Evolution of international law on arms transfers Clare da Silva

Where are we today? Basic idea of an ATT: Create common international standards on the import, export and transfer of conventional arms Looking at states’ views on an ATT to see how states see their legal obligations on arms transfers

GA Resolution 61/ states voted in favour, one vote against Passed December 2006 Requested states to submit their initial views on “feasibility, scope and parameters” of an ATT

Overview of submissions 98 states submitted: ECOWAS – 10Great Lakes Region - 6 SADC – 3North Africa – 3 CARICOM – 3Middle East – 3 Central America – 5South America – 7 Other Americas – 2 Pacific Region - 4 Central Asia – 1East Asia – 6 South Asia – 3Eastern Europe - 6 European Union – 27 Other Europe – 4 2 international organisations (EU, Caricom)

Feasibility? 91 (out of 98) expressed support for an ATT, believe it is feasible 6 expressed concerns: Egypt, Pakistan, India, Russian Federation, China, Israel 1 expressly against an ATT: Venezuela US did not submit: “principled stance against an ATT”.

Why ATT is needed? “there are a significant number of states that are not party to any regional or multilateral arms transfer control agreements” (Canada) “There are various initiatives, both regional and global…However, in almost every case, there is a factor that weakens them: they are non-binding” (Peru)

Why ATT is needed? “The current diversity of standards…, demonstrates the need for universal, binding international standards that require states to observe a unified regulatory framework…” (Ecuador) “Given the international nature of the arms trade, there is a need for an international, comprehensive and transparent framework for all states to conform to.” (Liberia)

Doubters? “not convinced that it is the absence of common international standards on trade in conventional arms alone that results in irresponsible or illicit trade.” (India) “the focus of arms control work must be efforts to combat illegal arms transfers” (Russia) “regulating trade in conventional arms through a politically binding document, but not necessarily a legally binding convention”(Egypt)

Scope “all conventional weapons” Examples include: tanks, armoured vehicles, combat aircraft, helicopters Most states included SALW, MANPADS, and landmines

Scope: types of arms ammunition (62) parts and components (49) manufacturing technology (37) dual-use goods (27) explosives (25) technology (15) arms for internal security (11) manufacturing equipment (8) technological development (6)

Scope: types of transfers brokering (63) transit (57) trans-shipment (56) re-export (17) loan/gift (17) intangible transfers eg. licensed production (15) technical assistance (13) temporary export (13) temporary import (11) transport (10) lease (9) licensed production (8) commercial sales (6).

Parameters (or criteria) 1. EXISTING OBLIGATIONS: Criteria based on the existing treaty and regional commitments (42) UN Arms embargoes (41) UN Charter (19) Security Council Resolutions (16)

Parameters 2. Assessing on the likely use of a transfer Human rights (62) International humanitarian Law (58) Terrorists/acts of terrorism (51) Crime/criminal activities (39) Genocide (20)

Parameters 3. Impacts of the transfer: Impact on sustainable development (35) Regional stability (34) Heightening conflict (27) Internal stability (22)

Parameters 4. Recipient country: Risk of diversion (38) Corruption (12) Legitimate defence needs (9)

Top 5 criteria for states Human rights (62) International humanitarian law (58) Terrorism (51) Regional and international commitments (42) Arms embargoes (41)

Other issues raised Capacity building Monitoring and reporting mechanisms Enforcement mechanisms Dispute settlement National measures End use verification

Evolutions? Rapid development from PoA to ATT Willingness to look at broad regulatory framework Willingness to look at how weapons are used