Frequently Asked Questions on the Arms Trade and the Arms Trade Treaty

[darrels joy]

Frequently Asked Questions on the Arms Trade and the Arms Trade Treaty

1. Is Control Arms calling for a complete ban on arms?

No. What is vital is to regulate the arms trade to prevent weapons falling into the hands of those
who would use them for serious abuses and unlawful acts. While a few types of weapons and
munitions are prohibited (e.g. landmines), most arms can have a legitimate use under international
law for national self-defence and law enforcement. However, this use must be strictly controlled in
order to protect human rights and respect international agreements on the protection of noncombatants
in armed conflict.

2. How would an ATT work?

An effective ATT would be based on a simple principle: no transfers of weapons likely to be used
for violations of international law. It would establish common binding standards that must be
applied to assess international weapons transfers. These standards should be based on existing
international law including international human rights and humanitarian law. In practice, this should
mean that a transfer of weapons or munitions will be stopped if there is evidence that the weapons
are likely to be used for grave violations of international human rights, humanitarian law, or will
adversely affect sustainable development.
Control Arms’ proposal for an ATT has several key elements that would ensure consistency
between international transfers of conventional arms and existing international law:

• Arms transfers that violate existing international law should not be authorised by states.
• Before any transfer can occur, it subject to assessment and authorisation every state –
this includes the state where the weapons will end up.
• No states should authorise arms transfers if the weapons are likely to be used to
commit serious violations of international human rights or humanitarian laws.
• When assessing and authorising an arms transfer, the exporting state must take into
consideration a number of additional factors relating to the risk of diversion, the impact
on sustainable development or regional security, the likely use of the arms to facilitate
terrorist acts and involvement in corruption.
• States should agree on common standards for national control mechanisms,
for example the controls needed on arms brokering and the foreign licensed
production of weapons.

3. What weapons and munitions would the Arms Trade Treaty cover?

An Arms Trade Treaty should cover all conventional weapons and ammunition – including small
arms and light weapons, heavy weapons, military support equipment, components and parts,
technology for making arms and “dual use” items which have both civil and military applications.

4. What are conventional weapons?

Conventional weapons is a broad category that includes small arms, light weapons, ammunition,
explosives, bombs and heavy weapons and military equipment such as missiles, tanks and military
vehicles, military aircraft and helicopters and naval ships, as well as components for all these
weapons. This category does not include weapons of mass destruction, chemical or biological
weapons which are already covered by treaties.

5. What regulations and agreements currently exist on conventional arms transfers?

There is no

global system of law that deals with the international transfer of all conventional
weapons. A few treaties and agreements address a limited aspect of the trade. For example, the
Landmines Treaty bans the production, transfer and use of anti-personnel mines and the
Conventional Weapons Treaty and its Protocols prohibit and limit the use of certain weapons and
munitions considered to have inhumane effects, such as blinding laser weapons, certain
fragmentation devices and incendiary devices. The UN Conventional Arms Register is an
agreement designed to increase transparency of the arms trade, it has two major problems in
terms of its scope and effectiveness:

• States submit reports on arms transfers on a voluntary basis – but only about
80 states report regularly to the Register and it’s not enough to ensure effective
control of the trade
• The Register is not comprehensive – it only includes six types of large weapon
systems but doesn’t include some heavy weapons, dual use items or small arms
and light weapons.
At the regional level, some strong agreements pertaining to arms transfers have been developed
and implemented over the past five years. However, as yet, very few states have incorporated the
agreements into their national law and practice. The agreements include:

• Central American (SICA) Code of Conduct on Arms Transfers (2006)
• West African (ECOWAS) Convention on Small Arms and Light Weapons (2006)
• East Africa – Best Practice Guidelines for the Nairobi Protocol on Small Arms (2005)

So far, through these and other agreements, 118 states have committed themselves to the
principle that arms transfers likely to be used for serious violations of human rights and war crimes
should be prevented. But such commitments are often not legally binding.
When the international arms trade is considered from a national perspective, the need for a
globally binding treaty is particularly clear. The current patchwork of national arms controls is
riddled with loopholes and poorly enforced.

6. How do arms dealers and brokers exploit national arms control loopholes
and how will an ATT help to prevent this?

The impact that an ATT will have is perhaps best explained by giving a specific example: Between
1999 and 2002, thousands of weapons and millions of rounds of ammunition were supplied from
Ukraine, Serbia and China to Sierra Leone and Liberia, even though these countries were under
UN arms embargoes. Many of these weapons were supplied via third (non-embargoed) countries
like Burkina Faso or Guinea using false paperwork. Arms brokers, including some operating from
Western Europe and Israel, skillfully exploited weaknesses in various national control systems to
facilitate these deals. If agreement had been reached internationally on a set of common binding
standards – the basis of an ATT

-– and the ATT had been ratified by governments involved at any
stage of the weapons supply, this would have helped prevent those arms transfers by making all
governments accountable for thoroughly checking paperwork during all stages of the weapons’
transit. Even if these governments had not ratified the ATT, the very existence of a Treaty
endorsed by the majority of countries would make it much more difficult for governments to openly
endorse such deals, leaving them at risk of isolation by the international community.

