tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8381855302642447882.post4947246691194078761..comments2024-03-25T03:37:17.802-04:00Comments on Arms Trade Treaty legal blog: A preamble to the real negotiations...?ATT Legal bloggershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15534105759843654014noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8381855302642447882.post-30189872012083243842012-07-24T04:10:03.325-04:002012-07-24T04:10:03.325-04:00You sound like Iran's UN Ambassador and are sp...You sound like Iran's UN Ambassador and are splitting hairs as only a liberal can. You give the perfect example of why the US and Canada should cease all funding of the UN. It is corrupt and ineffective at stopping what it was chartered to do.<br /><br />http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2010/0504/NPT-101-Is-Iran-violating-the-nuclear-treaty<br /><br />How can people be slaughtered in Mexico, when guns are illegal by law?<br /><br />Only law-abiding citizens are affected by gun control. Criminals and terrorists never are.<br /><br />If every average Jose in Mexico owned a firearm, fewer would be victims. The same thing goes for what happened in Colorado and Toronto. <br /><br />Canadian Gun OwnerAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8381855302642447882.post-35025963834290058102012-07-20T09:25:59.610-04:002012-07-20T09:25:59.610-04:00Canadian Gun Owner,
Would you be able to indicat...Canadian Gun Owner, <br /><br />Would you be able to indicate which provisions of the NPT and its additional protocols Iran has violated? None, to my current knowledge. You would get your points across in any discussion much better without employing empty rhetoric, especially if you are not well acquainted with the NPT and the treaty regime.<br /><br />I believe there is an understanding between the participating States that domestic gun ownership questions will be left outside the scope of the treaty. It's a shame, though. We all know, for example, how the Mexican drug gangs are slaughtering thousands in Mexico. Any Southern hill-billy just walks into any gun shop in Arizona, purchases 10 .50 sniper rifles for "personal use", and then sells it to Los Zetas to be smuggled accross the border the next day. So much for the domestic "private ownership".Hee Hawhttp://www.feelthecountry.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8381855302642447882.post-60141506088781410552012-07-19T02:26:36.862-04:002012-07-19T02:26:36.862-04:00Why do I think that you and your UN buddies are tr...Why do I think that you and your UN buddies are trying to take away my rights? <br /><br />It's in black and white: <br /><br />"Unfortunately... there had been no agreement reached on two of the most important issues -– maintaining and controlling private ownership of small arms and the transfer of such weapons to non-State actors -- even though there was overwhelming support for their inclusion in the outcome document." <br /><br />SOURCE: http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2001/DC2795.doc.htm<br /><br />If the ATT is not about preventing private ownership (which it is, of course) then put the following wording into the document:<br /><br />"The UN fully supports the rights of private owners to own, purchase, and trade firearms and ammunition."<br /><br />The UN is the most inept and corrupt organization in existence. Proof in point is the fact that Iran is playing a lead role in the ATT process. What idiocy. Iran can't even comply on nuclear proliferation treaties and yet, they are going to play a lead role in TRYING to remove my firearms?<br /><br />Not on your life.<br /><br />It is obvious from your writing, that you are an intelligent and passionate fellow. And you are trying to make the world a better place, in a manner that makes sense to you. I respect that -- however, I think you are wrong in what you are trying to do. And even though I am a peaceful man, and a retired law enforcement officer -- NO ONE is going to take away my firearms.<br /><br />Respectfully,<br /><br />Canadian Gun OwnerAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8381855302642447882.post-78057967711755874612012-07-16T12:27:34.345-04:002012-07-16T12:27:34.345-04:00Hi Canadian gun owner,
Thanks for your comments. W...Hi Canadian gun owner,<br />Thanks for your comments. Why do you think an ATT would take away your rights? Which specific rights are you referring to? Are you using your guns to murder or torture people? For that is what the treaty, it is hoped, will do--prevent some of the governments and non-state actors that are wilfully and without any lawful reason, killing and wounding, or are using guns to facilitate torture, rape, or enforced disappearances. So arms cannot be transferred to regimes or groups that commit such acts. It does not apply to internal sales anywhere of any weapons, just to be clear.ATT Legal bloggershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15534105759843654014noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8381855302642447882.post-49623167059405825032012-07-15T23:30:25.100-04:002012-07-15T23:30:25.100-04:00As a Canadian gun owner, I am glad to see that thi...As a Canadian gun owner, I am glad to see that this process is failing. The whole thing is a sham -- and another way of taking away my rights.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8381855302642447882.post-13454196420845021392012-07-12T15:07:19.960-04:002012-07-12T15:07:19.960-04:00Hi,
