OHCHR seeks input for report on the impact of firearms on human rights

By Patrizia Scannella, WILPF Human Rights Programme
5 December 2024

Since 2015, at the request of the United Nations (UN) Human Rights Council (HRC), the Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights (OHCHR) has taken up the issue of the civilian acquisition, possession, and use of firearms, drawing attention to the human rights impacts of guns and providing recommendations to states on this topic. Most recently, OHCHR has called for contributions to a report it will present to the HRC at its fifty-ninth session in June 2025.

The OHCHR report was requested by resolution 56/9, “Human rights and the civilian acquisition, possession and use of firearms,” which was adopted without a vote by the HRC on 11 July 2024. This resolution is a significant contribution to spotlighting and addressing the negative impacts of firearms on human rights and ensuring accountability, including of businesses. The OHCHR report commissioned by this resolution is to focus on “the underlying root causes and risk factors driving firearms-related violence on the right to participate in cultural life and the right to take part in the conduct of public affairs.” Inputs should be sent by 31 December 2024.

This article provides an overview of the negotiations of the resolution on firearms at the fifty-sixth session of the HRC (18 June–12 July 2024) and highlights WILPF’s contributions.

Overall WILPF’s contribution to HRC resolution 56/9

As with previous resolutions on this issue, WILPF actively engaged in advocacy in the negotiations of this resolution. Among other things, we shared views on the draft text with the main sponsors—Ecuador and Peru—and monitored the negotiations, where we also commented on proposals made by other state delegations. Among other things, WILPF advocated for the inclusion of references to “root causes” of the proliferation of firearms, and to companies’ marketing practices and their exploitation of socially constructed notions of masculinity and other gender stereotypes in this context. WILPF also successfully advocated for the inclusion of a reference to the role of marketing of weapons. Furthermore, WILPF argued against requests for deletion of a paragraph acknowledging that ownership and misuse of arms are closely linked to specific dynamics of control, power, domination, and strength. We proposed elements to strengthen this reference and link it to marketing strategies. WILPF also provided arguments against the United States’ (US) delegation’s requests that would have weakened the resolution, such as the deletion of recommendations for states to strengthen control mechanisms of firearms and their ammunition and the reintroduction of a reference to “constitutional frameworks”.

WILPF’s engagement in this process is part of our broader action to demand urgent attention and resolve to prevent, address, and remedy human rights risks and abuses related to firearms, as our statement “Disarm the Enablers: End the impunity of the Firearms Industry and its Helpers” illustrates. In our advocacy on these issues at the HRC over the years, we have been closely collaborating with partner organisations, especially the Quaker UN Office (QUNO) in Geneva.

Key issues of contention in the negotiations of the resolution on firearms at HRC56

The delegations especially supportive of the resolution were South Africa, Panama, and Cuba, with Costa Rica also backing specific points. The US and Russia made the majority of proposals that would have weakened the text (see examples below, including the US explanation of position before the resolution’s adoption). The United Kingdom (UK), in some cases, attempted to mediate by suggesting compromise language to accommodate those requested changes to the draft, but unhelpfully insisted on replacing “use of firearms” with “misuse of firearms.” Egypt requested the inclusion of a reference to states’ responsibility to ensure people’s security and their clear obligation to protect civilians from gun violence, a proposal supported by Cuba and South Africa. For its proposal, Egypt used text based on the UN Human Rights Committee’s General Comment No. 36 on the right to life, paragraph 30. Switzerland was generally supportive of the resolution but backed the US proposal to include a reference to “constitutional frameworks,” which the UK also supported.

Does ammunition fall outside of the scope an HRC resolution on firearms?

The US requested the removal of any reference to ammunition, baselessly arguing that ammunition does not fall within the scope of this HRC resolution or the HRC’s mandate more broadly. From the US perspective, ammunition should be addressed in other forums, such as the new global framework on ammunition set to meet in 2025. The US argued that work under that framework shouldn’t be pre-empted.

In addition to Ecuador and Peru—the main sponsors of the resolution—the delegations of Panama and South Africa strongly supported the inclusion of references to ammunition throughout the resolution, highlighting its significant role in the broader issue of firearm-related violence and control. Ecuador specifically pointed out that ammunition was included in two previous resolutions on firearms. The European Union (EU) said it was open to supporting the addition of ammunition but asked for use of the wording “firearms and their ammunition.” Russia mostly emphasised the need for clear and precise language. Control Arms, QUNO, and WILPF all emphasised the importance of retaining references to “ammunition”, stressing that addressing ammunition is critical to tackling the full spectrum of firearm-related concerns.

