ATT Monitor, Vol. 16, No. 3
Time for Celebration?
27 August 2024
Laura Varella
On 19–23 August, delegations met in Geneva for the Tenth Conference of States Parties (CSP10) to the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT). This year marks the tenth anniversary of entry into force of the ATT. On the first day of the Conference, a cake cutting ceremony took place to celebrate the date. While the cake was being shared amongst participants, it was inevitable to think about the inappropriateness of celebrating a treaty that is being flagrantly violated.
“We find ourselves at a moment that calls not for celebration, but for deep reflection and urgent action,” said Palestine. Similarly, Control Arms said, “The 10 years since the ATT entered into force should not only be a moment of reflection, but a turning a point,” and called upon all states parties to ensure compliance with the Treaty, particularly articles 6 and 7, “to ensure that the treaty provisions are not just words on paper but active safeguards that protect human lives.”
Looking back at the last decade, states parties have violated the ATT on multiple occasions with zero accountability. For example, Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom, among possible other states parties, have continued transferring and/or granting licences for weapons, ammunition, weapon parts and components, and/or other military equipment to Israel, which has been committing flagrant violations of international humanitarian law (IHL) and international human rights law (IHRL) violations against the Palestinian people. These ATT states parties continued transfers to Israel in violation of articles 6 and 7 of the Treaty, even after repeated calls by UN experts and the international community for these transfers to stop. Transfers by states parties to other countries, including to Myanmar, Russia, and Sudan, have also resulted in arms being used to commit IHL and IHRL abuses in ongoing conflicts, leading to death, displacement, harm, and suffering of thousands of civilians.
Considering this grim scenario, the UN High Representative for Disarmament Affairs, Ms. Izumi Nakamitsu, urged states parties to comply with articles 6 and 7 of the Treaty, stressing that “to protect the norms and preserve the credibility of the ATT, it is crucial to bridge the gap between the treaty obligations and actual arms transfer practises.”
The forbidden topic
For over a decade, discussions around specific arms transfers were a forbidden topic in the ATT. This was based on fears, mainly of states that are in violation of the Treaty, that such discussions would “politicise” the forum. This changed earlier this year in February, when for the first time the ATT held discussions under the Sub-Working Group on Current and Emerging Implementation Issues around arms transfers to Israel.
Aotearoa New Zealand recalled the humanitarian imperative that drove the negotiation and adoption of the ATT ten years ago and welcomed the discussions on emerging issues. As did Ireland, Türkiye, and Control Arms, with the latter highlighting “that the Treaty has survived and could even thrive on the back of a conversation about actual arms transfers.” Certainly, the purpose of the ATT—the prevention of human suffering—somehow got lost in the last decade amidst bureaucratic and procedural agenda items. Having actual discussions on arms transfers is a way of bringing the Treaty’s overarching goal to the forefront again. This would be a much-needed step towards having a real impact on people’s lives.
CSP10 did not hold specific discussions around treaty compliance, but in the final report adopted by consensus, the Conference encouraged states parties and other stakeholders to raise further implementation issues on which they seek an ad hoc discussion in the Working Group on Effective Treaty Implementation (WGETI). Considerations around the application of articles 6 and 7 should not be left to ad hoc discussions. It should rather be, as put by Control Arms, institutionalised. However, it is left to be seen if states parties will build on this opportunity and change the course of the Treaty towards real implementation.
The United Kingdom’s Political Declaration
The United Kingdom (UK) proposed a Political Declaration to mark the anniversary of the Treaty. The final report adopted by the Conference welcomed the Declaration, which was endorsed by 73 states.
No delegations expressed explicit opposition to the declaration. The text is so bland that it is difficult to even argue against it. What is most striking about the Declaration is not what was included in the text, but rather what was left out. The document does not propose any concrete actions to improve the implementation of the Treaty, nor does it acknowledge the violations of the Treaty or propose ways to address it. At a time when the ATT’s credibility is at serious risk due to the lack of compliance by some states parties, a declaration for the next decade should have proposed much bolder action.
It is also difficult to overlook the fact that the UK, the proponent of the declaration, is transferring weapons and components in violation of the ATT. In the same week that the ATT was being held, human rights organisations presented new evidence in the legal case brought against the UK challenging its arms transfers to Israel. A few days earlier, a British Foreign Office official who previously worked in arms export licensing assessment resigned in protest to arms sales to Israel. Rather than proposing this bland political declaration, a real commitment from the UK towards complying with the Treaty, by imposing a two-way arms embargo on Israel, would have been a more meaningful action.
The future of the ATT
Mozambique, reflecting on the current geopolitical landscape, said that “the increasing tendency in international arms transfer demonstrates the firm belief of parties in the primacy of military approach and kept in the zero-sum game logic.” Indeed, militarised notions of security, which are maintained and encouraged by those who profit from war, has always been one of the main challenges to the Treaty. Back in 2 April 2013, when the ATT was adopted, RCW Director Ray Acheson wrote, “When major industrial economies rely so much on weapons production and sale, it can hardly be expected that a treaty like the one just adopted can make a decisive impact on these problems. But we have to start somewhere.”
At that occasion, 98 states signed a joint statement saying that while the final text did not fully meet everyone’s expectations, “the Treaty enables us to make it stronger, and through its implementation, to adapt it to future developments.” States also said that making a real difference in people’s lives continued to be their commitment, which they would carry out through the implementation of the Treaty. Eleven years later, states parties need to step up their efforts and live up to the promise they made for the world when creating this instrument. If they haven’t done it the last decade, they can do it now.
[PDF] ()