Heralded by Human Rights Groups, Global Arms Trade Treaty Goes Into Force
With the new law in place, 'it will no longer be acceptable to turn a blind eye when arms are being transferred into the hands of regimes that will use them to devastate people’s lives.'
Inspiring hope among human rights activists around the world, the international Arms Trade Treaty went into effect on Wednesday, December 24, aimed at transforming the way the global arms trade operates and in turn helping to reduce armed violence and conflict.
Under the terms of the treaty, each state must assess if there is an overriding risk that a proposed arms export to another country will be used for or contribute to serious human rights abuses or organized crime; if so the deal cannot be authorized by the seller.
The treaty has widespread support; only three countries--North Korea, Syria, and Iran--voted against it at the United Nations. As of Wednesday, 130 countries had signed it, and 60 had ratified. The U.S. signed the Arms Trade Treaty in September 2013, but the Senate has not yet ratified it.
Human rights groups heralded the treaty going into force.
"The ATT will transform the way arms and ammunitions are traded around the world meaning there can be no doubt about who will be their end-user," said Anna Macdonald, director of Control Arms, a global alliance based in New York that has been campaigning for an arms treaty since 2003. "It will no longer be acceptable to turn a blind eye and look the other way when arms are being transferred into the hands of regimes that will use them to devastate people's lives and violate human rights."
According to Amnesty International, "[a]t least half a million people die every year on average and millions more are injured, raped, and forced to flee from their homes as a result of the poorly regulated global trade in weapons and munitions. The arms trade is shrouded in secrecy, but the recorded value of international transfers is approaching USD$100 billion annually."
Clare da Silva, a lawyer who assisted Amnesty International with legal and policy advice over many years through the treaty negotiations at the United Nations, explained in practical terms what the treaty could mean.
"I worked as a defense lawyer in Sierra Leone for four years at the Special Court that was trying individuals for crimes against humanity and war crimes committed during the Civil War," she said. "Every day it was story after story of all these unimaginable things that happened to people during the war, often with weapons. That experience really reinforced the need for an ATT--that there needed to be another way to deal with mass atrocities than just retrospective mechanisms like criminal tribunals. I felt the ATT could in some way help to ensure the conventional arms trade does not contribute to international crimes, like what happened in Sierra Leone."
But skeptics say the treaty is far from a comprehensive solution to global violence.
As Ben Doherty writes at the Guardian:
The Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), which comes into force on Wednesday, will not disarm the world.
There are too many weapons already across the globe, and too many legitimate uses that governments - and others - can claim for them.
No weapons will be collected and destroyed by this treaty, nor will the use of any specific weapon be outlawed. There will be no tariffs or limits placed on arms transfers.
...Critics argue the treaty's language and obligations have been watered down to attract broad support (especially around reporting requirements), and ammunition is excluded.
The three largest arms dealers in the world--Russia, China and the U.S.--are not parties to the treaty.
While the U.S. has signed the ATT, the Senate has vowed to reject the treaty's ratification.
The National Rifle Association strongly opposes the treaty.
Groups that support the international law say they will continue to press for all states--particularly the U.S., which is the largest arms exporter in the world--to ratify the ATT in the next year.
"The work does not stop here, and we will not rest on our laurels," said Salil Shetty of Amnesty International. "While the Arms Trade Treaty sets key ground rules for the global arms trade, it is not a panacea. It will require even more widespread support and pressure to ensure states strictly adhere to its principles."
Urgent. It's never been this bad.
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission from the outset was simple. To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It’s never been this bad out there. And it’s never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed and doing some of its best and most important work, the threats we face are intensifying. Right now, with just two days to go in our Spring Campaign, we're falling short of our make-or-break goal. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Can you make a gift right now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? There is no backup plan or rainy day fund. There is only you. —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Inspiring hope among human rights activists around the world, the international Arms Trade Treaty went into effect on Wednesday, December 24, aimed at transforming the way the global arms trade operates and in turn helping to reduce armed violence and conflict.
Under the terms of the treaty, each state must assess if there is an overriding risk that a proposed arms export to another country will be used for or contribute to serious human rights abuses or organized crime; if so the deal cannot be authorized by the seller.
The treaty has widespread support; only three countries--North Korea, Syria, and Iran--voted against it at the United Nations. As of Wednesday, 130 countries had signed it, and 60 had ratified. The U.S. signed the Arms Trade Treaty in September 2013, but the Senate has not yet ratified it.
Human rights groups heralded the treaty going into force.
"The ATT will transform the way arms and ammunitions are traded around the world meaning there can be no doubt about who will be their end-user," said Anna Macdonald, director of Control Arms, a global alliance based in New York that has been campaigning for an arms treaty since 2003. "It will no longer be acceptable to turn a blind eye and look the other way when arms are being transferred into the hands of regimes that will use them to devastate people's lives and violate human rights."
According to Amnesty International, "[a]t least half a million people die every year on average and millions more are injured, raped, and forced to flee from their homes as a result of the poorly regulated global trade in weapons and munitions. The arms trade is shrouded in secrecy, but the recorded value of international transfers is approaching USD$100 billion annually."
