an burdensome task to develop a list.

The question was raised whether reservations should be allowed.

There was general agreement that an ATT should not be in contradiction with other international law instruments, e.g. the UN Charter.

Sessions on Parameters

There was a general recognition that an ATT does not seek to ban transfer but to regulate and avoid illegal/irresponsible transfer. There was general agreement on the need to include international humanitarian law and international human rights law criteria.

Are there any criteria that should definitely be included in an ATT?

The criteria should be objective and non discriminatory and it should not include a lengthy list. Certain participants objected to the inclusion of customary international law. It was also asserted by some that the treaty should not codify new norms.

Many participants raised the issue whether there are any WTO trade law-related criteria that could be included.

According to the relevant background paper:

"States have also expressed the need to consider other factors relating to the recipient country. Without proposing any particular formulation, these considerations include:
…
d. whether the recipient exercises adequate national control of arms and complies with commitments in the field of non-proliferation, arms control and disarmament;
e. the risk of diversion for unintended or unauthorised uses such as those mentioned in the above criteria or users such as armed groups, non-governmental bodies acting outside the law, persons designated as 'terrorists' or criminals." (Background paper p. 3)

One participant considered the points d. and e. as “new criteria” that had not been discussed previously.

One participant referred to Transparency International that uses a tool “the integrity pact” to safeguard the transactions.

A number of participants referred to the "subjective" approach of human rights, although one pointed out the fact that the definitions under IHRL are very precise.

Any decisions based on IHRL/IHL should be done on a case-by-case basis in order to avoid a general prohibition. There were concerns about creating a de facto embargo on a specific country when using the parameters. Others raised the situation of how to apply the criteria when the law enforcement system of a country has a very bad human rights record, compared to an army that respects international standards.

How to define “serious violation” was one important issue raised.

A participant stressed the importance to create a baseline and then States would be free to decide on more stringent criteria.

The risk assessment was considered to be the central issue and the failure to undertake it could lead to an irresponsible transfer. What is important is a careful risk assessment; reference was made to “subjected to rigorous scrutiny” (footnote 19 of the background paper).

The threshold of risk appeared more as secondary issue. “Clear risk” is the term used in arms transfer instruments, while NGOs have preferred the term “substantial risk”, but at the end of the day it does not seem to make any major difference.

One participant underlined the difference between “shall not” or “taking into account” (feel free to ignore) language/approach, which have different legal consequences. There was general agreement on the need to adopt a "shall not" approach.

Where to find the reliable information/sources for the risk assessment?

This refers to objective indicators based already on the existing guidelines, e.g. ICRC, practical guide that refers for example to media, diplomatic information, NGO, human rights, ICC. Some participants stated that this is already done on a daily basis at the national level, there is a great amount of State practice on criteria and threshold.

Sessions on Implementation

National level

There was general agreement on what a national system should contain. It should contain specific legislation (.e.g., national implementation unit, criminal and civil law provision, the enforcement of ATT provisions).

International level

Co-operation and assistance:
- Facilitating implementation of the ATT for States that lacks capacity to implement it
- It can be an incentive for adherence, promoting advantage for its membership

One of the delegates in the Symposium raised a question whether States are legally obliged to cooperate internationally.

From International Law point of view, there is a UN Charter obligation incumbent upon States to cooperate internationally "in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion". This provision is stipulated by Article 1(3) of the UN Charter and is further expanded in Chapter IX under Articles 55 and 56. It is then up to specific treaty regimes to further define and operationalize this general obligation. Within ATT discussions, this would imply that States are in a position to give a precise definition of what international cooperation would entail in relation to Arms Trade.

The reporting mechanism should be included in the instrument on import, export, licensing system, etc., with a standardized reporting format (that is simple and flexible). Some States flagged that some sensitive information might not be published (confidentiality or national security ground).

One of the main objectives is to share information and build confidence. This could be done in the form of a monitoring/consultation/verification mechanism (bilateral, regional, group of concerned countries, peer reviews). There was not a clear agreement on the exact nature of an international mechanism.

Control Arms Coalition Final Remarks to the Symposium

A broad scope is needed in a treaty in relation to its objective and purpose. It should include not only military but also law enforcement type of weapons. The 7+1+1 approach should not be considered as a shorthand but rather as a basis to develop a broad scope.

On parameters, the Coalition warned against using a loose approach, i.e. "taking into account" might be interpreted as "feel free to ignore".

On implementation: they supported the general agreement on the implementation at the national level for a strong export control regime. They stressed the need to set up implementation mechanisms also at the international level.

Boston Symposium on the Arms Trade Treaty

2010-09-23T05:02:00.000-04:00

An important international conference on the ATT is being held at the University of Massachusetts Boston on 28-30 September 2010. The ATT legal blog will be updating you on discussions and ideas that are generated. The proceedings are subject to Chatham House rules, so we will not be able to identify speakers or participants without their consent. Hopefully this anonymity will encourage some useful discussions.

Beyond the Shadow of a Doubt? Thoughts on the first PrepCom for an Arms Trade Treaty

2010-07-23T18:12:00.003-04:00

First the good news. It looks as if there will indeed be an Arms Trade Treaty and that the treaty may even be adopted at the Diplomatic Conference foreseen for 2012. Neither of these two possibilities looked anywhere near as likely prior to this first PrepCom.

The greater unknown is what precisely the treaty will regulate and how far it will prevent illicit transfers or the diversion of conventional weapons as well as 'licit' transfers of weapons that are subsequently used for unlawful purposes. Certainly, if an ATT endorses the status quo it will not only prove a failure, it will take us backwards, for there is almost universal agreement that the current situation is fuelling a myriad of conflicts, abusive violence, and societal misery.

Let us hope that the positive words and warm fuzzy feeling that enveloped many at the closing session of the prepcom is ultimately converted into effective action. For it is always to be feared, in the words of the late Will Rogers, that diplomacy is "the art of saying 'nice doggie' while looking for a rock."

Thanks to everyone for following our blog on the prepcom; we hope it has been useful. We will update it periodically with new information in the period leading up to the second prepcom in late February 2011. Hasta luego.

Day 10 of the PrepCom

2010-07-23T17:20:00.006-04:00

The Chair opened the final session of the first PrepCom for an Arms Trade Treaty by restating the clear need that the second PrepCom in February 2011 will have to discuss "specific matters". In the period leading up to February, he noted the importance of planned informal and academic meetings and consultations, such as the regional seminars planned by UNIDIR.

He reiterated his commitment to be "always aiming for transparency and all-inclusive participation". He then made an interesting pledge to present Chair's texts to the second prepcom on scope, criteria and parameters, in his words "to provoke a reaction"! Although such texts bind no State in any way, they may be influential in mapping out the type of treaty that is ultimately adopted and thus he faces a major challenge in ensuring that transparency is maintained as he develops his texts.

There then followed many statements by delegations, all praising the Chair for his work.

