Arms Trade Treaty questions and answers
- Arms end up in conflict zones and in the hands of oppressive governments across the developing world, costing lives and fuelling widespread abuse of human rights
- There are no legally-binding controls on the global arms trade.
In December 2006, 153 governments voted at the UN General Assembly to work towards an international Arms Trade Treaty (ATT). This was one of the key goals of the Control Arms campaign.
Find out below why an ATT is so important.
What difference would an international Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) make?
Currently there are no comprehensive, legally binding international rules governing the arms trade, and gaps and loopholes in national controls mean weapons are ending up in conflict zones and in the hands of human rights abusers. A tough International Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) would prevent this and ultimately, save lives and reduce human rights abuses.
If existing controls aren’t working, how do we know this will?
Most states have inconsistently implemented existing controls on the arms trade, or have failed to incorporate them into national law. Several arms-exporting countries have not signed up to these agreements at all. But an ATT would be international, ensuring all countries are working to the same standards. It would also be legally binding, and in line with international law
What would a treaty cover and how would it be enforced?
We are calling for a treaty covering all conventional weapons. This includes everything from pistols to tanks. States would be required to incorporate controls into their national laws, and report all arms transfers to an international registry. And to make the treaty really effective, states would need to agree a monitoring and enforcement regime, so that breaches of the treaty are fully investigated and penalised.
But what about weapons currently in circulation?
We can tackle the spread of arms by ‘stopping the flow and draining the pool’ – meaning we put in place stronger controls on the movement of arms, and take them out of communities already awash with weapons. Programmes of weapons collection and destruction have developed significantly in the last ten years. For instance in South Africa, schools, hospitals, public buildings and even towns have been designated as ‘Gun Free Zones’ – reducing fear and armed violence.
Why aren’t you calling for an end to the arms trade, ‘full stop’?
Arms have a legitimate use in our society. States have the right to use them to protect the life, liberty, and physical integrity of their citizens against attack – or imminent attack during internal law-enforcement operations. Arms can also play a specific role in international peace-keeping operations.
But aren’t some major arms exporters opposed to it?
153 states – three-quarters of world governments – voted in favour of starting work on an ATT at the UN General Assembly in December 2006. This included the UK and France – both of whom are among the biggest arms exporters. Other major exporters (China, Russia) abstained from the vote, suggesting that though sceptical, they are not completely opposed. Only the US voted against, leaving them isolated on this issue.
Has work started on an ATT?
Work has begun towards an ATT, which is tremendous progress for our campaign. In 2008, a Group of Governmental Experts will meet to discuss the ‘scope and feasibility’ of a future treaty. Some states are opposed to stricter controls and will try to use this process to weaken the final agreement. We must keep the pressure up to make sure they don’t succeed.
