Signed | Open for signature from 3 June 2013 |
---|---|
Location | New York City, USA |
Sealed | 2 April 2013 |
Effective | 24 December 2014 [1] |
Condition | 90 days after ratification by 50 states (Article 22) |
Signatories | 130 [2] |
Parties | 114 [2] |
Depositary | UN Secretary-General |
Languages | Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian, Spanish |
Full text | |
Arms Trade Treaty at Wikisource |
The Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) is a multilateral treaty that regulates the international trade in conventional weapons.
It entered into force on 24 December 2014. [1] 113 states have ratified the treaty, and a further 28 states have signed but not ratified it. [2]
The ATT is an attempt to regulate the international trade of conventional weapons for the purpose of contributing to international and regional peace; reducing human suffering; and promoting co-operation, transparency, and responsible action by and among states. [3] [4]
The treaty was negotiated in New York City at a global conference under the auspices of the United Nations (UN) from 2–27 July 2012. [5] As it was not possible to reach an agreement on a final text at that time, a new meeting for the conference was scheduled for 18–28 March 2013. [6] On 2 April 2013, the UN General Assembly adopted the ATT. [7] [8]
International weapons commerce has been estimated to reach US$70 billion a year. [9]
The roots of what is known today as the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) can be traced back to the late 1980s, when civil society actors and Nobel Peace Prize Laureates voiced their concerns about the unregulated nature of the global arms trade and its impact on human security. [10]
The ATT is part of a larger global effort begun in 1997 by Costa Rican President and 1987 Nobel Peace Prize laureate Óscar Arias. In that year, Arias led a group of Nobel Peace Prize laureates in a meeting in New York to offer the world a code of conduct for the trade in arms. This group included Elie Wiesel, Betty Williams, the Dalai Lama, José Ramos-Horta, representatives of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, Amnesty International, and the American Friends Service Committee. The original idea was to establish ethical standards for the arms trade that would eventually be adopted by the international community. Over the following 16 years, the Arias Foundation for Peace & Human Progress has played an instrumental role in achieving approval of the treaty.
In 2001, the process continued with the adoption of a non-legally binding program of action at the United Nations Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms. This program was formally called the "Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects" (PoA). [11]
Later put forward in 2003 by a group of Nobel Peace Laureates, the ATT was first addressed in the UN in December 2006 when the General Assembly adopted resolution 61/89 "Towards an Arms Trade Treaty: establishing common international standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional arms".
The ATT, like the PoA, is predicated upon a hypothesis that the illicit trade in small arms is a large and serious problem requiring global action through the UN. According to a well regarded 2012 Routledge Studies in Peace and Conflict Resolution publication, "the relative importance of diversion or misuse of officially authorised transfers, compared to international entirely illegal black market trafficking has been thoroughly confirmed." [12] : 90 The authors go on to elaborate that, "For most developing or fragile states, a combination of weak domestic regulation of authorised firearms possession with theft, loss or corrupt sale from official holdings tends to be a bigger source of weapons concern than illicit trafficking across borders." [12] : 90
On 18 December 2006, UK Ambassador for Multilateral Arms Control and Disarmament John Duncan formally introduced resolution 61/89, which requested that the UN Secretary-General seek the views of UN member states on the feasibility, scope, and draft parameters for a "comprehensive, legally binding instrument establishing common international standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional arms", and submit a report on the subject to the General Assembly. 94 states submitted their views, which are contained in the 2007 report A/62/278. [13] Duncan was speaking on behalf of the co-authors (Argentina, Australia, Costa Rica, Finland, France, Japan, and Kenya). On behalf of the European Union, Finland highlighted the support for the effort, saying: "everyday, everywhere, people are affected by the side effects of irresponsible arms transfers ... As there is currently no comprehensive internationally binding instrument available to provide an agreed regulatory framework for this activity, the EU welcomes the growing support, in all parts of the world, for an ATT." [14] 94 States submitted their views, which are contained in the 2007 report A/62/278. [13]