Belgium speaking on behalf of the EU, candidate countries, as well as Georgia, Ukraine and Moldova state the view that the document the Chair had presented on Day 9 as one that reflected the discussions "in a balanced way".

Pakistan again stated its view that transactions between two sovereign States should not be affected by the treaty.

Egypt agreed that small arms and light weapons as a category falls within the definition of conventional weapons but fell short of specifically endorsing their coverage by the ATT.

Iran said some of the suggestions made by delegations were “naive” and claimed that some of these sought to cover all situations “apart from natural disasters and global warming”.

Switerland restated the need for an effective ATT, and hoped that the major arms exporter would become party to it. It called for a national implementation framework that would be easy to implement for a State that did not yet have the appropriate infrastructure. It hoped thaat the treaty wwould contribute to the maintenance of regional peace, stability, and security. Taking into account the limited time available, it suggested that States should not be over-ambitious.

Japan noted the importance of international cooperation and assistance, suggesting that capacity-building was one of the most important elements in treaty, to help States that need such assistance to implement the treaty, in particular by establishing a national licensing system. It hoped there would be a timeframe laid down for national implementation by the treaty.

Mexico again stressed the importance of including SALW, referring to it as a "moral obligation" on States.

Pakistan took the floor again to stress the need for consensus in adopting the treaty and the obligation not to erode State sovereignty.

Egypt noted that the facilitator's work has been a brainstorming exercise and that not too much should be read into the reports.

Day 9 of the PrepCom

2010-07-22T08:40:00.001-04:00

The session opened with the three Friends of the Chair reporting back to the plenary on the results of their informal discussions (see summary papers below). There was minimal discussion following these summaries, which represented the range of views on the scope of the treaty (especially which weapons would be covered); its parameters (criteria for judging the legality of a transfer), and measure to implement the treaty.

Facilitator's Summary for Scope

Facilitator's Summary on Parameters

Facilitator's Summary on Implementation and Application

The Chair then presented his revised paper on preamble and treaty elements (see below) and opened the floor for discussion. The interventions largely repeated earlier positions, as most delegations appeared to have exhausted the limit of their instructions and were simply treading water. The Chair amounced that discussions would, though, continue on the final morning of the prepcom.

Chairman's Draft Paper

Day 8 of the PrepCom

2010-07-21T20:03:00.014-04:00

The plenary reconvened on Day 8 of the PrepCom.

Belgium speaking on behalf of the EU said that the ATT should include provisions on international cooperation and assistance, which would be crucial to ensure that all States Parties implement the treaty’s provisions. There should also be a competent licensing authority at the national level, which would be the responsibility of each State Party. International cooperation should cover, inter alia, 1) legislative assistance, 2) institutional capacity building, 3) the implementation of administrative measures, and 4) technical assistance in other appropriate expertise. For further details, see the fact sheet on the experience of the EU in international cooperation and assistance.

The United States called for the discussion on the ATT to be narrowed in order to find more agreement among the delegations. It sought a straightforward document that would focus on the obligation of States.

France proposed an article on international mutual legal assistance, “shall afford the parties with mutual legal assistance in investigation, prosecution and trial proceedings.”

Australia said that transparency and reporting: could contribute to peace and security. 1) Compliance by state at the international level and 2) compliance by actors within the national system. It cited the example of the Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention, which included a procedure for a State Party to request compliance from another, and if necessary a fact-finding mission. There is also provision for dispute settlement between States Parties. Australia also stated its support for international cooperation and assistance.

Pakistan said that transparency “is a potentially problematic concept”. It said that certain information about inter-State transfers could be shared in total confidentiality, but subject to the issue of national security.

Belgium again on behalf of the EU said that transparency covered important principles that touched on several aspects of the ATT. National reports should be mandatory on an annual basis to the UN secretariat for entry on a UN database. There should be requirements for information exchange, which should include exchange of information on the assessment of an application for the transfer of weapons governed by the ATT. Transparency and reporting would underpin a consultation mechanism allowing for the monitoring of the implementation of the treaty at national level. The ATT should also establish a review mechanism after five years after entry into force.

Senegal made a strong and surprising statement against transparency, arguing that this might infringe national security.

Brazil stressed the importance of international cooperation and assistance in the areas of exchanging good practice and providing training, technical assistance, and mutual legal assistance.

New Zealand said that international cooperation and assistance would be fundamental in the implementation of the ATT, and that the treaty should insist on high benchmarks. There are existing requirements focusing on border security requirements to draw upon.

Mexico made a detailed and forward-looking statement (jointly with Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Guatemala, Jamaica, Peru, Trinidad and Tobago, and Uruguay). Among other issues, it called for the treaty to prevent diversion of arms to the illicit market. It stated that the treaty should apply to all conventional weapons and should be able to cover future developments of weapons. The transactions covered by the treaty should be broad. It called for all weapons covered by the treaty to be marked at time of manufacture. No transfers of weapons to non-State actors should be permitted. It also discussed the risk of diversion from UN peacekeeping operations.

Nigeria said that technical assistance should be on request, but that victim assistance should not. It declared that those whose commercial interests and profits have caused sufferings to others should be held accountable. It recommended that a provision on victim assistance be included separate from the provision on assistance and cooperation.

The Chair suggested that victim assistance should be separated from international cooperation and assistance.

Belgium referred to its national legislation on child soldiers, noting that it had adopted a law by which it is illegal for it to export weapons to countries where children were recruited in the regular armed forces.

Costa Rica said that transparency was important and should include periodic and detailed reports covering the obligations arising from ATT on both authorized and unauthorised transfers. There should be provision for international assistance. It called for civil society to have access to information on international arms transfers. It stated that it could be counterproductive to refer to international humanitarian law and international human rights law in the treaty.

The USA mentioned the fact that delegates should consider the elements they want to be put forward, that time was precious and that delegations should be careful not to undermine the process, which could lead to a failure.

Pakistan said that the issue of UN Peacekeeping operations was an issue to be discussed in another forum. It stated that child soldier is a noble suggestion, but claimed that an agreed international definition of a child was lacking.

Day 7 of the PrepCom

2010-07-20T08:05:00.002-04:00

Suggested treaty text on victim

assistance and national implementation measures

In the absence of entry to the closed session of the PrepCom we have continued to offer draft text for the future ATT, with a proposal for provisions on victim assistance and national implementation measures, including penal sanctions. Numerous States have spoken in favour of a victim assistance provision in the treaty, such as Indonesia, Mexico, Nigeria, Norway, the Philippines, and Uruguay. Only Egypt has publicly questioned the inclusion of such a provision. A short commentary on our suggested provisions is included on the page to the right.

Article X. Assistance to the victims of armed violence

Each State Party undertakes to take steps, individually and through international assistance and cooperation, to the maximum of its available resources, to ensure the provision of assistance to the victims of armed violence in areas under its jurisdiction or control. Such assistance, which is to be rendered in accordance with applicable international law and standards, including the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, shall seek to promote their effective rehabilitation and recovery as well as their social and economic reintegration.