It will a huge blow to us if the IHL and IHRL...Hi,<br /><br />It will a huge blow to us if the IHL and IHRL criteria are not mentioned in the treaty. While, the 3rd Chair's paper considered by many is weak (compare to his march paper), it still mentions IHL and IHRL as criteria in arms transfer. Only he and his dog knows, why he distributed another chair's paper when most States were happy with his 2011 version. Is it only me to think that P5 statements are all in line with the latest chair's paper? <br /><br />Transfer of illicit weapons is only a fraction of the problem, the legal ones are also similarly dangerous. With what weapons Assad kills children and his fellow countrymen? With what weapons Khadafi killed the people of Banghazi? With LEGAL weapons. Hence, focus on illicit trade is a joke.<br /><br />Btw, thanks for your daily report. It gives readers an opportunity to closely follow the negotiation.Endonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8381855302642447882.post-11246794924478228042012-07-11T12:59:35.924-04:002012-07-11T12:59:35.924-04:00Hi Endo,
That's the rumour, but I'm not so...Hi Endo,<br />That's the rumour, but I'm not so convinced. Does the P5 have a text ready? Quite possible. At least, they must have agreed on what they're all prepared to accept, and one or two states, e.g. France, appear to be talking from a script rather than from the heart. This will, as you rightly note, be weak. The danger is that human rights or humanitarian law don't get a mention beyond the preamble and it's basically a reiteration that the illicit trade is illicit.<br />But does the President of the Conference have a treaty text he popped in the oven before the discussions started? Actually, I hope not, as the Discussion Paper he (rather bizarrely) issued on 3 July was so poor, we could fear what the next text could be. This morning India, which in general has made a pretty positive contribution to this conference, called for a rolling text to push the negotiations forward. In response, the President promised that one would come out soon on scope. This would have to be based on the many inputs from states; he couldn't just trot out a pre-cooked version and slap it on the table (at least without appropriate amendment).ATT Legal bloggershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15534105759843654014noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8381855302642447882.post-71260885040098591292012-07-11T08:25:18.136-04:002012-07-11T08:25:18.136-04:00True, there is no rolling text to be seen at the m...True, there is no rolling text to be seen at the moment but I believe the President and certain key delegation have a draft text which will be circulated soon after this debate over. They are now busy watering down the critaria and elements to be acceptable to all. Judging from the P5 behaviour, they are ready to have a (weak) ATT. The key battle is among big nations behind the scene. What do you think?Endonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8381855302642447882.post-35878892556978949292012-07-11T00:28:17.067-04:002012-07-11T00:28:17.067-04:00I'd like to second what Verena said. Your blog...I'd like to second what Verena said. Your blog is an essential resource for those interested in the ATT negotiations and perhaps the only place in the world wide web where it is possible to find detailed up-to-date info on the ongoing conference.<br /><br />I participated in the mock ATT Conference at the NMUN Model UN simulation in NY last April and let me say that the info on this blog was a god-given gift for me during researches. To my knowledge, a lot of students participating in the simulation also used this blog in their research prior to the event.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10150279584635732302noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8381855302642447882.post-46070864553410555332012-07-10T13:42:22.194-04:002012-07-10T13:42:22.194-04:00Thanks for keeping the public updated through your...Thanks for keeping the public updated through your posts! I was at the PrepComm in July 2010 and I am happy that I can now follow the treaty negotiations though not being present.<br />Although what I read so far does not really make me happy....<br /><br />Verena (Germany)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8381855302642447882.post-28110408724583500442012-07-10T07:47:57.752-04:002012-07-10T07:47:57.752-04:00Thanks for the comment. In our view it's nice ...Thanks for the comment. In our view it's nice to have but not necessary to have. As you rightly point out, it could help to determine the object and purpose of the treaty in order to judge the legality of any future reservations, but the real issue before us was, and remains, the criteria for assessing the legality of proposed transfers and the consequences should a transfer contravene one or more of those criteria.ATT Legal bloggershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15534105759843654014noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8381855302642447882.post-41113188340704511262012-07-10T04:28:27.039-04:002012-07-10T04:28:27.039-04:00What difference would it make, in your view, if th...What difference would it make, in your view, if the ATT would have a strong "statement of purpose" (or goals and objectives) in its first article? (e.g. such as art 1. in UNTOC or UNCAC). Is such an article worth fighting for? <br /><br />Such an article 1 would be part of the operative part of the treaty (rather than the preamble), but it may still not create unequivocal legal obligations given the usually vague language of such articles and the fact that the wording may not be addressed at specific conduct of states. It would be helpful to assess the compatibility of potential reservations and to assist the interpretation of the treaty in light of its object and purpose, but the same job could arguably be done with a preamble? <br />P.S. This "non-discrimination" issue almost reminds me of the religious defamation debate... Individuals have a right not to be discriminated against. Sovereign equality is another kettle of fish altogether. Certainly, the UN Charter allows (and even promotes) states to negotiate criteria that allow exporting states to deny arms transfers.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com