Uneven implementation and systemic challenges
The effective implementation of the ATT’s provisions and obligations is the primary means through which the ATT delivers on its Object and Purpose. Whilst the Treaty has made significant progress in supporting states to put the right systems in place to regulate international arms transfers, it is widely acknowledged that implementation of the Treaty remains uneven across regions and the articles themselves, limiting its impact. This has been illustrated in the barriers facing implementation of Article 5 in strengthening national control systems, where just over half of States Parties currently do not have one, as well as applying Articles 6 and 7. In addition, there remain frequent reports of diversions of arms transferred by ATT States Parties and beyond, undermining confidence in arms control systems due to gaps in cooperation, information sharing and post-shipment controls.
Prioritisation and sequencing implementation efforts
The strategy, in pursuit of strengthening implementation by States Parties and ensuring that they are all able to work towards the same minimum standard, could re-centre implementation as a core priority of the Treaty, ensuring its objectives seek to strengthen national practice. Not all aspects of Treaty implementation can be addressed at once; therefore, objectives could be prioritised and sequenced according to need – for example, first focusing on strengthening national control systems and lists.
Supporting consistent application of Articles 6 and 7
Articles 6 and 7 of the ATT were widely recognised as central yet are often the most difficult articles to operationalise and demonstrate implementation of, due to commercial and national security limitations in what States can share, and the political risks of any exercise. Approaching Articles 6 and 7 in a way that scrutinises or compares individual transfer decisions could discourage engagement and undermine trust, particularly amongst States Parties that are still developing their national control systems. However, there are potential avenues to explore further to ensure meaningful engagement with Articles 6 and 7 within the strategy.
The strategy could frame Articles 6 and 7 as areas for peer-learning, assistance, confidence-building and practical support rather than reinterpretation of Treaty provisions or compliance enforcement. For example, facilitating discussions that explore how risk assessments are conducted, how information is gathered and weighed, and how decision-making is embedded within national systems. This could be envisaged through non-attributed case studies, simulation exercises, structured self-assessments or facilitated exchanges among technical experts – fostering a culture of learning whilst respecting national sensitivities.
Preventing diversion through cooperation and information exchange
On diversion, the strategy could further encourage cooperative, context-sensitive approaches, such as through focused, regional group exchanges and improved feedback loops through the Diversion Information Exchange Forum (DIEF), adding value in trust and confidence building measures and preventing and addressing diversion.