Article XX. International cooperation and assistance in favour of the victims of armed violence

Each State Party in a position to do so shall provide assistance for the care and rehabilitation and social and economic reintegration of victims of armed violence. Such assistance may be provided inter alia through the United Nations system, relevant international, regional or national organisations or institutions, the International Committee of the Red Cross, national Red Cross and Red Crescent societies and their International Federation, non-governmental organisations, or on a bilateral basis.

--------------------

Penal sanctions and other measures to ensure the effective implementation of the Convention will be critical in ensuring that its core obligations do not remain statements of good intention. Below is proposed an article on legislative and other associated measures in a future ATT.

Article XXX. National implementation measures, including penal sanctions

1. Each State Party shall take all appropriate legal, administrative and other measures to implement this Convention, including the imposition of penal sanctions to prevent and suppress any activity prohibited to a State Party under this Convention undertaken by persons or on territory under its jurisdiction or control.

2. Each State Party shall be under the obligation to search for persons alleged to have committed, or to have ordered to be committed, a serious violation of this Convention as defined in paragraph 3, and shall bring such persons, regardless of their nationality, before its own courts. It may also, if it prefers, and in accordance with the provisions of its own legislation, hand such persons over for trial to another State Party concerned, provided such State Party has made out a prima facie case.

3. Serious violations to which this article applies are any unauthorised transfer of any conventional weapon within the scope of this Convention and which result in the death or serious injury of one or more civilians.

Day 6 of the PrepCom

2010-07-19T17:06:00.078-04:00

Civil society was excluded from all the discussions on Day 6 of the PrepCom. Two closed meetings covered implementation and application of the future Arms Trade Treaty. The European Union called for national legislative and administrative measures to control exports, imports and transits.; national provisions to prohibit, prosecute, and penalise participation in the illicit arms trade; record-keeping and reporting, and tracing of diverted weapons; and the obligation to report on assessed transfers to a UN database. The Russian Federation made a proposal to regulate brokering through a sole authorised broker.

Side Event: “ATT Transport Controls Briefing”, organized by Amnesty International

This event focused on how to adequately monitor and control the transport of weapons, munitions, and associated equipment in order to prevent their diversion from the legal market to illegal use. Sergio Finardi (Trans Arms Research) presented ways and methods to control the arms supply-chains and stressed the need for States to commit to the development of common standards and a mechanism of control as well as to exchange relevant data.

There is already a detailed system of transport controls for dangerous and hazardous goods, but not for arms. In the arms trade, maritime traffic amounts to 80% of total transportation, and 15 global companies control 66% of all full containerships. According to Finardi, there is a need to identify 1) logistics network in relation to the location of arms manufacturers, 2) the sea/air routes and land corridors, 3) the logistics carriers, 4) the sensitive free-trade zones for better regulation, and 5) to standardise documentation to enable better monitoring.

Amnesty International UK presented the key findings of their reports: Deadly Movements: Transportation Controls in the Arms Trade Treaty (July 2010). The report proposes three sets of core standards which should be included in an ATT to require each state to regulate the transport of arms (1) through States' territories or airspace; (2) by arms transport service providers operating from their jurisdiction, and (3) on ships and aircraft ‘flagged’ in their jurisdiction.

Some thoughts on the first week of the PrepCom

2010-07-16T19:34:00.000-04:00

The bloggers' view: We're one quarter of the way through the PrepCom process already, so it's time to take initial stock of where the preparatory process is at. Overall, things have gone slightly better than expected given the process's requirement for consensus, with the (relatively few) States that do not wish to see an ATT at all, or at least not a treaty with any teeth, surprisingly weak in their interventions. While some States have remained fixed in their positions, some movement has been detected among what have been termed "the sceptics", such as Egypt, Iran, Pakistan, China and the Russian Federation. India, for example, seems a little more positive than they were previously.

The USA drew the first major line in the sand on Thursday (Day 4 of the PrepCom) announcing that they would block any attempt to draft a treaty that covered sporting or hunting weapons. This is slightly surprising, given that no one is suggesting that the treaty will regulate sale of weapons within a State, and will only seek to prevent transfer to those that misuse them. So if weapons are sold abroad so that people can go hunting, these transfers will in no way be impeded. Only if they are being used for major crimes, or diverted to unlawful recipients, would there be any impact.

The NGOs were locked out of the room for two afternoons during the week and Friends of the Chair meetings will be mostly behind closed doors next week. It was good to see the campaign make a public response to this disappointing decision, as civil society mobilisation in favour of the treaty has otherwise been rather low key in this first week.

For next week, more framework text is expected from the Chair, maybe even a rolling text by the end of the week. We will continue developing draft text to input into the discussions. So, until Monday, have a good weekend wherever you are.

Day 5 of the PrepCom

2010-07-16T07:59:00.017-04:00

Day 5 of the PrepCom

The Chair interrupted the PrepCom to convene an informal meeting to allow NGOs to make presentations to the States attending the PrepCom.

Oxfam International made a rather general presentation about the importance of an ATT.

Amnesty International gave a presentation on the importance of the treaty, giving an example of ammunition used to commit a human rights violation. Ammunition does not fall within the conventional arms covered by the UN Register of Conventional Arms.

IANSA (a member from Brazil) criticised the draft principles paper, calling for the treaty not to accommodate all views. It called for the pace of discussions to be even faster. It is a preventive not a punitive instrument.

IANSA (a member from Fiji) noted the link between the arms trade and gender-based violence. She also stated that research had indicated that the arms trade was one of the top three activities involving corruption.

Rebecca Peters, the director of IANSA, stated that the absence of commonly agreed standards on the arms trade was contributing to serious violations of IHL and international human rights law, gender-based violence.

A representative of the World Forum on the Future of Sports Shooting Activities called for the ATT to “move away from civilian firearms.” It claimed that military firearms were those “capable of fully-automatic fire”. He also said the ATT should not cover small arms ammunition, which “is simply an exercise in futility that will consume valuable time and in the end produce nothing.”

The Defence Small Arms Advisory Council (an association of military small arms manufacturers) argued against including dual-use items in the ATT. He claimed that the primary problem was “the unregulated and under-regulated international trade in military weaponry, such as combat aircraft and naval vessels, tactical vehicles, heavy machineguns, anti-aircraft systems, mortars, missiles and artillery pieces.”

The Chair then returned to the formal session of the PrepCom.

Belgium called for the treaty to set out the goals and objectives of the treaty. This should be to prevent the illicit trade in conventional weapons to ensure they are not used to contribute to armed conflicts, trans-national organized crime, terrorist acts, or to commit serious violations of international humanitarian and human rights law.

Australia also called for the treaty to eradicate or at least minimise the illicit trade in conventional arms.

Brazil noted the need not to impede the legitimate right to impede a State’s right to manufacture and transfer weapons for its self-defence.

