ATT Monitor, Vol. 17, No. 1
Troubling Times Require Courage in the ATT and Beyond
28 February 2025
Laura Varella
Download full edition in PDF
On 24–27 February 2025, delegations met in Geneva for the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) Working Group meetings. The debates held under the Sub-Working Group on Current and Emerging Implementation Issues were among the highlights of the week. Delegations were able to have in-depth formal discussions about relevant concerns, including arms industries’ due diligence practices, the risk of conventional weapons being used to commit gender-based violence (GBV), and how the International Court of Justice’s (ICJ) rulings and Human Rights Council’s (HRC) Special Procedures can inform the implementation of Articles 6 and 7 of the ATT.
However, it wasn’t without opposition that these debates took place. Some states insisted on trying to block these discussions under the argument that this would “politicise the ATT”. Luckily, a few delegations demonstrated commitment to making the ATT fit for purpose and defended their inclusion in the agenda. Now that the ATT is entering its second decade of implementation, this bravery will be very needed to prevent human suffering in times of increasing arms-related violence and conflicts worldwide.
Profit and politics stand in the way of risk assessments
It is no secret that the arms industry has been thriving in the past years. Last December, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) reported that the world’s top arms producers' profits have increased as a result of the rise in wars and conflicts. Some industry officials expressed that they want to maintain this model of business and the high profits that come with it during discussions about “the role of industry in responsible arms transfers.” During the panel invited to discuss human rights and international humanitarian law (IHL) due diligence by industry actors, Mr. Spencer Chilvers, Head of Export Control Policy at Rolls-Royce plc, raised a few questions from the industry perspective. In particular, he noted that in many cases there are several companies involved in the chain of production of certain weapons. If after conducting due diligence one of the companies decided to refrain from selling its product, it could risk being “off the programme” and be replaced by another company who would be willing to provide said product. He said that this can have several consequences for the company, noting that many have responsibilities before their shareholders, investors, or banks.
Mr. Chilvers remarks demonstrate that there could be a clear conflict between the companies’ purpose, meaning the pursuit of profit, and the fulfilment of due diligence responsibilities. Beyond that, these remarks show a clear challenge in preventing the transfers of weapons that could facilitate the commission of human rights and IHL violations. These remarks are even more concerning as Mr. Chilvers indicated that the industry often follows the decision of the exporting state whether the transfer should or not take place. “The government, at the end of the day, because of the nature of arms business, is the ultimate authority on these matters,” he said.
However, as Mr. Roy Isbister of Saferworld pointed out, if the government says “yes” to an arms transfer, there’s no obligation on the company to agree. “I don't think we should go down the path of ‘if the government says yes, I have to say yes’—that's a dangerous path to walk down,” said Mr. Isbister. Indeed, states’ risk assessment practices are far from being flawless; there is ample evidence of undue influence that result in the authorisation of unlawful arms transfers. For instance, Mark Smith, former United Kingdom (UK) Foreign Office policy adviser who resigned over the UK’s refusal to halt arms sales to Israel, wrote a piece in The Guardian about his experience as the lead advisor on arms sales policy. He said that while in office, he witnessed “senior officials under intense pressure from ministers to skew the legal assessment,” and wrote that “processes are manipulated to produce politically convenient outcomes.”
Flawed risk assessments, either by political pressure or the pursuit of profit, have very real-life consequences. A case in point is the F-35 fighter jet. Since October 2023, Israel has heavily relied on F-35 jets in its bombing of Gaza, with airstrikes being identified as a major cause of civilian casualties. In a joint letter coordinated by Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT), over 230 global civil society organisations have called on governments producing F-35 fighter jets to immediately halt all arms transfers to Israel, including the F-35 jets, parts, and components. This letter has been sent to the relevant government Ministers of F-35 programme partner countries, which include Australia, Canada, Denmark, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, the United Kingdom, and the United States.