References to ammunition were kept in the final text, including in preambular paragraph (PP) 6 recalling the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs), “stressing that the responsibility to respect human rights is a global standard of expected conduct for all business enterprises wherever they operate,” and encouraging states and business enterprises, “including those involved in the manufacture, marketing, sale, and transfer of firearms and their ammunition,” to implement the UNGPs; operative paragraph (OP) 6, which calls for the adoption of “requirements for manufacturers and dealers of firearms and their ammunition based on the UNGPs, which include the responsibility to avoid causing or contributing to adverse human rights impacts, preventing, remediating when appropriate or mitigating adverse human rights impacts that are directly linked to their operations, and the responsibility to conduct human rights due diligence;” OP9, encouraging states to collect and publish disaggregated data on the acquisition, possession, and use of firearms and their ammunition and to analyse the underlying drivers of firearm use.

Arms regulation or arms control?

The US questioned references to “improving control” (e.g. improve control of the number of civilian-held firearms) or “strengthening control mechanisms” arguing that it was unclear what “control” means. In some cases, the US offered alternative language (e.g. “regulatory mechanisms” instead of “control mechanisms”), in others it just asked for deletion. The UK supported deletion of “improving control” stating that previous wording referring to “regulation” already covers it.

South Africa, supported by Panama and Costa Rica, strongly advocated for the use of “control,” arguing that it is integral to the concept of arms regulation and necessary to address both legal and illegal firearms effectively. They emphasised that the term “control” aligns with the goal of arms control and not just regulation. The European Union was generally supportive to references to “control,” but suggested clarifying “firearms and their control mechanisms.”  Russia proposed a compromise with wording like “national control mechanisms” but still stressed the need to be cautious about potential overlaps with other international mechanisms. Cuba supported the inclusion of “control” but said it was open to compromise on the exact wording. WILPF and Control Arms emphasised the importance of “control” in effectively managing the impact of firearms and ensuring accountability. References to “control” were kept in the final text (PP10, PP15, and OP8.)

Firearms and dynamics of power, control, domination, and strength

Another positive addition is the resolution’s acknowledgement in PP14 that “the ownership and use of firearms are closely linked to specific dynamics of control, power and domination and strength, which contributes to perpetuating gender-based violence, and that addressing gendered root causes of violence is essential.” This is a significant improvement of PP13 of resolution 50/12 (July 2022) that only acknowledged that “misuse of arms can perpetuate gender-based violence, and that addressing gendered root causes of violence is essential.”

The US argued that the reference to “specific dynamics of control, power, domination and strength” should be deleted, with the focus kept only on gender-based violence; the US also requested using “misuse of firearms” rather than “use”.  South Africa, supported by Panama, Costa Rica, and Cuba, argued that dynamics of control, power, and domination are precisely what underpin gender-based violence and said that acknowledging this is crucial to addressing the root causes of such violence. They advocated for retaining strong language to highlight these dynamics explicitly. The European Union suggested softer language such as “use of arms may be closely linked to” and supported focusing on gender-based violence aspects. The UK argued against the term “ownership” and preferred “misuse,” emphasising the need for clear links to gender-based violence without diluting the focus. Russia supported the term “misuse” and said it preferred to delete or rephrase references to power dynamics but noted that it was open to new language that clarifies the intent.

WILPF, QUNO, and Control Arms strongly supported keeping references to specific dynamics of control, power, domination, and strength, arguing that research strongly links these factors to gender-based violence. WILPF also recommended strengthening the paragraph by referring to the fact that “arms manufacturers exploit gender stereotypes and the notion of manhood” in their marketing. Both WILPF and Control Arms stressed the importance of keeping “use” instead of “misuse” of firearms.

Human rights responsibilities of companies

The resolution refers to the role of businesses, “including those involved in the manufacture, marketing, sale and transfer of firearms and their ammunition.” References to the role of businesses are found in PP6 and OPs 6 and 14, including by recommending states’ adoption of requirements for manufacturers and dealers of firearms and their ammunition based on the UNGPs, such as to conduct human rights due diligence and to prevent, remediate, and mitigate human rights abuses linked to their operations.

Russia was especially focused on paragraphs with references to the UNGPs, expressing a preference for the deletion of OP14, and for the deletion or redrafting of OP6. Russia also proposed changing the reference to the UNGPs as a “global standard of expected conduct” to “an expected way of conduct” in PP6, arguing that it is not clear what is meant by “global standard” (the reference to “global standard” stayed in the final text). Other delegations, such as the US and the UK also commented on the paragraphs about the UNGPs; for example, the US requested that OP14 refer to “adverse human rights impacts with which they are involved, in line with the UNGPs” rather than “human rights impacts of their operations” (the final text refers to “the adverse human rights impacts of their operations”).

Should human rights considerations be undermined by constitutional frameworks?

WILPF also argued against the reintroduction of references to constitutional frameworks, cautioning that such references could undermine the primacy of human rights considerations, particularly in contexts where constitutional provisions or permissive legislation may prioritise firearm access over stringent human rights protections. QUNO also argued against that reintroduction, noting that adding a reference to “in accordance with international law” instead of “constitutional frameworks” would be much more relevant. Regrettably, in order to achieve consensus on the text, the wording “consistent with their constitutional frameworks” was reinstated in the final resolution text (in PP10: “recognizing that States should thus take appropriate measures to regulate and, where necessary, strengthen control of civilian-held firearms, consistent with their constitutional frameworks”) at the insistence of the US, with support from Russia, Switzerland, and the UK, despite its prior removal in the draft presented for negotiations by Ecuador and Peru at HRC56.