Venezuela stated that with respect to the elements and principles paper, there was no need for an international secretariat. It questioned whether SALW should be included.

Iran repeated some of the views it had expressed previously.

India noted the need to prevent and counteract illicit trafficking in arms.

Russia referred to the illicit arms trade as a threat as being a priority.

The ICRC said that weapons should be available only to those who respect IHL and IHRL. It referred to attacks on humanitarian personnel preventing humanitarian assistance to the civilian population.

Israel again noted the importance of preventing transfer to terrorist groups.

Egypt put the emphasis on the promotion of the goals and objectives of the UN Charter.

Day 4 of the PrepCom

2010-07-15T12:59:00.003-04:00

The Chair announced that a draft programme of work would be issued later during the day. He confirmed that a first meeting convened by the Friend of the Chair on scope would take place in the afternoon. At this meeting, the USA stated that if hunting weapons were included they would block the adoption of an ATT.

Government statements to the fourth morning of the PrepCom

Egypt wanted clarification in the section on implementation and application between obligations on importing States, exporting States, and those engaged in transshipment. Egypt also wanted clarification on the relevance of international human rights law to the ATT and would prefer not to refer to it at all. It also cautioned against including references to corruption and money-laundering. Egypt wanted the possibility to contest "unfair denials". It suggested starting the drafting process with a political declaration and moving towards a treaty in a "phased approach".

On the Chairman's Draft Principles paper, Egypt stated that it wanted to see a reference to the "right of States to produce and export arms". It also wanted a reference to the importance of nuclear disarmament. It wanted deletion of references to international human rights law and to including small arms and light weapons in the paper.

Nigeria noted the importance of victim assistance and stated that it should be in a section on its own, which would help to highlight the humanitarian aim of this treaty. It called for a provision on relations with States not party and the relationship of the treaty with other agreements. It wanted a prohibition on supplying arms to non-State actors. This was perhaps one of the most critical issues for Nigeria.

Belgium speaking on behalf of the European Union warmly welcomed the Chairman's Draft Principles paper. On the elements, Belgium stated that the scope should cover conventional arms and related materials. An annex could cover the list of related materials covered by the treaty. The EU proposed a later guide to implementation. It proposed that any reference to non-discrimination should be included in the preamble not the body text. EU could accept a "minimal" international implementation support secretariat within the UN. It wanted a reference to the risk of corruption and the obligation to combat such corruption in accordance with relevant international instruments.

Indonesia was disappointed that the draft did not better reflect its concern about the right to maintain terrritorial integrity.

Switzerland called for a separate section on definition and costs in the draft elements paper.

Namibia stated that the principles should be in the preamble.

France was "surprised" by certain of the statements of Egypt. It did not agree with making a distinction between importing and exporting States. France said the impact of trade on development and the importance of international human rights and humanitarian law was critical for the treaty. A reference to corruption was also essential.

Brazil stated the need for marking and transfer of small arms to be included as a precondition to their transfer. It welcomed the Draft Principles paper.

Singapore suggested the need for adding a reference to consensus negotiation of the treaty. It also wanted a

Norway welcomed the Draft Principles paper. It disagreed strongly with any attempts to delete the reference to international human rights and humanitarian law. It felt that too much reference was made to State security. It called for reference to the need to reduce armed violence. It wanted a reference to key Security Copuncil resolutions on sexual violence and women, peace and security and also to the rights of victims of armed violence.

Japan welcomed the Draft Principles paper. It could be reorganised and streamlined. It felt strongly that the reference to international human rights and humanitarian law should be maintained.

Trinidad and Tobago agreed with retaining the reference to international human rights and humanitarian law should be maintained. It wanted a reference to drug trafficking.

Iran did not want any reference to Security Council embargoes or to address small arms and light weapons. It wanted additional paragraphs limiting or avoiding any ATT restrictions on the right to procure equipment.

The Russian Federation stated that more emphasis on responsibilities needed to be included in the paper on draft principles.

The Philippines wanted definitions added to the paper on draft elements, as well as victim assistance. It also wanted a reference to record keeping and regional cooperation. On draft principles, it supported Indonesia.

Syria did not want any reference to the Security Council in the draft principles paper.

Pakistan again questioned the feasibility of the treaty. It wanted deletion of references to international human rights and humanitarian law, but was open to being convinced of the appropriateness. It wanted emphasis of the primacy of the State. It noted that there were no consensus definitions of terrorism or non-State actor.

Thailand wanted definitions to be included in the draft elements paper.

Italy stated with respect to Egypt's concern about unfair denials that it was not possible to oblige States to transfer weapons.

The USA noted that this was not a drafting exercise.

Egypt questioned what assistance could be provided to victims.

New Zealand called for a reference to the role of civil society in the preamble. It suggested that violations of IHL and human rights law was one of the consequences of irresponsible arms trade. It called for a reference to accountability in the preamble.

Belgium speaking on behalf of the EU welcomed the draft principles paper. It wanted reference to the "obligations" of States under international law. It noted that national implementation must be in accordance with the ATT. It reiterated its call for a reference to the risk of corruption.

Australia stated that the right to manufacture and transfer weapons should be "in accordance with international law".

India wanted to add development and acquisition of weapons in paragraph 6 of the Chair's paper.

South Africa stressed that the ATT cannot create an obligation to export.

Nigeria approved of the references to small arms and light weapons and armed conflict.

Libya supported Egypt's statement.

Spain opposed suggestion of including reference to nuclear disarmament.

Israel wanted a reference to the threat of the use of force. It did not want a reference to self-determination. It wanted a reference to the responsibility of States to regulate the arms trade. It wanted a reference to "terrorists" before unauthorised non-State actors.

China welcomed the Chair's paper as a basis for discussion.

Side Event: Supporting the ATT negotiations through regional discussions, activities, and research

The European Union and UNIDIR presented their new project supporting the ATT negotiations through regional discussions, activities, and research. Sergio Duarte, the UN High Representative for Disarmament, stressed the importance of regional input to the ATT to generate a common and agreed platform for discussion, engage national parliamentarians, and draw on the work of civil society and academic institutions.

Cyriaque Agnekethom from the ECOWAS Commission gave his views on the ECOWAS experience and regional seminar that took place in Dakar in April 2009. He felt it served as an useful forum for increasing understanding on the ATT process, focusing on sub-regional specificities and concerns, and exchanging views on what should be in a possible ATT.

Elie Kytömäki (UNIDIR) concluded the session by presenting the upcoming EU-UNIDIR activities and research in support of the ATT process. Thus includes the organisations of seven regional seminars in 2010-2012.

Day 3 of the PrepCom

2010-07-14T12:38:00.021-04:00

The Chairman's Draft Elements of an ATT

The Chair opened the third morning of the PrepCom by introducing briefly his "draft elements" for a future Arms Trade Treaty. The Chair listed the elements that could be included.

