International Weapons Trade Agreement

Governments remain central security agencies. It is their sovereign right and their responsibility to act in accordance with the rule of law. To carry out these tasks effectively, their armed forces and security forces legally use a number of weapons that they purchase by domestic production or import. Exporters and importers must ensure that these weapons are safely transferred and stored and do not fall into the wrong hands. The treaty was negotiated from 2 to 27 July 2012 at a UN-sponsored global conference in New York. [5] As it was not possible to reach agreement on a final text at that time, a new meeting was scheduled for the conference from 18 to 28 March 2013. [6] On 2 April 2013, the UN General Assembly adopted the ATT. [7] [8] The promotion of accountability in international transfers of conventional weapons, which will effectively be implemented, will be reinforced by the International Arms Trade Treaty, which promotes justice, peace and security and is in the interest of all States and those suffering from the scourges of violence and armed conflict. Proponents of the treaty say it only concerns the international arms trade and would have no impact on existing national laws. [27] [28] [29] These supporters refer to the UN General Assembly resolution that begins the process on ATTs. The resolution explicitly states that «states have the exclusive right to regulate internal arms transfers and national property, including through constitutional protection over private property.» If so, Trump`s announcement is consistent with his administration`s approach to foreign policy, which has consistently attacked multilateralism and challenged international law. The withdrawal of the Paris Agreement in June 2017 is an example of this pattern of behaviour; the withdrawal of UNESCO in October 2017; exiting the negotiations on the global pact on migration in December 2017; unilateral military attacks with France and the United Kingdom against Syria, in violation of the UN Charter in April 2018; withdrawal from the UN Human Rights Council in June 2018; the withdrawal in October 2018 of the optional protocol of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and the 1955 Agreement on Indifference with Iran; the withdrawal in February of the Medium-Range Forces Treaty (FN) with Russia; or the recent decision to revoke the visa to enter the United States by Fatou Bensouda, the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court.

In the case of the U.S. withdrawal from the ATT, in addition to the political considerations associated with it, the decision is based on an obvious misunderstanding of what the treaty is and what it does. To better understand the seriousness of this ill-advised decision, it is important to take a look at the history behind the treaty and its content, in particular its purpose and purpose.