7. How will the Arms Trade Treaty be enforced?

The Arms Trade Treaty proposed by Control Arms and other NGOs would be incorporated into the
national law and regulations of every ratifying nation, and reinforced through rules and procedures
such as regular public reporting and crosschecking of cargoes and licenses. Therefore it would be
illegal for any supplier government to ignore the Treaty’s provisions when supplying arms. Any
decisions that break the terms of the Treaty could then be challenged and potentially overturned in
the national courts.

Under the proposed Treaty, governments would be required to report their conventional arms
transfers in an open and transparent way, which would lead to greater public and parliamentary
scrutiny. As with any treaty, there would be international controls ranging from diplomatic pressure
to legal action, potentially right up to the International Court of Justice. A mechanism for the
settlement of disputes could also be built into the treaty itself.

8. Who will decide which countries, armed groups or companies can/can’t be sold to?

Currently, the responsibility in most national laws for authorising arms transfers lies with both the
exporting and importing governments, and with any government exercising control over the arms in
transit or the activities of brokers and other intermediaries involved. This will still be the case under
an ATT, but states will have standardised obligations and control mechanisms as well as being
liable for failing to fulfill these obligations and implement such mechanisms.

Under an effective ATT, these obligations and standards will be formalised in international law so
that all states concerned with the transfer (export, import, transit, brokering) must agree that the
transfer is legitimate and carry out certain basic checks.

They will have to decide on a case-bycase
basis whether a sale or transfer or brokered deal would violate the Arms Trade Treaty’s
criteria or principles and whether the control mechanisms have been implemented to ensure
legitimate delivery and uses. These criteria or principles and the standards for control mechanisms
will be objective, non-discriminatory and based upon universal principles of international law, so all
countries would benefit.

The criteria or principles and the standards for control mechanisms would be legally enforceable
and therefore open to legal challenge under most legal systems. Also, under the treaty,
governments would be required to report on their arms transfers in an open and transparent
way to an international register, which would lead to greater public and parliamentary scrutiny
and confidence. In this way civil society, industry and the judiciary would have a role to play in
monitoring the performance of their government in fulfilling its obligations under the treaty.

Legal recourse would be open to those who want to challenge licensing decisions
(either denials or grants).

9. How will an ATT work if key exporter countries don’t support it?

There is ample evidence to suggest that creating an international norm modifies the behaviour of
states if a sufficient number of states support that norm, even if some major states have not signed
up to a particular treaty. For example, some influential states have remained outside the
convention banning anti-personnel landmines, yet not a single government has openly endorsed
the trade in anti-personnel mines since the convention came into force and the world is a safer and
more humane place for it. An effective and fair ATT would increasingly attract states who would not
want to be left outside the dominant conventional arms trading system.

There is a powerful legal argument for moving towards an instrument like the Arms Trade Treaty.

The fact that some states may not be willing to accept their responsibilities to respect international
human rights and humanitarian law, or to apply these explicitly to the trade in weapons, does not
make these responsibilities any less real or binding.

10. How would an ATT affect weapons and munitions transfers for countries’ self-defence?

The Arms Trade Treaty should be designed to effectively regulate the legal trade in conventional
arms to drastically reduce illegal and irresponsible arms trading and uses. The UN Charter outlines
the right of states to self-defence if attacked and, under international law, states also have a duty to
protect their populations and enforce the law, including in the face of an imminent threat to life.

Thus, governments will not stop the supply of weapons and munitions for the legitimate use in
self-defence or policing – we have to ensure that the Treaty will require states to abide by the
relevant laws and standards when carrying out self defence and policing, rules that are often
contained in international human rights and humanitarian laws. This will greatly improve
the regulation of these transfers.

The right of states to use force is not unlimited and this must be reflected in an ATT. Two of the
most significant bodies of international law seek to protect the individual. International human rights
law protects the right to life and security, and it applies at all times in all locations. Police and law
enforcers may only use lethal force to prevent an imminent threat of death or very serious injury.
International humanitarian law (mainly the Geneva Conventions) protects applies in situations of
armed conflict; its aim is to regulate the conduct of war, prevent inhumane weaponry and reduce
the suffering of civilians. These laws are designed to protect people and they must be incorporated
into the Arms Trade Treaty alongside respect for other relevant treaties and international
customary laws.