In December 2006, 153 member states voted in favor of the resolution. Twenty-four countries abstained: Bahrain, Belarus, China, Egypt, India, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Kuwait, Laos, Libya, Marshall Islands, Nepal, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, UAE, Venezuela, Yemen, and Zimbabwe. [15]
Responding to procedural concerns that were not resolved before the final draft of the resolution, the UK said the aim of the initiative was to start a discussion on the feasibility and draft parameters of an Arms Trade Treaty, and that "agnostic" states would have a clear opportunity to engage in the process. After the vote, Algeria indicated that the effort must receive broad-based support from states and be based on the principles of the UN Charter. [16]
Resolution 61/89 also requested the Secretary-General to establish a group of governmental experts, on the basis of equitable geographical distribution, to examine the feasibility, scope, and draft parameters for such a legal instrument, and to transmit the report of the group of experts to the General Assembly for consideration at its sixty-third session. On 28 September 2007, the Secretary-General appointed a Group of Governmental Experts from the following 28 countries: Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Brazil, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Egypt, Finland, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Romania, Russia, South Africa, Spain, Switzerland, Ukraine, the United Kingdom, and United States. The group met three times in 2008, and published a final report on the issue. [17] [18] [19]
In 2009, Óscar Arias, then in his second term as President of Costa Rica, introduced the Treaty at the United Nations, saying:
I return today, as a Rip Van Winkle of the modern era, to see that everything has changed except this. Peace continues to be a step further away. Nuclear and conventional weapons still exist despite the promises. It is up to us to ensure that in twenty years we do not awaken to the same terrors we suffer today. I am not ignorant of the fact that the biggest arms dealers in the world are represented here. But today I do not speak to the arms manufacturers, but rather to the leaders of humanity, who have the responsibility to put principles before profits, and enable the promise of a future in which, finally, we can sleep peacefully.
In that same year, an Open-ended Working Group—open to all States—held two meetings on an arms trade treaty. A total of six sessions of this Group were planned. However, at the end of 2009, the General Assembly of the United Nations decided by resolution A/RES/64/48 [20] to convene a Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty in 2012 "to elaborate a legally binding instrument on the highest possible common international standards for the transfer of conventional arms". The decision was influenced by the change in position of the United States (the largest arms producer [21] and only country voting against resolution 61/89), which took place upon a change in leadership from George W. Bush to Barack Obama, on the condition they were "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." [22]
The UN General Assembly of 2 April 2013 (71st Plenary Meeting) adopted the ATT as a resolution by a 154-to-3 vote with 23 abstentions. North Korea, Iran, and Syria voted in opposition. China and Russia, among the world's leaders in weapon exports, were among the 23 nations that abstained. [23] Cuba, India, Indonesia, Myanmar, Nicaragua, Saudi Arabia, and Sudan also abstained. Armenia, Dominican Republic, Venezuela, and Vietnam did not vote. [9]
The treaty was opened for formal signature by all states in New York on 3 June 2013. [2] It entered into force on 24 December 2014, 90 days after the date of the 50th ratification. [1]
The UN Office for Disarmament Affairs claimed the treaty would not interfere with domestic arms commerce or the right to bear arms in its member states; ban the export of any type of weapon; harm the legitimate right to self-defence; or undermine national arms regulation standards already in place. [24] [25]
The Arms Trade Treaty obligates member states to monitor arms exports and ensure that weapons don't cross existing arms embargoes or end up being used for human-rights abuses, including terrorism. Member states, with the assistance of the U.N., will put into place enforceable, standardized arms import and export regulations (much like those that already exist in the U.S.) and be expected to track the destination of exports to ensure they do not end up in the wrong hands. Ideally, that means limiting the inflow of deadly weapons into places like Syria. [26]
Advocates of the treaty say that it only pertains to international arms trade, and would have no effect on current domestic laws. [27] [28] [29] These advocates point to the UN General Assembly resolution starting the process on the ATT. The resolution explicitly states that it is "the exclusive right of States to regulate internal transfers of arms and national ownership, including through constitutional protections on private ownership."
