Reflections on the ATT at ten years and hopes for the next decade – News and resources

Comment & analysis

2 December 2024 Elizabeth Kirkham

This article was originally published by the Stimson Center as part of the ‘ATT at 10’ project, to which Saferworld was a contributor. 

The origins of the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) can be traced back to civil society efforts during the late 1990s and early 2000s to promote the establishment of common rules for regulating international trade in conventional arms. A proposed ‘International Code of Conduct on the Arms Trade’ – championed by Dr. Oscar Arias, former President of Costa Rica – gave way to the campaign for a legally binding treaty, in the form of a ‘Framework Convention on International Arms Transfers’ centred on applicable international legal principles as well as established and emerging norms relating to international arms transfer control. The formation of the Control Arms Campaign in 2003¹ proved the catalyst for a surge of support for the initiative – now called the ‘Arms Trade Treaty’ – leading to the establishment of a UK-led group of States who co-authored the first UNGA First Committee Resolution in December 2006. The UN Arms Trade Treaty process was thus underway, eventually leading to the adoption of the ATT on 2 April 2013 and its entry into force on 24 December 2014.

For many in civil society, the ATT is the focal point of a life’s work to promote transparency and responsibility in the international arms trade and, more specifically, to save lives and livelihoods. However, the ATT is not an end in itself; rather, it is a means to an end – as reflected in Article 1 (Object and Purpose). Contributing to international and regional peace, security, and stability; reducing human suffering; and promoting cooperation, transparency, and responsible action by States in the international arms trade are the raison d’être of the ATT and the goals against which Treaty implementation by States Parties and Signatories is measured.

The first 10 years of the ATT have been turbulent. Conflicts – including in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia, Myanmar, the Occupied Palestinian Territories, South Sudan, Sudan, Ukraine, and Yemen – as well as violent insurgencies in many more countries have created countless humanitarian crises upon which the existence of the ATT appears to have had minimal impact. The reasons for this are three-fold. Firstly, a significant number of arms-producing states remain outside of the Treaty (as neither States Parties or States Signatories) and clearly pay little or no attention to the ATT, despite the fact that many of its key provisions, such as within Article 6 (Prohibitions) & 7 (Export and Export Assessment), are rooted in existing international law. Secondly, far too many States Parties have not implemented the ATT robustly or consistently and have failed to adhere to both the letter and the spirit of the Treaty; factors that are compounded by the lack of an accountability mechanism within the ATT. Thirdly, although States Signatories are ‘obliged to refrain from acts which would defeat the object and purpose’,² the arms transfer actions of a small number have arguably run contrary to this obligation.

Consequently arms have continued to flow unchecked into conflict and human rights crisis zones, with the harrowing consequences in daily evidence on our television screens and on social media. We should be clear: the ATT is not at fault for the suffering of millions of people around the world. Indeed, without the ATT it is quite possible that there would be more armed conflict and more suffering. However, the current failings cannot be allowed to continue. States Parties and Signatories should urgently review their priorities and focus on reducing arms flows into conflict zones while ensuring there are serious and impactful consequences for those protagonists that are contributing to great human suffering. Furthermore, leading by example, States Parties and Signatories should do much more to encourage responsible behaviour on the part of States that have yet to join the ATT, including by promoting and incentivising universalisation of the Treaty.

It is important to note, however, that the ATT formal process has, to date, done little to provide the impetus towards fulfillment of the Treaty’s object and purpose. Despite significant concerns over arms transfers by some States Parties and Signatories into conflict and human rights crisis zones, there has been a marked unwillingness among the wider ATT membership to discuss such situations and to hold each other accountable. In February 2024, a sub-group of the Working Group on Effective Treaty Implementation hosted, for the first time, a discussion of arms transfers to contexts of concern – specifically to Israel for use in Gaza. From a civil society perspective, this felt like a turning point: the ATT was finally doing what we had always hoped it would, by enabling discussion of how States Parties are applying the Treaty’s provisions in their arms transfer decisions. It is to be hoped that, going forward, further discussions of this type will be held and that all ATT stakeholders will be empowered to raise and debate their concerns within the formal Treaty process, ultimately leading to greater responsibility and restraint in international arms transfers.

The 10th anniversary year of the entry into force of the ATT provides a unique opportunity for all ATT stakeholders to collectively reflect on the impact – or lack of impact – of the Treaty to date. It also provides a moment for consideration and articulation of those steps that can and will be taken to ensure that, by its 20th anniversary, the ATT will have made considerably more progress towards achieving its object and purpose, in particular reducing human suffering caused by the irresponsible arms trade.

Read more about Saferworld’s work on the Arms Trade Treaty. 

¹ The Control Arms Campaign was launched by Amnesty International, Oxfam, and the International Action Network on Small Arms and ultimately grew into a global civil society initiative.

² 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Article 18: 

_{Images are for reference only.Images and contents gathered automatic from google or 3rd party sources.All rights on the images and contents are with their legal original owners.}