The bloggers' view: Possibly surprising omissions from the Chair's list of draft elements were the following:

Definitions (likely to be an extremely challenging exercise)
Scope of application of the treaty (in addition to the type of weapons and types of activities and covered, which were included in the Chair's draft)
Relations with States not party to the treaty, and
Specific reference to meetings of States Parties and review of the conferences (though these may be intended to fall within the proposed inclusion in final provisions of follow-up mechanisms and review processes).

In addition, the Chair's draft elements suggested that there would be a separate reference to goals and objectives of the treaty, as opposed to including them in the preamble as most delegations had called for.

Government statements to the third morning of the PrepCom

The bloggers' view of the morning's interventions: Many forward-looking statements were made during the third morning of the PrepCom, and a wide--though by no means universal--convergence was seen in the majority of the interventions. Encouragingly, several interventions referred to the responsibility of States to regulate the arms trade in order to address serious violations of international human rights and humanitarian law and armed violence. Other highlights included Mexico's call for a provision on compulsory universal jurisdiction (known as aut dedere aut judicare under international law) to be included in the ATT as well as the Holy See's call for the rights of victims to be included.

Egypt on behalf of the Group of Arab States welcomed "any efforts made with regard to the regulation of armaments and the trade of arms". It cautioned, however, that an ATT "must take into account the elements of production and stockpiling, along with the export, import and transfer." It stated that the "potential ATT has to be based on and not to conflict with the principles of the Charter of the United Nations, including the legitimate right of States to the production, export and import of conventional arms, the right to self-determination, the inadmissibility of the occupation of others' territories, the respect for State's sovereignty, national unity and territorial integrity and the prohibition of the use of armed forces against unarmed civilians, etc."

Belgium on behalf of the European Union set out the principles that it would like to see reflected in the ATT. The aim was to prevent the illicit transfer of arms and "should prevent conventional weapons from being used to contribute to armed conflicts, trans-national organized crime, terrorist acts, serious human rights violations and serious violations of international humanitarian law". In addition, an ATT "should respect the principles of the UN Charter and international law, including international human rights law and international humanitarian law".

Australia stated that the preamble should include the context for the negotiation and adoption of an ATT, including the interest of all States in preventing irresponsible or illicit transfer of arms.

Norway stated its view that the responsibility of States to reduce human suffering underpins an ATT. The treaty should prevent arms transfers that are used to violate international human rights law and international humanitarian law and armed violence.

South Africa stated its preference for including the guiding principles in the preamble. It supported the principles as outlined by Belgium on behalf of the EU.

The Philippines stated that the treaty must respect the right to self-defence, the principle of non-interference, territorial integrity, and take into account the special responsibility of the supplying State. It should prevent transfers to non-State actors. It did not want to see dual-use goods included in the treaty.

Japan wanted the preamble to highlight how the lack of agreed common standards for the transfer of conventional arms contributed to armed conflict, terrorism, and organised crime. States have a responsibility to ensure that arms they transfer do not contribute to violations of international human rights and humanitarian law. Arms should not be diverted to unauthorised recipients.

Canada believes that an ATT should be based on transparency, clarity, and universality. It should build on existing obligations of States under international law. It should offer clear rules for the trade in conventional weapons. The treaty should be implemented and enforced at a national level.

Senegal stated the importance of taking into account international human rights and humanitarian law as well as the impact of the arms trade on economic development.

Portugal declared that an ATT would be an important tool in addressing the illicit trade in conventional weapons.

Brazil stated the lack of commonly agreed standards on the arms trade was a factor in armed conflict, terrorism, and organised crime.

Mexico referred to the principle of the shared responsibility of States to meet the aims of the treaty. They also noted that the ATT should include a provision on compulsory universal jurisdiction.

Sweden supported the statement delivered by Belgium on behalf of the EU. It added that an important element was the determination of common standards for the assessment of whether to authorise a transfer of conventional weapons. These should be the highest possible standards. Sweden also sought a reference to the risk of corruption from the arms trade.

Iran stated that a potential ATT should be based on the principles on the use of force, the right to self-defence, non-interference in internal affairs, full respect for the sovereign right of States.

The Netherlands reiterated the importance of making clear what the ATT is trying to achieve: to set out clear criteria for authorising conventional arms transfers.

The Holy See noted the importance of transparency in the arms trade. It called for the treaty to cover the rights of victims of armed violence and support their rehabilitation and reintegration.

Germany noted that the ATT would seek to regulate arms transfers, it was not a disarmament treaty.

Pakistan called for "subjective criteria" to be avoided in the ATT. Transfer between two States not subject to an UN embargo should not be covered by the ATT. It should not impact production by developing countries. Should major producers follow a certain standard to curb excessive production of weapons? How much is enough?

The United Kingdom stated that the three UN General Assembly resolutions set out the principles underpinning the ATT. The UK did not favour picking out certain aspects of the UN Charter: "The Charter is the Charter and we are all bound by it." The ATT should not establish new embargoes on the transfer of weapons. (The UK subsequently clarified further its statement on including references to specific elements of the UN Charter, mentioning its flexibility).

The USA stated that he hoped for a treaty that would be both effective and "widely adopted if not immediately universal." It referred to the responsibility of both the supplier and recipient to control transfers of arms so that they are used "for appropriate purposes".

Israel objected to a reference to the right of all peoples to self-determination on the basis that it might legitimate transfers to terrorists.

Egypt noted the link between principles and scope. It objected to Israel's opposition to a reference to the right of all peoples to self-determination.

Indonesia noted the importance of protecting human rights as well as maintaining territorial integrity.

The Republic of Korea approved of the Chair's paper on draft elements. Korea fully supported a strong ATT.

The Russian Federation stated the need for the treaty to counter the illicit trade in weapons.

ECOWAS (Economic Community of West African States) stated that arms transfers should not be made to non-State actors without the express authority of the State in which they are located. It should lay down sanctions for violations.

India called for the treaty not to affect in any way the right of States to produce or acquire conventional weapons for its defence.

China stated that the goal of the ATT was maintenance of international peace and security, and the ability to maintain territorial integrity.

Side Event: A Practical Guide to Implementing a Future ATT

The publication, National Implementation of the proposed Arms Trade Treaty: A Practical Guide, has been developed by C.I.T.S. at the University of Georgia in the US, Oxfam, and Saferworld. The side event was supported by The Netherlands.

Saferworld stressed the primacy that the ATT will give to national implementation of its provisions. It was emphasised that there will not be a "one-size-fits-all" approach.

Anne-Charlotte Merrell Wetterwik of the CITS affirmed that a national implementation system should comprise three basic components: a licensing system, enforcement mechanisms and provisions, and external outreach to industry and international partners.

Paul Pasnicu, the General Director of the the National Agency for Export Controls, of the Romanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs noted that a functioning export control mechanism was a process not an act. He stressed the importance of regulating small arms transfers.