International non-government and human rights organizations including Amnesty International, Oxfam, the Arias Foundation for Peace and Human Progress, Saferworld, and the International Action Network on Small Arms (who lead the Control Arms Campaign) have developed analysis on what an effective ATT would look like. [30]
It would ensure that no transfer is permitted if there is substantial risk that it is likely to:
Loopholes would be minimized. It would include:
The Amnesty International website "loopholes" include shotguns marketed for deer hunting that are virtually the same as military/police shotguns and rifles marketed for long range target shooting that are virtually the same as military/police sniper rifles. Amnesty International advocates that the civilian guns must be included in any workable arms trade controls; otherwise, governments could authorize export/import of sporting guns virtually the same as military/police weapons in function. [31]
It must be workable and enforceable. It must:
NGOs are also advocating that the ATT must reinforce existing responsibilities to assist survivors of armed violence, as well as identify new avenues to address suffering and trauma.
Opposition to the ATT can be broken down into state opposition and civil society opposition. Over thirty states have objected to various parts of the ATT during negotiations, the majority of which held strong concerns about the implications for national sovereignty. [32] From a civil society point of view, groups concerned about national sovereignty or individual rights to armed defense have been negative of the ATT. While not fundamentally opposed to an ATT, these groups are keenly sensitive to ensuring an ATT does not undermine national constitutional protections and individual rights. The most vocal and organized civil society groups opposing aspects of the ATT originated from the United States. These groups include the National Rifle Association of America (NRA), [33] the National Shooting Sports Foundation, [34] the Second Amendment Foundation, [35] and The Heritage Foundation. [36] The NRA and the Gun Owners of America say that the treaty is an attempt to circumvent the Second Amendment and similar guarantees in state constitutions in order to impose domestic gun regulations. [37]
One of the largest sources of civil opposition to the ATT has come from the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA), which is the lobbying arm of the NRA. In July 2012, ILA stated that:
Anti-gun treaty proponents continue to mislead the public, claiming the treaty would have no impact on American gun owners. This is a bald-faced lie. For example, the most recent draft treaty includes export/import controls that would require officials in an importing country to collect information on the "end user" of a firearm, keep the information for 20 years, and provide the information to the country from which the gun was exported. In other words, if you bought a Beretta Shotgun, you would be an "end user" and the U.S. government would have to keep a record of you and notify the Italian government about your purchase. That is gun registration. If the U.S. refuses to implement this data collection on law-abiding American gun owners, other nations might be required to ban the export of firearms to the U.S. [38]
On 12 July 2012, the United States issued a statement condemning the selection of Iran to serve as vice president of the conference. The statement called the move "outrageous" and noted that Iran is under UN Security Council sanctions for weapons proliferation. [39]