As Control Arms highlighted in its statement to the ATT Working Group meeting, the letter points out that ATT states parties, in accordance to Articles 6 and 7, not only face the obligation to deny export licences whenever there is an overriding risk that proposed arms transfers, including their parts and components, could be used in violations of human rights or IHL, but that states parties also need to ensure that such abuses are not committed with weapons first transferred through intermediary states, such as the United States. “This difference in legal obligations, beyond the moral and ethical responsibilities, underscores the importance of F-35 partner countries to not blindly transfer parts and components to the United States without demanding that they may not, under the current circumstances of overriding risk, be re-transferred as spare part or integrated in newly-built fighter jets, to Israel,” said Control Arms.
Compliance issues with the ATT
While the discussion on the role of industry was (rightly) not objected to by states, the situation was not the same with the two topics proposed under the “Ad hoc discussions on current and emerging implementations issues.” The topics proposed for this agenda item were: (i) “How are rulings of the International Court of Justice and findings of the Special Procedures of the Human Rights Council taken into account when States Parties and Signatory States are applying Articles 6 and 7 (in reference to the situations in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, Myanmar and the Sudan),” proposed by Control Arms and supported by WILPF, and (ii) “Upholding the humanitarian imperative of the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) through the establishment of an early warning and compliance platform,” proposed by Panama.
Panama’s proposal was regrettably withdrawn before the meeting. In its paper, it had raised a number of questions concerning the establishment of an early warning and compliance mechanism, which would have been a welcome discussion in the ATT context.
Control Arms’ proposal was discussed by delegations, despite the opposition of a few states. Hungary objected to the discussion, arguing that the topic had a “strong political character” and that “allowing non-state parties such as NGOs to propose topics for inclusion on the agenda would divert the discussion from the directives of states parties.” Israel also opposed, arguing that “the Arms Trade Treaty is a multilateral forum that should be led by states and not by NGOs.”
Meanwhile, Aotearoa New Zealand, Chile, and the United Kingdom supported the proposal. Aotearoa New Zealand emphasised that the “consideration of country- and transfer-specific issues is very important to ensuring the full implementation of the ATT.” Chile, likewise, said that “one of the most important issues that differentiates the ATT from others is the explicit incorporation of human rights issues” and that “the reality of current armed conflicts make it imperative to work on real world cases.” It also stressed that “the possibility of having this debate without any exclusions is closely linked to the credibility of this Treaty, and, as such, of the efforts of an important number of actors of the multilateral system in order to protect victims of armed conflict in such a challenging situation.”
The facilitator of the session, Mr. Jason Robinson of Ireland, clarified that the Chair of the Working Group on Treaty Implementation (WGETI), in his invitation letter circulated on 3 February, recalled the instructions adopted at the Ninth Conference of States Parties (CSP9), which stated, “At the beginning of each CSP cycle and ahead of the in-person WGETI meeting, the WGETI Chair will invite states parties and other stakeholders to raise any current implementation issues on which they seek an ad hoc discussion in the WGETI.” Mr. Robinson emphasised his understanding that it is applicable and acceptable for Control Arms to submit a proposal and decided to proceed with the debate.
Three experts were invited to speak on the panel: Dr Lucy Richardson, independent consultant who spoke on the role of ICJ rulings and Special Procedures of the Human Rights Council; Mr. Thomas H. Andrews, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar (in video); and Dr. Jean Baptiste Gallopin, Senior Researcher of Human Rights Watch, who spoke about Sudan. After the presentations, China condemned the remarks of Dr. Jean Baptiste Gallopin, arguing that his intention was to politicise the issue, as well as of Mr. Thomas H. Andrews, stating that he had gone beyond his mandate and “slandered” “normal” arms trade between sovereign states. The following day, China escalated its aggressive opposition, defending its interpretation that NGOs should not be allowed to propose issues to be discussed by the Sub-Working Group. Despite the best efforts of Mr. Robinson, as well as of the interventions by the UK, Austria, and Mexico defending that NGOs are allowed to propose topics to be discussed by the Group, China insisted that this possibility should be further discussed in future meetings of the CSP11cycle.
