Q&A: Ten years of the Arms Trade Treaty

As we mark ten years since the Arms Trade Treaty entered into force, Roy Isbister and Elizabeth Kirkham from Saferworld’s Arms Unit reflect on their experience of working on the global treaty to regulate the international arms trade. They explore Saferworld’s involvement in bringing the Treaty into existence, the main successes and challenges of the ATT since its adoption, and the progress they hope to see from states in the future.

What led to the adoption of the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT)?

Liz: The origins of the ATT lie in the campaign for an EU Code of Conduct on UN arms exports, which was initiated by a small group of NGOs, including Saferworld, in the early 1990s. We joined with European partners to build support across Europe, and this inspired us and others around the world to think about what other contexts you could introduce regulation of international arms transfers.

The Control Arms Campaign, launched in 2003 by a group of NGOs including Saferworld, really helped move the dial in terms of government support for the treaty and a higher international profile. But the real step change came when the UK government decided to support negotiation of a treaty through the UN. They approached Saferworld and asked if we would be willing to host an event, where the Foreign Secretary at the time, Jack Straw, would announce that the UK government was going to put its weight behind an ATT.

Following this, in late 2006, the first ATT-related resolution was passed at the UN General Assembly. This was led by not only the UK but six other countries representing different regions of the world. It was a clever move because it immediately gave the ATT a global conception. That first resolution was the first step in a UN process that ultimately led to formal negotiations in 2012–2013.

What are some of the most notable successes of the ATT so far?

Roy: We now have 116 States Parties. That's a higher number than I would have anticipated ten years ago. That's very positive. 

The ATT requires states to build national systems so that they can regulate the arms that are crossing their borders. And a surprising number of countries just simply didn't have a system in place. We've done a lot of work with individual states to analyse their existing system, compare it to what's required under the ATT, and then help plug that gap and build systems that mean that they can actually do what's required by the ATT. These are examples of very positive change.

We've also seen, depending on the context, cases where there might be conflict or significant armed violence, where States Parties as a whole are deciding to not supply arms into those contexts. Sudan is an example. Arms are finding their way there, but for the most part, States Parties appear to be keeping their hands clean.

What have been the main challenges?

Roy: We do still see examples of problematic behaviour by States Parties. This seems to be where they perceive themselves as having a major national security interest, or significant economic interest, and so decide to support a party to a conflict. We have seen this in the support for members of the Saudi- and UAE-led coalition in the war in Yemen, and more recently there have been problematic arms exports supporting the Israeli Defence Forces in Gaza and Lebanon since late 2023.

We see some significant countries involved in this problematic practice. Liz mentioned the positive role the UK played historically in the ATT, but now we see it as a very worrisome actor in terms of the arms exports it has authorised to Saudi Arabia and Israel.

Liz: Also of note is the role of Signatory states, who have signed but not ratified the ATT. Whereas States Parties are required to follow every single binding provision within the Treaty, Signatory states are merely required to not undermine the object and purpose of the treaty, which includes preventing human suffering.

But we see many examples of Signatory states being involved in problematic transfers to some very bad situations, for example in Gaza, Sudan and Libya. This is a real challenge for the Treaty. How exactly are these states required to act? This has yet to be really explored, let alone agreed, but it is something that we really need to think hard about.

Unfortunately, there is no enforcement mechanism associated with the ATT. As civil society, we try to hold states to account, but fundamentally the Treaty belongs to the states, and they will or will not hold each other to account as they see fit. The only way they can really do that is by having discussions about problematic arms transfers within the context of the ATT Conference of States Parties or the working groups that precede it every year. That hasn't happened in any meaningful or systematic way. But it is something that could potentially take place going forward. 

How has Saferworld been involved in working on the ATT since its adoption? 

Liz: At Saferworld we work with organisations in different parts of the world to encourage states to join the ATT and then to implement it in line with its spirit and to the letter.

Roy: As well as working within the formal process and supporting states to build national control systems, a number of years ago Saferworld set up an informal ATT Expert Group process. We bring together representatives from states, civil society, and regional and international organisations to talk about important ATT-related issues.

These are often issues that the formal process isn't yet willing to grapple with. We aim to start these conversations and then bring them back into the formal process and therefore move the agenda forward. For example, we've looked at how the ATT should be applied to issues such as transnational organised crime and terrorism. We've looked at specific geographical contexts, such as Ukraine, Myanmar and Ethiopia, and how the ATT should impact on prospective exports to those countries.

As we celebrate the ten-year anniversary, what are the most pressing issues to focus on? 

Liz: If you were to ask that question of most people involved in the process, they might well say universalisation. There are parts of the world where the ATT is very well represented: in Europe, Latin America and West Africa, for example. But then in East Africa, Asia Pacific, the Middle East and North Africa, there are hardly any States Parties and very few Signatories. The challenge is to sell the benefits of joining the ATT in those regions, insofar as it helps build capacity and bolster national security, through controlling your own borders to prevent illicit arms trafficking.

But universalisation and implementation are two sides of the same coin. Until we have a situation where existing States Parties and Signatories are living up to their obligations, through their arms transfer policy and practice, states outside the treaty will be looking and thinking “Do we really need to join? It doesn't seem to be working optimally”. We need a big step up in implementation by States Parties and Signatories. Which should encourage more states to come on board. 

What progress would you like to see by the 20th anniversary?  

Roy: The Treaty explicitly references a role for civil society in supporting implementation, while States continually refer to the need for and value of civil society involvement in the ATT and applaud the work that we do. However, the current funding environment is very difficult. It's all very well for states to say that they want, support and applaud civil society engagement, but without them actually providing financial funding support, it's increasingly difficult for civil society to play that role.  

We should not discount the fact that we have come a considerable distance in the last ten years. But we have reached the point, which I think is widely acknowledged, where we need to change gears. The next ten years requires a shift whereby we start focusing on the actual transfers that are causing human suffering and resulting in violations of international law, that are not in the spirit or to the letter of the Treaty. We want states to start to change their practice so that they are implementing the treaty robustly and appropriately. As we look at the world around us, the need for an effective ATT is becoming more urgent by the day. We cannot kid ourselves that this further progress will be easy, but then it was not easy getting this far. Certainly we at Saferworld are committed to continuing the work to ensure the ATT does ultimately fulfil the promise of its object and purpose. 

Read more about Saferworld’s work on the Arms Trade Treaty and effective arms control.

The next decade will bring new challenges for arms control. Strategic funding partnerships are crucial for innovation, rapid response to crises, and for building the networks that create high impact initiatives like the Arms Trade Treaty. To discuss ways we could work together, please contact Abigail Connolly (aconnolly@saferworld-global.org).

Photo credit: Control Arms/Paramita Nath