Canada was accused by Project Ploughshares, a Canadian human rights group, of violating the treaty, as well as its own laws, by selling "Group 2" types of high-tech imaging and targeting systems to Turkey to conduct its air campaigns in the Syrian civil war. [40]
As of December 2022, 113 states have ratified or acceded to the ATT, [2] including six of the world's top 10 arms producers (France, Germany, Spain, China, the United Kingdom and Italy). [41] Twenty-one ratifying states provisionally applied articles 6 and 7 of the treaty, pending its entry into force. [2] The strong support of the European Union for this treaty is seen in its ATT Outreach Project (ATT-OP) established by EU Council Decision 2013/768/CFSP. [42]
State | Signed | Ratified or acceded | Entry into force |
---|---|---|---|
Afghanistan | 29 July 2020 | 29 July 2020 | |
Albania | 3 June 2013 | 19 March 2014 | 24 December 2014 |
Andorra | 18 December 2014 | 2 December 2022 | 2 March 2023 |
Antigua and Barbuda | 3 June 2013 | 12 August 2013 | 12 August 2013 [note 1] |
Argentina | 3 June 2013 | 25 September 2014 | 24 December 2014 |
Australia | 3 June 2013 | 3 June 2014 | 24 December 2014 |
Austria | 3 June 2013 | 3 June 2014 | 3 June 2014 [note 1] |
Bahamas | 3 June 2013 | 25 September 2014 | 25 September 2014 [note 1] |
Barbados | 25 September 2013 | 20 May 2015 | 18 August 2015 |
Belgium | 3 June 2013 | 3 June 2014 | 24 December 2014 |
Belize | 3 June 2013 | 19 March 2015 | 17 June 2015 |
Benin | 3 June 2013 | 7 November 2016 | 5 February 2017 |
Bosnia and Herzegovina | 25 September 2013 | 25 September 2014 | 24 December 2014 |
Botswana | 7 June 2019 | 7 June 2019 | |
Brazil | 3 June 2013 | 14 August 2018 | 12 November 2018 |
Bulgaria | 2 July 2013 | 2 April 2014 | 24 December 2014 |
Burkina Faso | 3 June 2013 | 3 June 2014 | 24 December 2014 |
Cabo Verde | 25 September 2013 | 23 September 2016 | 22 December 2016 |
Cameroon | 3 December 2014 | 18 June 2018 | 16 September 2018 |
Canada | 19 June 2019 | 19 June 2019 | |
Central African Republic | 7 October 2015 | 5 January 2016 | |
Chad | 25 September 2013 | 25 March 2015 | 23 June 2015 |
Chile | 3 June 2013 | 18 May 2018 | 16 August 2018 |
China | 20 June 2020 | 20 June 2020 | 6 July 2020 |
Costa Rica | 3 June 2013 | 25 September 2013 | 25 September 2013 [note 1] |
Côte d'Ivoire | 3 June 2013 | 26 February 2015 | 27 May 2015 |
Croatia | 3 June 2013 | 2 April 2014 | 24 December 2014 |
Cyprus | 3 June 2013 | 10 May 2016 | 8 August 2016 |
Czech Republic | 3 June 2013 | 25 September 2014 | 24 December 2014 |
Denmark | 3 June 2013 | 2 April 2014 [note 2] | 2 April 2014 [note 2] [note 1] |
Dominica | 1 October 2013 | 21 May 2015 | 19 August 2015 |
Dominican Republic | 3 June 2013 | 11 August 2014 | 24 December 2014 |
El Salvador | 5 June 2013 | 2 April 2014 | 24 December 2014 |
Estonia | 3 June 2013 | 2 April 2014 | 2 April 2014 [note 1] |
Finland | 3 June 2013 | 2 April 2014 | 2 April 2014 [note 1] |
France | 3 June 2013 | 2 April 2014 | 24 December 2014 |
Gabon | 25 September 2013 | 21 September 2022 | 21 September 2022 |
Georgia | 25 September 2014 | 23 May 2016 | 21 August 2016 |
Germany | 3 June 2013 | 2 April 2014 | 2 April 2014 [note 1] |
Ghana | 24 September 2013 | 22 December 2015 | 21 March 2016 |
Greece | 3 June 2013 | 1 March 2016 | 30 May 2016 |
Grenada | 3 June 2013 | 21 October 2013 | 24 December 2014 |
Guatemala | 24 June 2013 | 12 July 2016 | 10 October 2016 |
Guinea | 29 July 2013 | 21 October 2014 | 24 December 2014 |
Guinea-Bissau | 26 September 2013 | 22 October 2018 | 20 January 2019 |
Guyana | 3 June 2013 | 4 July 2013 | 24 December 2014 |
Honduras | 25 September 2013 | 22 March 2017 | 20 June 2017 |