Clare da Silva, a lawyer who assisted Amnesty International with legal and policy advice over many years through the treaty negotiations at the United Nations, explained in practical terms what the treaty could mean.
"I worked as a defense lawyer in Sierra Leone for four years at the Special Court that was trying individuals for crimes against humanity and war crimes committed during the Civil War," she said. "Every day it was story after story of all these unimaginable things that happened to people during the war, often with weapons. That experience really reinforced the need for an ATT--that there needed to be another way to deal with mass atrocities than just retrospective mechanisms like criminal tribunals. I felt the ATT could in some way help to ensure the conventional arms trade does not contribute to international crimes, like what happened in Sierra Leone."
But skeptics say the treaty is far from a comprehensive solution to global violence.
As Ben Doherty writes at the Guardian:
The Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), which comes into force on Wednesday, will not disarm the world.
There are too many weapons already across the globe, and too many legitimate uses that governments - and others - can claim for them.
No weapons will be collected and destroyed by this treaty, nor will the use of any specific weapon be outlawed. There will be no tariffs or limits placed on arms transfers.
...Critics argue the treaty's language and obligations have been watered down to attract broad support (especially around reporting requirements), and ammunition is excluded.
The three largest arms dealers in the world--Russia, China and the U.S.--are not parties to the treaty.
While the U.S. has signed the ATT, the Senate has vowed to reject the treaty's ratification.
The National Rifle Association strongly opposes the treaty.
Groups that support the international law say they will continue to press for all states--particularly the U.S., which is the largest arms exporter in the world--to ratify the ATT in the next year.
"The work does not stop here, and we will not rest on our laurels," said Salil Shetty of Amnesty International. "While the Arms Trade Treaty sets key ground rules for the global arms trade, it is not a panacea. It will require even more widespread support and pressure to ensure states strictly adhere to its principles."
Inspiring hope among human rights activists around the world, the international Arms Trade Treaty went into effect on Wednesday, December 24, aimed at transforming the way the global arms trade operates and in turn helping to reduce armed violence and conflict.
Under the terms of the treaty, each state must assess if there is an overriding risk that a proposed arms export to another country will be used for or contribute to serious human rights abuses or organized crime; if so the deal cannot be authorized by the seller.
The treaty has widespread support; only three countries--North Korea, Syria, and Iran--voted against it at the United Nations. As of Wednesday, 130 countries had signed it, and 60 had ratified. The U.S. signed the Arms Trade Treaty in September 2013, but the Senate has not yet ratified it.
Human rights groups heralded the treaty going into force.
"The ATT will transform the way arms and ammunitions are traded around the world meaning there can be no doubt about who will be their end-user," said Anna Macdonald, director of Control Arms, a global alliance based in New York that has been campaigning for an arms treaty since 2003. "It will no longer be acceptable to turn a blind eye and look the other way when arms are being transferred into the hands of regimes that will use them to devastate people's lives and violate human rights."
According to Amnesty International, "[a]t least half a million people die every year on average and millions more are injured, raped, and forced to flee from their homes as a result of the poorly regulated global trade in weapons and munitions. The arms trade is shrouded in secrecy, but the recorded value of international transfers is approaching USD$100 billion annually."
Clare da Silva, a lawyer who assisted Amnesty International with legal and policy advice over many years through the treaty negotiations at the United Nations, explained in practical terms what the treaty could mean.
"I worked as a defense lawyer in Sierra Leone for four years at the Special Court that was trying individuals for crimes against humanity and war crimes committed during the Civil War," she said. "Every day it was story after story of all these unimaginable things that happened to people during the war, often with weapons. That experience really reinforced the need for an ATT--that there needed to be another way to deal with mass atrocities than just retrospective mechanisms like criminal tribunals. I felt the ATT could in some way help to ensure the conventional arms trade does not contribute to international crimes, like what happened in Sierra Leone."
But skeptics say the treaty is far from a comprehensive solution to global violence.
As Ben Doherty writes at the Guardian:
The Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), which comes into force on Wednesday, will not disarm the world.
There are too many weapons already across the globe, and too many legitimate uses that governments - and others - can claim for them.
No weapons will be collected and destroyed by this treaty, nor will the use of any specific weapon be outlawed. There will be no tariffs or limits placed on arms transfers.
...Critics argue the treaty's language and obligations have been watered down to attract broad support (especially around reporting requirements), and ammunition is excluded.
The three largest arms dealers in the world--Russia, China and the U.S.--are not parties to the treaty.
While the U.S. has signed the ATT, the Senate has vowed to reject the treaty's ratification.
The National Rifle Association strongly opposes the treaty.
Groups that support the international law say they will continue to press for all states--particularly the U.S., which is the largest arms exporter in the world--to ratify the ATT in the next year.
"The work does not stop here, and we will not rest on our laurels," said Salil Shetty of Amnesty International. "While the Arms Trade Treaty sets key ground rules for the global arms trade, it is not a panacea. It will require even more widespread support and pressure to ensure states strictly adhere to its principles."