Government statements to the third afternoon of the PrepCom

Surinam on behalf of CARICOM stated that the Caribbean region had been disproportionately affected by the consequences of the availability of weapons. It called for the highest possible standards for the transfer of arms. It should also enshrine the principle of State responsibility that arms not be diverted from their intended recipients.

Trinidad and Tobago called for States that violated a future ATT should be subject to sanctions.

The Chair then presented his paper on "draft elements" of an ATT. He acknowledged that certain elements that had been raised by delegations were missing, such as the UK proposal for general obligations. He also noted several issues that he did not know "where to put": the diversion of arms as well as other issues related to the illicit arms trade; India's reference to organized crime and terrorism; corruption; and victim assistance raised by Norway.

India noted the difficulty of the task facing the Chair. He suggested that the various issues raised orally by the Chair but not yet included should be listed as "other elements" in the next version of his paper.

Pakistan felt the "table of contents" presented by the Chair was perhaps a little "premature" but wanted to see all suggestions reflected.

Mexico stated that the issue of diversion was a matter of particular concern to many delegations. Another important issue was marking and tracking of weapons. It also noted the importance of victim assistance.

Egypt felt that the more the issues were discussed, the more complex they became. It hoped that the paper would not prejudge the structure of a future treaty. Egypt wanted to see rights as well as obligations included in the treaty. It noted goals and objectives was separated from the preamble. It further wished to see consultation and clarification in the treaty, especially with a view to preventing discrimination. It wanted to see sanctions for treaty violations. National focal points could be given more prominence. Finally, incentives to encourage adherence could be useful. It stressed that the treaty should not just be supply based but also outline the rights and obligations of recipients.

Tanzania called for regional and sub-regional organisations to be involved in the monitoring of the future treaty.

The UK said it was good to be able to agree with Pakistan "as it didn't happen very often these days".

South Africa stated that combating crime, terrorism, and conflict were the key issues underpinning the ATT.

France referred to the need for including a provision on scope of application. France felt that national legislation and controls, criminalisation of violations, and cooperation and assistance would be the three pillars of the future treaty. It questioned the need for an implementation support secretariat.

The Russian Federation reiterated the importance of addressing diversion in the treaty.

Norway noted the need to include under scope both ammunition and related technologies in addition to weapons. It reiterated its call for vicim assistance to be included. It wanted to see greater detail relating to criteria.

New Zealand called for other issues to be added to the paper, such as the relationship with other agreements.

Australia also commended the Chair for his paper. It hoped to see clarification as to whether transshipment and brokering would be covered. It also wanted clarification of the relations between States Parties and States non party.

Uruguay wanted a chapter on definitions to be added. It called for record keeping to be addressed under the issue of transparency. It also supported other calls for a provision on victim assistance.

Iran also wanted definition of key terms included in the treaty. It wanted a separate provision on principles, not being convinced that their inclusion in the preamble was appropriate. It wanted the issue of criminalisation of violations deleted. It also wanted the deletion of any reference to an international secretariat.

Belgium on behalf of the European Union also commended the paper. It will respond in detail, possibly in writing, the following morning.

Trinidad and Tobago also stressed the importance of diversion. It agreed with New Zealand on the need for specific reference to meetings of States Parties.

The USA called for headings on definitions, relationship with other agreements, and an annex. It expressed concern about a number of issues included in the Chair's list, such as a secretariat, dispute settlement, denunciation, denials, and enforcement.

Spain favoured a short, simple declaration of the object and purpose of the treaty.

Morocco stated that international cooperation and assistance was essential. It wanted references to corruption and money laundering. It wanted specific reference to non-State actors.

Syria noted the importance of Article 51 of the UN Charter and stated that the ATT should not discriminate and should not be politicised.

The Republic of Korea supported the paper and stressed the importance of international cooperation and assistance. It also called for further details of the common standards/criteria for transfer.

Indonesia thought that if reporting is included in the treaty then there should be a secretariat also. It suggested victim assistance be included in the section on international cooperation and assistance.

Ghana wanted the right of victims to an effective remedy to be included.

The Netherlands thought that at this stage it was premature to define the content of the draft elements. It wanted a mention that the definition of weapons should be flexible in view of the technology development. In this regard, it noted that the review process could also be held every year (in the discussion reference was made to five- and 10-year intervals).

China had a specific proposal on the structure, suggesting that monitoring, verification and compliance be merged into the heading on implementation and application.

The UAE wanted separation of the concepts of international assistance and capacity-building.

Pakistan issued a general note of caution about the paper.

In closing day three of the PrepCom, the Chair issued his paper on draft principles for discussion tomorrow and announced the appointment of three Friends of the Chair to consult with delegations on three key issues: on scope, Trinidad and Tobago; on standards and criteria, Australia; and on application and implementation, Egypt. It appears these meetings will be closed, beginning on the fourth afternoon of the PrepCom, so NGOs will not be able to attend.

Day 2 of the PrepCom

2010-07-13T09:43:00.310-04:00

The Chair of the PrepCom announced that he intended to convene an informal meeting on the morning of Friday 16 July in order to hear the views of relevant, accredited NGOs. He also reiterated that the PrepCom meetings in 2011 would take place during one week in 28 February to 4 March 2011, and for a second week in 11-15 July 2011.

Government statements to the second morning of the Prepcom

Bangladesh stated that the ATT should reflect and respect the right of States to self-defence. It should also promote the duty of States under the UN Charter to promote human rights. The treaty should cover all conventional weapons, including parts and components, dual-use goods, and ammunition. Imported arms should not be handed over "to any political group or insurgent groups."

Colombia declared that it was supporting an ATT and noted that the treaty should regulate small arms and light weapons. The treaty should facilitate compliance with international humanitarian and human rights law as well as with the UN Charter. Weapons should not be transferred to non-State actors.

Belarus noted the need for clear criteria and clear objectives. It argued the main focus should be the illegal delivery and manufacture of weapons.

Belgium again spoke on behalf of the European Union, noting that the objective and purpose of the treaty should be defined, for instance in the preamble, based on the content of the three UN resolutions on the ATT. Detailed definitions should be included in an annex to the treaty. A section of the treaty should be devoted to the criteria for assessing whether to authorise a transfer of conventional weapons. An ATT should include a follow-up mechanism (e.g. meetings of States Parties and review conferences).

Surinam spoke on behalf of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM). It noted the link between illicit arms transfers and the drugs trade. It called for the treaty to include ammunition and should cover diversion and re-export. It argued for the establishment of a treaty secretariat to monitor the implementation of the treaty.

New Zealand stated that the treaty should represent minimum standards and should be broad in scope. It was doubtful about including dual-use items. Using an annex would enable flexibility. Certain principles were important to include in the treaty, such as setting out the aim and need for an ATT; the right of States to defend themselves; and transparency.

Uruguay declared its support for covering the weapons included in the UN Register of Conventional Weapons, but should not omit other new conventional weapons being used today. It should prohibit transfers of weapons to non-State actors.