Hungary | 3 June 2013 | 2 April 2014 | 2 April 2014 [note 1] |
Iceland | 3 June 2013 | 2 July 2013 | 2 July 2013 [note 1] |
Ireland | 3 June 2013 | 2 April 2014 | 24 December 2014 |
Italy | 3 June 2013 | 2 April 2014 | 24 December 2014 |
Jamaica | 3 June 2013 | 3 June 2014 | 24 December 2014 |
Japan | 3 June 2013 | 9 May 2014 | 24 December 2014 |
Kazakhstan | 8 December 2017 | 8 March 2018 | |
Latvia | 3 June 2013 | 2 April 2014 | 2 April 2014 [note 1] |
Lebanon | 27 October 2014 | 9 May 2019 | 9 May 2019 |
Lesotho | 25 September 2013 | 25 January 2016 | 24 April 2016 |
Liberia | 4 June 2013 | 21 April 2015 | 20 July 2015 |
Liechtenstein | 3 June 2013 | 16 December 2014 | 24 December 2014 |
Lithuania | 3 June 2013 | 18 December 2014 | 24 December 2014 |
Luxembourg | 3 June 2013 | 3 June 2014 | 24 December 2014 |
Madagascar | 25 September 2013 | 22 September 2016 | 21 December 2016 |
Maldives | 27 September 2019 | 27 September 2019 | |
Mali | 3 June 2013 | 3 December 2013 | 3 December 2013 [note 1] |
Malta | 3 June 2013 | 2 April 2014 | 24 December 2014 |
Mauritania | 3 June 2013 | 28 September 2015 | 27 December 2015 |
Mauritius | 23 July 2015 | 21 October 2015 | |
Moldova | 10 September 2013 | 28 September 2015 | 27 December 2015 |
Mexico | 3 June 2013 | 25 September 2013 | 25 September 2013 [note 1] |
Monaco | 30 June 2016 | 28 September 2016 | |
Montenegro | 3 June 2013 | 18 August 2014 | 24 December 2014 |
Mozambique | 3 June 2013 | 14 December 2018 | 14 December 2018 |
Namibia | 25 September 2014 | 28 April 2020 | 28 April 2020 |
Netherlands | 3 June 2013 | 18 December 2014 [43] | 24 December 2014 [43] |
New Zealand | 3 June 2013 | 3 September 2014 | 3 September 2014 [note 1] |
Niger | 24 March 2014 | 27 July 2015 | 25 October 2015 |
Nigeria | 12 August 2013 | 12 August 2013 | 24 December 2014 |
Niue | 6 August 2020 | 6 August 2020 | |
North Macedonia | 25 September 2013 | 7 March 2014 | 24 December 2014 |
Norway | 3 June 2013 | 12 February 2014 | 12 February 2014 [note 1] |
Palau | 3 June 2013 | 8 April 2019 | 8 April 2019 |
Panama | 3 June 2013 | 11 February 2014 | 24 December 2014 |
Paraguay | 19 June 2013 | 9 April 2015 | 8 July 2015 |
Peru | 25 September 2013 | 16 February 2016 | 16 May 2016 |
Philippines | 25 September 2012 | 24 March 2022 | 24 March 2022 |
Poland | 1 July 2013 | 17 December 2014 | 24 December 2014 |
Portugal | 3 June 2013 | 25 September 2014 | 24 December 2014 |
Romania | 3 June 2013 | 2 April 2014 | 24 December 2014 |
Samoa | 25 September 2013 | 3 June 2014 | 24 December 2014 |
San Marino | 19 December 2014 | 29 July 2015 | 27 October 2015 |
Saint Kitts and Nevis | 5 June 2013 | 15 December 2014 | 24 December 2014 |
Saint Lucia | 3 June 2013 | 25 September 2014 | 24 December 2014 |
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines | 3 June 2013 | 3 June 2014 | 3 June 2014 [note 1] |
Sao Tome and Principe | 19 December 2014 | 28 July 2020 | 28 July 2020 |
Senegal | 3 June 2013 | 25 September 2014 | 24 December 2014 |
Serbia | 12 August 2013 | 5 December 2014 | 12 August 2013 [note 3] |
Seychelles | 3 June 2013 | 2 November 2015 | 31 January 2016 |
Sierra Leone | 25 September 2013 | 12 August 2014 | 24 December 2014 |
Slovakia | 10 June 2013 | 2 April 2014 | 2 April 2014 [note 1] |
Slovenia | 3 June 2013 | 2 April 2014 | 24 December 2014 |
South Africa | 25 September 2013 | 22 December 2014 | 24 December 2014 |
South Korea | 3 June 2013 | 28 November 2016 | 26 February 2017 |
Spain | 3 June 2013 | 2 April 2014 | 2 April 2014 [note 1] |
State of Palestine | 27 December 2017 | 27 March 2018 | |
Suriname | 3 June 2013 | 19 October 2018 | 17 January 2019 |
Sweden | 3 June 2013 | 16 June 2014 | 16 June 2014 [note 1] |