It's clear that China’s opposition is not simply about the prerogatives of NGOs in the ATT. Its main objective is to block discussions around compliance. During the presentations, Human Rights Watch highlighted its recent research on the war in Sudan, which found that Sudan’s Rapid Support Forces (RSF)’s arsenal includes Chinese commercial drones, drone jammers, and mortar shells, among other weapons produced by Russia and Türkiye and provided by the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Iran. Likewise, Mr. Andrews, speaking on the situation in Myanmar, stressed that “there is every reason to conclude that weapons transferred to the military junta of Myanmar will indeed continue to be used to brutally attack civilians,” and identified China as the second largest provider of weapons, standing only after Russia, with sales amounting to 267 million USD.
China apparently does not want to have the impact of its weapons be discussed in a formal meeting of the ATT. Neither does Israel, which vigorously objected to the debate, both inside and outside the room. During the debates, Israel argued that “organizations cannot be the ones who determine the agenda of the meetings” and that addressing pending ICJ cases in the ATT could risk “opening the door for abuse of the ICJ, as it would incentivize states to submit claims and proceedings regardless of their evidentiary basis for the sole purpose of obstructing the transport of weapons to other states to promote their political agenda.” It also rejected “any attempt to portray the Human Rights Council, an inherently political body, and its special procedures mechanisms, as an objective or professional body capable of adequately determining violations of human rights, particularly for the purposes of assessing ATT obligations.”
Both the UK and Mexico reiterated their support for the work of the Human Rights Council. The UK also expressed its commitment to respect the role and independence of the ICJ, and Mexico stressed the importance of ICJ’s decisions. “The serious humanitarian situation that we see in Gaza on a daily basis and in the rest of the occupied territories obliges us to support international efforts of the international community to try and implement the opinion of the ICJ,” said Mexico.
As WILPF stated in a briefing paper published ahead of the meeting, the ICJ’s interim order in South Africa v. Israel, which considered the allegation of genocide “plausible,” triggers the application of Article 6(3) of the ATT, prohibiting any new authorisations to Israel, as well as of Article 7 (1) and Article 7(7), demanding that states reassess prior authorisations and suspend them. Additionally, in the arrest warrants issued by the Pre-Trial Chamber of the International Criminal Court (ICC) for the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and former Israeli Minister of Defence Yoav Gallant, the Court found reasonable grounds to believe that each has committed the war crime of using starvation as a method of warfare and crimes against humanity of murder, persecution, and other inhumane acts, as a direct perpetrator, acting jointly with others. This, together with the overwhelming evidence available of international crimes being committed by Israel, make it very clear that the standards of “knowledge” of article 6(3) and of “overriding risk,” in Article 7(1) and 7(3) of the ATT are reached.
WILPF also stressed that in light of the ICJ’s advisory opinion concluding that Israel’s decades-long occupation and annexation of Palestinian territory is unlawful, all states must end the transfer and sale of weapons, parts, components, and ammunition to Israel. This recommendation was also made by UN experts, several non-governmental organisations, and by the United Nations Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory.
Israel’s aggressive lobbying and baseless arguments against the ICJ and the HRC did not prevent delegations from speaking about Israel’s atrocities. As Palestine noted, “The reckless arms trade with the Israeli occupying power has fueled illegal occupation, apartheid, and immeasurable human suffering.” It emphasised that despite more than 49,000 Palestinians killed, and despite the ICJ’s order to Israel to end its occupation of Palestinian territory and ruling on the plausible risk of genocide in Gaza, the flow of weapons continues, in violation of legal obligations of Articles 6 and 7 of the ATT. It called upon all ATT states parties to immediately cease all direct and indirect arms transfers to Israel, including components and spare parts, in full compliance with international law and the ATT. Similarly, Mexico echoed the statement made by the UN High Commissioner of Human Rights calling on states to abstain from transferring any arms and ammunition, including parts and components, that could be used to breach international law. Mexico also recalled the report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories, Ms. Francesca Albanese, published in March 2024.
