On 24 December 2014, the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) entered into force marking the culmination of years of work by civil society, governments, and other international stakeholders, who found common ground and purpose to negotiate and adopt the first multilateral instrument governing the global trade in conventional arms. The ATT now provides the only global legally-binding agreement concerning regulation of the international transfer of conventional arms. It offers a unique platform for information exchange and cooperation and a mechanism for assessing the impact of arms transfers on international human rights and humanitarian law and gender-based violence. Many of the ATT’s architects hoped that the ATT would significantly curtail the illicit and irresponsible transfer of conventional arms and reduce human suffering, while providing much-needed transparency and accountability in the arms trade. However, progress towards these goals has been insufficient and there is significant frustration at the lack of effective implementation as well as universalisation of the Treaty in its first decade. The vision, hope, and expectations attached to the ATT are still to be realised.
Nevertheless, ten years is a relatively short period of time within which to change global norms and state behaviour. Moreover, the Treaty itself does not contain quantitative metrics whereby success can be judged, and it is practically impossible to measure how many lives may have been saved by arms transfers that never occurred. The ATT itself, and its formalisation of the link between the arms trade, international law, and human suffering is a huge normative achievement. Furthermore, the Treaty has spurred the adoption or enhancement of national-level regulations and capacities for arms transfer control, while the concept of transparency and accountability in the arms trade is now well-established.
Thus far, the principal focus of the formal ATT process has been on the Treaty structures and institutions including the development of guidance for Treaty implementation. Few discussions have been held on how States Parties are applying the Treaty’s provisions in their arms transfers. Although difficult at times, when such conversations have occurred most States Parties have reaffirmed their commitment to keeping the dialogue practical and constructive. Implementation challenges exist for many states, particularly those with limited capacity for and experience with international arms transfer control. Many such states are not often involved in exporting arms; accordingly, implementation support is required to focus on the whole transfer chain including states that are primarily a locus for transit or transhipment of conventional arms. Challenges to universalisation also exist; in particular in some regions and subregions where there is an apparent lack of understanding of the Treaty. Tailored approaches will be required, responding to states’ particular concerns and perspectives.