Final text, co-sponsorship, and adoption of the resolution

Co-sponsorship

The resolution had a total of 29 sponsors, including the main sponsors, Ecuador and Peru, and 27 co-sponsors. Of these, eight (Australia, Chile, Cyprus, Greece, Ireland, Luxembourg, Mexico, and Paraguay) co-sponsored draft resolution A/HRC/56/L.9/Rev.1 before it was tabled for adoption. Five states (Austria, Panama, Poland, Portugal, and San Marino) joined the co-sponsors before adoption, and 14 states (Azerbaijan, the Bahamas, Belgium, Botswana, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, Honduras, Liechtenstein, Norway, Spain, Switzerland, Thailand, Timor-Leste, and Togo) joined after adoption.

Statements during the adoption of the resolution

On 11 July 2024, the draft resolution A/HRC/56/L.9/Rev.1 was introduced by the representative of Peru, also on behalf of Ecuador, who recalled that HRC resolutions on firearms were initially focused on highlighting the importance of the regulation of the civilian use, acquisition, and possession of firearms to prevent numerous and widespread abuses and violations of the right to life and security of persons caused by firearms in civilian hands. But this scope was broadened to tackle also the impacts on other rights such as civil, political, economic, social, and cultural rights. The speaker added that this initiative acknowledges also the importance for states to adopt preventive approaches and develop public policies that are comprehensive and inclusive in nature to tackle the underlying causes and the risk factors that trigger firearms-based violence, including inequality and discrimination.

The statement also noted, among other things, the attention of draft resolution A/HRC/56/L.9/Rev.1 to the impact on human rights of firearms violence, including in connection with gangs and transnational organised crime. The speaker recalled that “the proliferation of weapons in our societies can lead to increased violence and insecurity. In a perverse way, fear of victimisation is a major factor motivating civilian gun ownership. We see a vicious cycle in which people in vulnerable situations are often the most affected.”

In a general comment on the draft, Luxembourg recalled that the resolution has evolved over the course of its iterations to also cover the need to tackle the deep causes of and the risk factors triggering violence linked to the use of firearms. It expressed its support to analysing the impacts of firearms on the right to civilian participation in the cultural life and to be involved in public affairs, noting that the report requested from OHCHR will enable states to better understand the impact on persons in vulnerable or marginalised situations and will recommend measures to protect them. Luxembourg also welcomed the fact that the resolution recognises the role played by companies in the manufacture, marketing, sale, and transfer of firearms, which means that they are accountable to respect human rights pursuant to the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.

In an explanation of position before the vote, the US expressed its gratitude to Peru and Ecuador for leading discussions on this resolution and for their efforts to achieve consensus on the final text. The US noted:

The issue of gun violence is of the utmost importance. The United States has too often experienced horrendous mass shootings. We grieve for the victims and their families who have lost loved ones and recognize that while gun violence can affect anyone, it has a disproportionate impact on certain communities, including the Black community in the United States. We have stood and will continue to firmly stand in solidarity with others against gun violence.

The US also referred to measures it has taken nationally to address gun violence, such as President Biden’s establishment in 2023 of the first-ever White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention and the Surgeon General Dr. Vivek Murthy’s release of “a landmark Surgeon General’s Advisory on Firearm Violence, declaring firearm violence in the United States a public health crisis.”

However, the US stated that at the same time, it:

must pursue solutions to curbing gun violence that are consistent with US law and that do not infringe upon the Second Amendment guarantee in the US Constitution that US citizens have the right to keep and bear arms. The Biden Administration is committed to developing meaningful reforms that better guard public safety without infringing on constitutional rights. In this context, we must emphasize that decisions regarding civilian acquisition, possession, and use of firearms and ammunition are solely under the sovereign jurisdiction of each individual country.

The US added that “accordingly, while we are joining consensus on this resolution, which highlights important concerns, we dissociate from all references to ‘ammunition’ therein as we believe that ammunition is more appropriately addressed in other fora and through other instruments.” The US also announced its dissociation from PP11 and OP12, arguing that “the language therein is vague, undefined, and unsupported. We are also concerned with the ambiguous references to ‘diversion’ and control’ in the resolution, which we understand to refer to enforcement of regulations consistent with U.S. law.” Finally, the US said that its joining consensus on this resolution “is not an endorsement or expression of support for any legal claims advanced by States in other fora.”

Background

The Human Rights Council (HRC) has, to date, adopted a total of six resolutions focusing on firearms and human rights. These are presented in this table:

Starting in 2015, the HRC resolutions requested reports from OHCHR. They are presented in this table: