As the ATT matures into its second decade of existence, it will need to demonstrate its contribution to peace, security and stability, reducing human suffering, and promoting cooperation, transparency and responsible actions by States Parties in the international conventional arms trade in an increasingly complex global environment. This will involve enhancing Treaty implementation by the 116 current States Parties, as well as further universalisation of the Treaty to bring on-board additional States Parties, particularly in under-represented regions.
Nevertheless, pursuing universalisation, implementation and transparency simultaneously involves trade-offs. For example, maximising universalisation efforts can bring in states that may have limited resources or political will to fully implement the Treaty. Conversely, ambitious approaches towards ensuring the full and transparent implementation of the Treaty’s provisions, including by scrutinising potential cases of non-compliance, could discourage some non-States Parties from ratifying or acceding to the ATT.
Implementation challenges
Ensuring the continued effectiveness and credibility of the Treaty will involve overcoming deficits in the political will to implement actions required by the Treaty, such as reporting and the systematic application of ATT criteria in the context of arms export risk assessments. It will also involve addressing how national control systems operate in practice, as the ATT currently has no review mechanism or forum to examine States Parties’ arms transfer decisions in the context of conflict and crises, as well as serious violations of international humanitarian and human rights law committed or facilitated by internationally transferred conventional arms. This may become more difficult if national interpretations of the legal provisions within Articles 6 and 7 begin to diverge due to changes in the geopolitical climate. While the constructive and relatively apolitical nature of ATT discussions is an asset, there may be some scope for peer-to-peer reviews of State Party implementation on a voluntary basis, which could help to build trust. Moving forward, States Parties – both existing and aspiring – should make better use of what has been achieved so far, namely the creation of a wealth of guidance for enhancing and improving national arms transfer control systems as well as a plethora of mechanisms for constructive exchanges.
One of the key strengths of the ATT is its comprehensive approach to preventing internationally transferred conventional arms being used to commit or facilitate serious violations of international humanitarian law (IHL) and international human rights law (IHRL) through a range of measures such as national control lists, improved legislation, import regulations and export assessments relating to conventional arms. Recent CSPs, however, have focused largely on themes related to diversion as well as technocratic aspects such as the role of industry and interagency cooperation. As a consequence, many stakeholders from the fields of disarmament, human rights and conflict prevention who were instrumental to the establishment of the Treaty, and who have a crucial role to play in promoting its universalisation and implementation, have chosen to allocate less of their increasingly limited time and resources to the ATT. Revitalising interagency and cross-sectoral cooperation on topics such as national Treaty implementation and IHL/IHRL might help to motivate relevant stakeholders to return to the Treaty process and contribute to more effective Treaty implementation that harnesses synergies with other instruments. Such a strategy may require a more flexible approach to assistance on Treaty implementation, and more localised engagement.
Effective Treaty implementation also involves addressing the whole supply chain, including brokering, transit and trans-shipments in addition to imports and exports. Moreover, as arms technologies evolve, so too does the nature of the arms trade. New technologies used in the arms industry, such as 3D printing and artificial intelligence, can be traded internationally without any goods crossing physical borders. There is little appetite to revise the Treaty text, particularly Article 4 on parts and components, in light of these changes. This could risk the weakening of its provisions. Therefore, States Parties will need to explore how to apply the Treaty’s existing provisions as the nature of these arms-related supply chains evolve.
Universalisation challenges
While the wide-ranging parameters of the ATT create the potential for the Treaty to be impactful, the expansiveness of the ATT’s provisions can be daunting for states that are considering ratifying the Treaty, particularly given the large number of government ministries and stakeholders that need to be involved in its implementation. The scope and activities of the ATT, coupled with the plethora of pre-existing commitments arising from already-established disarmament and arms control agreements, may discourage some states from joining the Treaty for fear of increasing the burden on already stretched resources.
ATT meetings are most useful when they bring together technical experts from capitals in order to discuss innovative solutions to shared challenges in their work. In practice, however, most delegates at ATT meetings are diplomats and thus discussions can be somewhat superficial. Moreover, for those delegates who have come from capitals, it can be intimidating to share challenges openly in international, Geneva-based, venues in front of other states who may not have a good understanding of their specific regional or national context. Some may prefer to engage with regional instruments rather than international mechanisms such as the ATT.
Fostering higher quality ATT engagement is crucial to fostering greater universalisation. One option would be to convene technical expert meetings to review Treaty implementation on a 5-yearly basis. Holding these meetings outside of Geneva could be a way of bringing the ATT closer to other regions. Similarly, it may be more effective to complement the CSP cycle with smaller ad hoc meetings of states. These could convene likeminded states with a similar profile (e.g. those that are major exporters or mainly importers) or states from the same region or sub-region. States may be more willing to share challenges with a smaller group in a more familiar context, creating the conditions for more open and in-depth technical discussions. The VTF could be used to fund some of these discussions.
Addressing larger challenges related to implementation and universalisation requires coordinated, long-term efforts. One option could be to frame the ATT’s annual themes within a longer 5-10 year ATT strategy. Interested States Parties could also volunteer to provide sustained engagement to the Secretariat and successive chairs as ‘friends of the ATT’.