Arms law

The UN General Assembly has finally adopted the Global Arms Trade Treaty.  The idea of the treaty had been lingering in UN corridors since 1997 and had been unsuccessfully discussed at various levels. For example, in summer 2012, a conference dedicated to the treaty was a complete debacle. This time, the Global Arms Trade Treaty, which determines the rules of the 70 billion dollar arms industry (according to Reuters), was supported by 154 of the 193 UN member states, including the USA. 

It takes 50 countries to ratify the document for the treaty to take effect. The document will open for signing on 3 July 2013 and will enter into force 90 days after the 50th country signs it. Any country can amend the document within six years after the convention takes effect. Therefore, it can be said that a serious international platform has emerged for resolving issues related to the global export and import of weapons. 

The treaty applies to all conventional weapons - from tanks and missile systems to small arms. Through national systems of oversight and supranational oversight (participant countries will be obligated to inform the UN secretariat about the progress of the implementation of the treaty once a year), new rules are established for all kinds of operations - export, import, leasing and transit. 

According to experts, the main virtue of the treaty is its so-called humanitarian component. For example, the treaty recognizes the legitimate interest of every country to sell or buy weapons, but bans the transfer of arms to other countries; or, if a selling country possesses reliable information that the weapons may be used in acts of genocide, crimes against humanity, serious violations of Geneva conventions, assaults against civilian institutions or individual civilians. The latter point is particularly important given that women and children often fall victim to modern armed conflicts. 

According to Brian Wood, head of the arms control and human rights programme at Amnesty International, the main aim of the treaty is "to save lives and uphold human rights". Wood believes that the treaty will "finally curb the flow of weapons to countries where they are used for crimes against humanity".

Iran, North Korea and Syria opposed the treaty. Deputy Iranian representative at the UN, Gholamhosein Dehghani, said that the treaty had been adopted under the pressure of certain forces and that the treaty was exclusively in the interests of exporter countries, according to Press TV. The Iranian official's opinion hardly surprised anybody. Iran, North Korea and Syria have long been listed as countries against whom various UN sanctions have been administered and are considered malicious violators of human rights. 

Another 23 countries, including Russia and China (the second and fifth biggest exporters of weapons in the world respectively), India, Belarus, Bolivia, Venezuela and Cuba, refrained from signing the treaty. 

The Russian Federation, which sells weapons to 66 countries of the world, intends to once again go thoroughly the text of the agreement. Russia's permanent representative at the UN, Vitaliy Churkin said that the document has failed to even reach the standards of the arms trade practiced in Russia. Russian media also disseminated the opinion of a source close to the leadership of Rosoboronexport [Russia's arms trade agency] who spoke about the need not to allow for the infringement of national interests. 

In his address to the UN General Assembly Churkin said that the text of the document contains no "ban on supplying weapons to unauthorized non-state entities." While he did not make it clear who the "entities" are it seems like he was referring to the current situation in Syria. Interestingly, the Syrian ambassador to the UN, Bashar Ja'afari, pointed out the same. 

One is left with the impression that the treaty was focused on Syria. This February, the head of Rosoboronexport, Anatoliy Isaykin, noted that "Damascus ranks only 12-13 in the list of Rosoboronexport customers". He added that Moscow "continues to fulfill contracts of military supplies to Syria because the country has not been subjected to UN Security Council sanctions". Remarkably, it was due to Russian arms supplies to Syria that, in December 2012, the US Congress banned the Pentagon from concluding agreements with Rosoboronexport, including a large contract for the purchase of helicopters for Afghanistan. In addition, about a month ago world media disseminated reports that in order to extend assistance to Syrian rebels, Britain and France are ready to violate the current EU embargo on arms supplies to Syria…

Apart from this, Churkin said that the treaty "does not sufficiently elucidate humanitarian criteria of risk assessment which can be interpreted in different ways and used by individual countries for their political purposes and interests." In addition, the Russian side was left with the impression that the document was more oriented towards controlling the legal aspect of arms trade, rather than towards fighting uncontrolled sales.  

Interestingly, a few days after the treaty was adopted, at a session of the commission on Russia's military and technological cooperation with foreign countries, Russian President Vladimir Putin proposed that credits should be issued on Russian armaments, adding however that this should be done on market, not ideological grounds. 

In the meantime, US support to the Global Arms Trade Treaty does not necessarily mean Washington's unswerving support. The National Rifle Association opposes joining the convention and pledges to block the ratification of the document at Congress. The fact that the USA has serious problems regarding domestic control of arms sales is an indication of the degree of the influence of this association. In a country where almost any citizen can buy combat weapons, there are often massacres at universities, schools, movie theatres and other public places. President Barack Obama is making efforts to bring the situation under control but the National Rifle Association seriously opposes the move.  

Russia and the USA make up over half of the global arms exports…

So, what do we have here? Will the Global Arms Trade Treaty become a truly authoritative and comprehensive instrument of international law or will it remain only on paper?

According to the treaty, each country should itself define the risks in weapons transfer. This leaves huge room for various judicial subterfuges and loopholes. First of all, risk assessment can be viewed from different angles. Secondly, any "act of genocide" or "serious violation of human rights" is a variable. This is not mentioning the fact that no country in the world is completely free from rights violations…Given the huge financial and often political advantages of the arms trade, it is unlikely that the humanitarian aspect will always (or ever, for that matter) overweigh other arguments. 

The prime cause of concern however is that the treaty says nothing about how its provisions should be implemented, how violations should be investigated or offenders should be punished. To be honest, many international documents have the same defects. The force of these documents is mainly focused on issuing annual reports that contain beautiful and grammatically correct phrases the essence of which is however far detached from reality.