11. What would an Arms Trade Treaty mean for civilian gun ownership?

The Arms Trade Treaty on international transfers of conventional arms will hopefully have a
provision to restrict the transfer of small arms to countries where the transfer would contribute to a
pattern of violent crime, but it would most likely not affect national laws allowing private citizens to
be properly licensed to own and lawfully use a firearm in cases where they have a compelling
reason to use a firearm and can do so safely.

12. How long will it take to develop and implement an Arms Trade Treaty?

Work will begin in earnest early in 2008 as the UN Group of Government Experts is established.
The GGE must report on its findings by October 2008 when the First Committee of the
General Assembly meets to consider the matter again, and then it is likely that there will be
a further process to develop the actual text of the ATT arising from the General Assembly
in December 2008.

Background to the Treaty

1995 Amnesty International and several other Nobel Peace Laureates and
NGOs thought of the idea of globally binding rules on arms transfers.
1998-2001 An ATT proposal was prepared with the help of lawyers from Cambridge
University’s Lauterpacht Centre.
2003 Amnesty International, Oxfam and the International Action Network on
Small Arms joined forces to launch the Control Arms campaign to
focus on an Arms Trade Treaty.
2006 The resolution ‘Towards an Arms Trade Treaty’ was tabled for voting
at the UN General Assembly in 2006.

The Resolution was passed at the UN First Committee (Disarmament and International Security) in October. 139 countries voted for the Resolution,
24 abstained and only the United States voted against it.
The Resolution then went to vote at the General Assembly in December 2006.

The number of Yes votes there increased to 153; the number of abstentions

was unchanged (24) and only the US voted No again.

http://www.controlarms.org/en/docume...arms-trade-and

[darrels joy]

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State

Washington, DC

October 14, 2009


Conventional arms transfers are a crucial national security concern for the United States, and we have always supported effective action to control the international transfer of arms.




The United States is prepared to work hard for a strong international standard in this area by seizing the opportunity presented by the Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty at the United Nations. As long as that Conference operates under the rule of consensus decision-making needed to ensure that all countries can be held to standards that will actually improve the global situation by denying arms to those who would abuse them, the United States will actively support the negotiations.

Consensus is needed to ensure the widest possible support for the Treaty and to avoid loopholes in the Treaty that can be exploited by those wishing to export arms irresponsibly.


On a national basis, the United States has in place an extensive and rigorous system of controls that most agree is the “gold standard” of export controls for arms transfers. On a bilateral basis, the United States regularly engages other states to raise their standards and to prohibit the transfer or transshipment of capabilities to rogue states, terrorist groups, and groups seeking to unsettle regions. Multilaterally, we have consistently supported high international standards, and the Arms Trade Treaty initiative presents us with the opportunity to promote the same high standards for the entire international community that the United States and other responsible arms exporters already have in place to ensure that weaponry is transferred for legitimate purposes.



The United States is committed to actively pursuing a strong and robust treaty that contains the highest possible, legally binding standards for the international transfer of conventional weapons. We look forward to this negotiation as the continuation of the process that began in the UN with the 2008 UN Group of Governmental Experts on the ATT and continued with the 2009 UN Open-Ended Working Group on ATT.

http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2009a/10/130573.htm

[darrels joy]

The United Nations and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton are moving forward with their plan to confiscate your guns.

The United States joined 152 other countries in support of the Arms Trade Treaty Resolution, which establishes the dates for the 2012 UN conference intended to attack American sovereignty by stripping Americans of the right to keep and bear arms.

Working groups of anti-gun countries will begin scripting language for the conference this year, creating a blueprint for other countries when they meet at the full conference.

The stakes couldn’t be higher.

Former United Nation’s ambassador John Bolton has cautioned gun owners about the Arms Trade Treaty and says the UN “is trying to act as though this is really just a treaty about international arms trade between nation states, but there’s no doubt that the real agenda here is domestic firearms control.”

Establishing the dates for the Arms Trade Treaty Conference is just the first step toward their plans for total gun confiscation.

The worldwide gun control mob will ensure the passage of an egregious, anti-gun treaty…

. . .and that’s where Secretary of State Hillary Clinton steps in.

Once the UN Gun Ban is passed by the General Assembly of the United Nations it must be ratified by each nation, including the United States.

As an arch enemy of gun owners, Clinton has pledged to push the U.S. Senate to ratify the treaty. She will push for passage of this outrageous treaty designed to register, ban and CONFISCATE firearms owned by private citizens like YOU.

That’s why it’s vital you sign the special petition I’ve made up for your signature that DEMANDS your U.S. Senators vote AGAINST ratification of the UN’s “Small Arms Treaty.”

http://www.lewrockwell.com/spl2/un-gun-ban.html