Switzerland | 3 June 2013 | 30 January 2015 | 30 April 2015 |
Togo | 3 June 2013 | 8 October 2015 | 6 January 2016 |
Trinidad and Tobago | 3 June 2013 | 25 September 2013 | 25 September 2013 [note 1] |
Tuvalu | 3 June 2013 | 4 September 2015 | 3 December 2015 |
United Kingdom | 3 June 2013 | 2 April 2014 | 2 April 2014 [note 1] |
Uruguay | 3 June 2013 | 25 September 2014 | 24 December 2014 |
Zambia | 25 September 2013 | 20 May 2016 | 18 August 2016 |
A further 28 states have signed but not ratified the treaty: [2]
State | Signed |
---|---|
Angola | 24 September 2013 |
Bahrain | 21 November 2013 |
Bangladesh | 26 September 2013 |
Burundi | 3 June 2013 |
Cambodia | 18 October 2013 |
Colombia | 24 September 2013 |
Comoros | 26 September 2013 |
Republic of the Congo | 25 September 2013 |
Djibouti | 3 June 2013 |
Eswatini | 4 September 2013 |
Haiti | 21 March 2014 |
Israel | 18 December 2014 |
Kiribati | 25 September 2013 |
Libya | 9 July 2013 |
Malawi | 9 January 2014 |
Malaysia | 26 September 2013 |
Mongolia | 24 September 2013 |
Nauru | 25 September 2013 |
Rwanda | 5 June 2013 |
Singapore | 5 December 2014 |
Tanzania | 3 June 2013 |
Thailand | 25 November 2014 |
Turkey | 2 July 2013 |
Ukraine | 23 September 2014 |
United Arab Emirates | 9 July 2013 |
United States [Note 1] | 25 September 2013 |
Vanuatu | 26 July 2013 |
Zimbabwe | 18 December 2014 |
The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, commonly known as the Non-Proliferation Treaty or NPT, is an international treaty whose objective is to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and weapons technology, to promote cooperation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy, and to further the goal of achieving nuclear disarmament and general and complete disarmament. Between 1965 and 1968, the treaty was negotiated by the Eighteen Nation Committee on Disarmament, a United Nations-sponsored organization based in Geneva, Switzerland.
Nuclear disarmament is the act of reducing or eliminating nuclear weapons. Its end state can also be a nuclear-weapons-free world, in which nuclear weapons are completely eliminated. The term denuclearization is also used to describe the process leading to complete nuclear disarmament.
Arms control is a term for international restrictions upon the development, production, stockpiling, proliferation and usage of small arms, conventional weapons, and weapons of mass destruction. Historically, arms control may apply to melee weapons before the invention of firearm. Arms control is typically exercised through the use of diplomacy which seeks to impose such limitations upon consenting participants through international treaties and agreements, although it may also comprise efforts by a nation or group of nations to enforce limitations upon a non-consenting country.
Disarmament is the act of reducing, limiting, or abolishing weapons. Disarmament generally refers to a country's military or specific type of weaponry. Disarmament is often taken to mean total elimination of weapons of mass destruction, such as nuclear arms. General and Complete Disarmament was defined by the United Nations General Assembly as the elimination of all WMD, coupled with the “balanced reduction of armed forces and conventional armaments, based on the principle of undiminished security of the parties with a view to promoting or enhancing stability at a lower military level, taking into account the need of all States to protect their security.”
The small arms trade is the markets of both authorized and illicit small arms and light weapons (SALW), as well as their parts, accessories, and ammunition.
Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) is an international institute based in Stockholm. It was founded in 1966 and provides data, analysis and recommendations for armed conflict, military expenditure and arms trade as well as disarmament and arms control. The research is based on open sources and is directed to decision-makers, researchers, media and the interested public.
Parliamentarians for Global Action (PGA) is a non-profit, non-partisan international network of committed legislators, that informs and mobilizes parliamentarians in all regions of the world to advocate for human rights and the rule of law, democracy, human security, non-discrimination, gender equality, and climate justice. PGA Membership is open to individual legislators from elected parliaments. Currently, it consists of approximately 1,200 members in 139 parliaments. PGA was established in 1978 in Washington, D.C., by a group of concerned parliamentarians from around the world to take collective, coordinated and cohesive actions on global problems, which could not be successfully addressed by any one government or parliament acting alone. Founded during the Cold War era, an early focus and priority of the organization was the mobilization of parliamentarians worldwide in support of nuclear disarmament. The vision of PGA is "to contribute to the creation of a Rules-Based International Order for a more equitable, safe, and democratic world".
The International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA) was incorporated on 30 May 2002 under the laws of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The IANSA London office was closed in 2015, but it has an active UN liaison office in New York. IANSA has had registration as an NGO in Ghana since 2014 to reflect the organizations commitments to bringing voices from the global south to the United Nations small arms disarmament process.
The Control Arms Campaign is jointly run by a coalition of over 100 organisations including Amnesty International, IANSA, Oxfam International and Saferworld.
Small arms and light weapons (SALW) refers in arms control protocols to two main classes of man-portable weapons.
The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons is a global civil society coalition working to promote adherence to and full implementation of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. The campaign helped bring about this treaty. ICAN was launched in 2007. In 2022, it counted 661 partner organizations in 110 countries.
The Arms Reduction Coalition (ARC) is a United Kingdom-based non-profit non-governmental organisation which campaigns for a reduction in the resources spent on arms and the military and for those resources to be diverted to programmes that benefit humanity and the earth; such as poverty reduction, sustainable development, protecting the vulnerable, systems for peaceful Conflict resolution and maintaining the environment.
Widad Akreyi is a Kurdish health expert and human rights activist. She has co-founded the human rights organization Defend International and is the author of several books about both health issues and human rights.
The UN Office for Disarmament Affairs (UNODA) is an Office of the United Nations Secretariat established in January 1998 as the Department for Disarmament Affairs, part of United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan's plan to reform the UN as presented in his report to the General Assembly in July 1997.
A nuclear weapons convention is a proposed multilateral treaty to eliminate nuclear weapons. This might include prohibitions on the possession, development, testing, production, stockpiling, transfer, use and threat of use of nuclear weapons, such as those in the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, along with provisions for their verified elimination. It could be similar to existing conventions outlawing other categories of weapons, such as biological weapons, chemical weapons, anti-personnel mines and cluster bombs.
United Nations Security Council resolution 1540 was adopted unanimously on 28 April 2004 regarding the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The resolution establishes the obligations under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter for all member states to develop and enforce appropriate legal and regulatory measures against the proliferation of chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear weapons and their means of delivery, in particular, to prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction to non-state actors.
The International Day against Nuclear Tests is observed on August 29. It was established on December 2, 2009, at the 64th session of the United Nations General Assembly by the resolution 64/35, which was adopted unanimously.
The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), or the Nuclear Weapon Ban Treaty, is the first legally binding international agreement to comprehensively prohibit nuclear weapons with the ultimate goal being their total elimination. It was adopted on 7 July 2017, opened for signature on 20 September 2017, and entered into force on 22 January 2021.
The Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space document is a 1981 UN resolution that reaffirms the fundamental principles of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty and advocates for a ban on the weaponization of space."
The International Day for the Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons, also known as Nuclear Weapons Elimination Day, is an international observance declared by the United Nations, held on 26 September every year. The day promotes the cause of nuclear disarmament. The observance was established in 2013.
Find out more about what we want to see in an Arms Trade Treaty