Brazil stated the treaty should require effective national implementation measures.

Trinidad and Tobago declared a comprehensive ATT would have the potential to save lives. A critical element of the treaty was the notion of State responsibility.

Israel set out a number of elements that could usefully be included in an ATT, such as a national regulatory framework.

Switzerland stated its support for a comprehensive ATT. It should at least cover the seven categories under the UN Register, SALW, and related technologies.

Canada stated its view that an ATT should be flexible, perhaps using an annex, and should draw on existing internationally agreed definitions as far as possible. It should cover SALW, parts, and ammunition should be included in the treaty, while acknowledging a legitimate use of firearms, for instance in hunting.

India cautioned against assumptions that an ATT is feasible. It stated that, for example, no country had legislation authorising transfers of weapons to terrorists. It questioned the role of any monitoring body (as well as the cost). It called for clarity of purpose of the treaty. Is it balancing commercial considerations, or is it about alleviating human suffering? It called for the PrepCom to "avoid unnecessary enthusiasm". Any treaty should not include dual-use technology. It should clearly distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate transfers and should cover both supply and demand issues. It was also important to bring in subjective criteria, such as what constitutes a human rights violation.

South Korea noted the particular importance of covering brokering in the ATT.

Mexico stated that the treaty should be flexible and should consider the potential users of weapons.

South Africa declared support for an ATT covering all conventional weapons, SALW, and related technologies. The possibility of including dual-use items and brokering should be considered further. Definitions would be needed of export, import, transfer, transshipment, and brokering. Some form of compliance measures would be needed, such as the CWC, BWC and the Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention.

Peru stated its particular concern about the availability of sophisticated weapons in low-intensity armed conflicts of a non-international character.

The morning meeting ended a little early to enable the Chair to conduct further consultations.

Side Event: “A non-Fiction Story”: How can a Robust Arms Trade Treaty Support Development?

Oxfam, Norwegian Forum For Environment and Development, Instituto Sou da Paz, and Igarape in cooperation with the Norwegian Ministry for Foreign Affairs discussed the role that an ATT could play in reducing armed violence as well as helping States to achieve the Millenium Development Goals (MDGs). Armed violence has significantly affected 22 of 34 countries most likely to miss the MDGs in 2015.

Oxfam reported its research findings on the interrelationship between poverty, armed violence, and the international arms trade. It also presented the practical guide it has developed entitled, Applying Sustainable Development to Arms-Transfer Decisions. Specifically, the guide outlines:

The legal basis and international standards for development criteria related to international arms transfers;
Which development criteria could be used to enable appropriate decision-making on international arms transfers; and
Guidelines to assist national licensing authorities and other government officials to apply development criteria to decisions about international arms transfers, including a set of relevant questions to consider when forming a judgement.

Integrating socio-economic development criteria into an ATT

Along with the existing legal obligations and standards pertaining to development and cooperation and assistance, a clear and consistent procedure should be put in place for determining whether there is a substantial risk that the transfer will seriously impair poverty reduction or socio-economic development to ensure that such transfers are prohibited. Arms should not be transferred where there is a substantial risk of:

1) Increasing or maintaining high levels of armed violence (nationally or regionally),
2) Undermining peacebuilding or post-conflict reconstruction,

3) Involving the excessive and unaccountable allocation of human and economic resources to armaments, and

4) the transfer involving a pattern of corruption.

See also:

Oxfam Briefing Note, Dying for action Decision time for an urgent, effective Arms Trade Treaty, 7 October 2009
Geneva Declaration on Armed Violence and Development, Armed Violence Prevention and Reduction: A Challenge for Achieving the Millennium Development Goals, background paper, 2008
Geneva Declaration on Armed Violence and Development, Global Burden of Armed Violence (GBAV) report, 2008.

Key findings of the GBAV report are that:

More than 740,000 people have died directly or indirectly from armed violence—both conflict and criminal violence—every year for the last few years. More than 540,000 of these deaths are violent, with the vast majority occurring in non-conflict settings.
At least 200,000 people—and perhaps many thousands more—have died each year in conflict zones from non-violent causes (such as malnutrition, dysentery, or other easily preventable diseases) that resulted from the effects of war on populations.
Between 2004 and 2007 at least 208,300 violent deaths were recorded in armed conflicts— an average of 52,000 people killed per year. This is a conservative estimate including only recorded deaths: the real total may be much higher.
The annual economic cost of armed violence in non-conflict settings, in terms of lost productivity due to violent deaths, is estimated to be at least US$95 billion and could be as much as $163 billion— 0.14% of the annual global GDP.

Government statements to the second afternoon of the Prepcom

Indonesia again repeated the importance of reflecting the right to maintain territorial integrity in the ATT. It asked that South Asian countries be kept abreast of, and involved in, the Chair's consultations. It said that the ATT should prohibit transfers that will provoke internal armed conflict.

Jamaica stressed the importance of including international cooperation and assistance in the ATT.

Australia on behalf of the Forum of Pacific Island States noted the importance of domestic weapons control to minimise the risk of diversion. It similarly stressed the importance of "States in a position to do so" providing international cooperation and assistance.

Morocco again noted the rights to self-defence and to maintain territorial integrity. The raison d'être for the treaty is to curb violence, by applying international humanitarian law more effectively. It should also address the "overmilitarisation of non-State actors". It noted international cooperation and assistance and regional cooperation. The treaty should be capable of evolving with advances in weapons technology.

Mongolia stressed the importance of providing for transparency in the treaty, while respecting the States' right to self-defence.

The USA stated its objective was to ensure that any ATT would significantly impede unregulated trade in conventional weapons. It sought a broad definition of arms to be covered by the treaty, as well as parts, components, and related technologies. It is not in favour of including dual-use goods in the treaty. "Transfer" should be defined to include import, export, transshipment, transfer of control and title, and brokering. National sanctions for violations of the ATT should include civil, criminal, and administrative penalties. Appropriate criteria for authorising transfers could include:

- applicable international law,

- existing international obligations and commitments of both sending and recipient States,

- consistency with existing international agreements,

- impact on regional stability,

- potential for unauthorised third party transfer or unauthorised diversion,

- human rights, proliferation and terrorist records of the recipient, and risk of misuse, and

- the risk of political impacts.

Australia, speaking on its own behalf, stated its view that SALW, ammunition, and parts should be included in the treaty, as well as allowing for future developments to be covered. The ATT should cover the broadest range of activities possible. There should be State responsibility for arms transfers.

Costa Rica also noted the importance of international cooperation and assistance.

India called for a common understanding of the objectives of an ATT.

China declared that the ATT should be targeted rather than contain broad general issues. Sensitive or controversial issues should be avoided. Arms should not be provided to non-State actors.

In concluding the discussions, the Chair stated that he would present a first paper on the elements of a future ATT on the third morning of the PrepCom. He would then ask delegations to present on the principles to be reflected in the treaty.

