ATT Monitor, Vol. 11, No. 4

Editorial: Transparency and universalistion—double-edged swords?
23 August 2018

Allison Pytlak

Reporting and universalisation were the focus of discussion during day three of the Fourth Conference of States Parties (CSP4) to the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT).

While seemingly very different topics, the share a common challenge that extends as well to implementation. This was alluded to by one delegation when it noted that transparency is a double-edged sword. What it meant is that if ATT states parties set a high bar for reporting requirements in ways that improve transparency, it may deter new countries from acceding or ratifying and affect universalisation rates. Yet, the same delegation noted, transparency is indispensible. In the subsequent discussion on universalisation, a few states reflected on the trade-off between ensuring robust and rigorous implementation and attracting new countries, including major arms exporters and importers, to join the Treaty.

The “strength versus universality” discussion has been taking place since before the ATT was adopted. It is a conundrum for any instrument really, and can be a source of division or debate. As an example, one delegation said on Wednesday that the best way to encourage new countries to join the ATT and build confidence in the effectiveness of the instrument is by rigorously adhering to all its obligations; another echoed the best way to build such confidence is by not allowing transfers that violate the Treaty to continue. At the other end of the spectrum, there have been notes of caution in the statements of some about not using the ATT as a space to vilify states parties or bad behaviour and definitely an interest in bringing along the major players in the arms trade. Of course it would be beneficial to have them in the fold—but only if they are willing to play by the rules. If they are not, and states parties are concerned that demanding accountability among current ATT membership will send that signal, then the entire instrument is in jeopardy.

A civil society organisation framed it well in saying that, “While further universalisation is important, it is universal compliance that is the critical objective.” A primary criticism of the ATT has always been that it is discriminatory, and will continue to allow some states to sell, or acquire arms, with impunity and restrict the actions of others. Some of the states have levelled this criticism might well have cause to worry that their access would be restricted but expanding ATT membership cannot come at the cost of comprised implementation and accountability. This logic must underpin approaches to universalisation as well as to reporting and the transparency that it seeks to bring. The difficulties that a range of states parties are experiencing with submitting timely reports are very concerning, as are the discrepancies within the reports that complicate efforts at analysis. This first concern was stated by nearly every delegation during the session on reporting and transparency, and will need to be addressed concretely. Reporting is not an option, as some delegations stated, but a requirement.

In general the discussions on Wednesday moved smoothly between hearing reports from chairpersons and the ATT Secretariat, to responses and contributions from states parties, signatories, and observers. Statements have been succinct and largely supportive of the draft documents each group has put forward for adoption at CSP4.

Read the full summary from day three of CSP4 here.

[PDF] ()