List of Statements

Day 1 of the PrepCom

2010-07-12T16:54:00.012-04:00

The Opening of the PrepCom

12 July 2010. The first day of the first Preparatory Committee for an Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) opened today at the United Nations in New York. There are four PrepComs planned in 2010-2012 according to UN General Assembly Resolution 64/48 (The arms trade treaty), leading to a four-week-long Diplomatic Conference in 2012 to "elaborate" the treaty. Operative Paragraph 7 of the resolution calls for the PrepComs to make recommendations to the Diplomatic Conference on the "elements that would be needed to attain an effective and balanced legally binding international instrument on the highest common international standards for the transfer of conventional arms."

NGO participation

One issue that was not agreed on in the resolution was the extent to which NGOs would be able to participate in the preparatory work for the future ATT. This issue was resolved on the first morning with the adoption of draft decision A/CONF.217/PC/L.2, which allows not only NGOs with ECOSOC accreditation to attend the "open meetings" of the PrepCom, but also other "interested" NGOs whose work "is relevant to the scope and purpose of the Conference" provided that the PrepCom does not object. In addition, representatives of accredited NGOs will be allowed to address the PrepCom "during one meeting specifically allocated for that purpose".

Government statements to the first morning of the prepcom

A number of introductory statements were delivered during the first morning, several notable by the lack of any reference to the aim of enhancing compliance with international humanitarian and human rights law. The UN High Representative for Disarmament Affairs, Sergio Duarte, noted that Member States "have committed themselves to concluding a 'strong and robust' treaty, which provides assurances of a meaningful process."

Belgium delivered a statement on behalf of the European Union in which it stated that the development of an ATT "is a priority that the international community cannot ignore." It called for the PrepCom to focus on the "structure" of a future treaty. It also noted that a number of countries "still retain some concerns and reservation about the relevance of an Arms Trade Treaty. These are legitimate positions, but they should not be used to indefinitely delay the incipient negotiating process."

Nigeria delivered a statement on behalf of the African Union in which it pointed out that: "While not being among the major producers and exporters of conventional weapons in the world, many African States ... suffer disproportionately the pernicious effects of irresponsible transfer of arms ... ." It called notably for the future ATT to contain "a clear prohibition of transfers to unauthorized non-State actors."

Switzerland stressed three elements in the context of the treaty that it considered particularly important:

compliance of arms transfers with existing international obligations, international humanitarian law and human rights and the influence of arms transfers on the maintenance of international peace and security as well as regional and sub-regional stability;
transparency wwith regard to licences granted and denied and arms imported; and
a monitoring mechanism to collate and analyse information provided by future States Parties.

The United Kingdom pointed out the need not to "underestimate the challenge" of negotiating an ATT, noting that "the devil is in the detail". It called for the following elements to be included in an ATT:

a preamble to set out the rationale and goals of the treaty;
a provision on general obligations;
a provision on the scope of application of the treaty, including the types of conventional weapons and transfers to be regulated by it;
a national authorisation system and the assessment process that should take place before any authorisation takes place;
clarification of how the treaty relates to other international agreements;
transparency provisions (regular reporting and a mechanism for information exchange);
verification and compliance provisions;
a mechanism for consultation and for dispute settlement;
annual or biannual meetings of States Parties; and
provisions on relations between States Parties and States not party to the future treaty.

Small Arms Survey side event: Better Understanding the Trade in Small Arms

The Small Arms Survey presented the results of research into the global trade in small arms and light weapons at the German Permanent Mission to the UN. Noting significant gaps in data, they nonetheless concluded that the trade was worth more than US$4 billion in 2006. One State, the USA, was responsible for almost 40% of all military firearms exports in that year with nine other States accounting for a further 35%. At the same time, it was observed that very little was known about the situation in Sub-Saharan Africa, despite the region seeing the highest number of deaths from armed conflict. It concluded that "sensitive trades" had a low (relative) financial value.

The situation with respect to small arms ammunition is less transparent, although it is estimated that the value of trade was some US$1.77 billion in 2007. Even less is known about light weapons ammunition transfers (e.g. of grenades, mortar rounds up to 120mm, man-portable rockets), although the trade is estimated to be worth some $2.5 billion. Ammunition is not covered by the UN Register of Conventional Arms.

Government statements to the afternoon session of the first day of the PrepCom

The Russian Federation stated that all States were united in a determination to ensure weapons that did not end up in the wrong hands (e.g. gangs, criminals, and terrorists) through illicit trafficking. It noted that a weak instrument, even if universally adopted, would not be a step forward as it might legitimise existing poor practice. At the same time, it declared it was "premature to speak now of a legally binding ATT. The status of a final document, as it seems [sic], should be defined by its content."

Norway declared that it was a strong supporter of the ATT process but called for clear identification of the goals of the future ATT. For Norway, it should seek to reduce armed violence and promote effective implementation of international humanitarian law and human rights. Norway believes that the scope of application of the treaty should be wide, covering all conventional weapons and ammunition unless they are specifically excepted. Criteria for prohibiting arms transfers should be based on the fact or likelihood that weapons will be used to violate IHL or human rights, or that they are likely to be re-exported or diverted such as to do so. Norway also called for the rights of victims of armed violence to be included in the treaty.

Japan noted particularly the need to consider transfers to States not parties.

China stated it was in favour of international action on illicit transfer of arms. Legal transfers, it believes, promote the right to self-defence and to security. It reiterated the need for consensus on decision-making. China said it has never authorised transfers to non-State entities.

France stated that the statements made so far were "extremely positive". It called for a treaty that was flexible enough to be amended in the future.

Iran stressed the need for consensus in all decisions, in recognition of a State's legitimate right to defend itself. Any information provision under the treaty should be voluntary.

Morocco also noted the need for respect for right of self-defence and territorial integrity of States and stressed the importance of consensus in decision-making. It referred to a problem of safeguarding borders in West Africa to prevent illicit transfers, notably to non-State actors.

The USA stated it was prepared to work for strong international standards to govern the arms trade. It was an "absolute requirement" to have a positive outcome and the treaty should be "a floor not a ceiling". It noted that national implementation was key to the successful implementation of the future treaty. It stated that transfers are a "sovereign" decision and blanket prohibitions were not appropriate. The treaty must cover all conventional weapons, including small arms and light weapons but also larger "more destabilising" weaponry. The USA believes that transparency will be an essential element in making the treaty work -- by both importer and exporter.

Nigeria called for the treaty to cover all seven categories of conventional arms included on the UN Register, as well as small arms and light weapons and ammunition.

Libya believed that small arms and ammunition should be dealt with separately.

The Netherlands noted that the treaty should be a minimum standard. On scope, it favoured the widest possible scope, including transfers of components, ammunition, and technologies. Transparency, it stated, is essential.

List of Statements

Statement of the High Representative for Disarmament Affairs (12.07.2010)