The ATT cannot afford to keep discussions about arms transfers outside the conference room. ATT states parties should not allow those who violate human rights and IHL to bully the conference to turn a blind eye to the harm being caused by their actions. As Francesca Albanese, who is herself intimidated and bullied to do not speak about violations perpetrated by Israel, said in a recent interview , “We should not fear words. We shall fear crimes. Those that commit them and those that deny them.”
Gender-based violence in the ATT
During the discussion about “The risk of conventional arms being used for gender-based violence (GBV) or violence against women and children (VAWC),” Israel presented the working paper “Diversion of Arms and Gender-based Violence” about GBV and violence against children by terrorist groups. In its statement, Israel particularly emphasised the report of the Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General on sexual violence in conflict, Ms. Pramila Patten. Israel noted that after an “official visit” to Israel in January and February 2024, the Special Representative determined that there was convincing information that sexual violence had been committed against hostages, and that there were reasonable grounds to believe that violence occurred in multiple locations during the 7 October 2023 attacks, including rape and gang rape.
Israel failed to note, however, the widely reported controversy around Ms. Patten’s visit, as she lacked any formal investigatory mandate—in fact, the decision to conduct such an unprecedented mission was met with fierce dissent inside her own office. In addition, as highlighted by the journalist Ryan Grim, Ms. Patten’s report was wielded by Israeli officials as evidence to bolster allegations of systemic sexual violence, but a close reading of the text showed it contained far more nuanced language. “The report’s central finding—that there were ‘reasonable grounds to believe that conflict-related sexual violence occurred during the 7 October attacks’—fell short of confirming that systemic sexual violence had in fact occurred,” he clarified.
This is not to say that there was no sexual violence perpetrated by Hamas. The Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory has reported on that, but it has also reported about sexual violence against Palestinian prisoners and hostages, which Israel did not mention. There is ample evidence of widespread sexual abuse, torture, sexual assault, and rape, amid atrocious inhumane conditions, against Palestinians in custody, including children. Israel should allow independent human rights experts with an investigatory mandate in the country and let them collect, analyse, and report on the evidence found. Instead, it has not only refused to cooperate with the Commission of Inquiry, but actively obstructed its efforts to investigate. If Israel’s goal is truth and justice, independent and transparent mechanisms are the only way to ensure credible findings.
Rather than giving access to independent investigators, Israel continues to adopt perverse tactics, including fear and intimidation, to bully those speaking out against its violence. Those strategies have been used before by a range of actors in multilateral spaces, including heavy militarised states and their supporters. WILPF was accused many times, in the ATT and beyond, of politicising debates just by raising alarm over the gendered impact of arms. It was even accused by the authors of the fascist Project 2025 of causing “gender panic”—whatever that means—for saying that militarised masculinity is a key impediment to disarmament, peace, and gender equality. But despite fear and intimidation, WILPF and other organisations continued to advocate for the inclusion of reference to gender-based violence in the ATT. Thanks to the bravery of some states, supported by civil society, who fiercely fought during negotiations, article 7(4) was included in the Treaty.
Ten years after entry into force of the Treaty, this provision is widely celebrated. Several delegations, including Aotearoa New Zealand, Australia, Austria, Canada, Germany, and Switzerland, not only emphasised the importance of Article 7(4) in preventing conflict-related sexual violence and GBV, but reiterated their commitment to its implementation. Aotearoa New Zealand, Australia, and Switzerland further expanded on how they have been implementing the provision. Austria, Canada, and Switzerland particularly supported the consideration of violence against LGBTQ+ persons.
Many initiatives were proposed to further strengthen gender considerations in the ATT. Control Arms presented its proposal to complement the current guidance on Article 7 (4) of the Treaty in the Voluntary Guide to Implementing Articles 6 and 7 with elements that are directly relevant for the practical implementation of Article 7(4). Mexico also presented its proposal for holding consultations to designate gender focal points in the context of the ATT. Australia, Austria, Canada, Germany, Guyana, and the Netherlands welcomed Mexico’s proposal. The Netherlands shared about its experience being the gender focal point at the Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention and reiterated that having gender focal points in the ATT could contribute to the implementation of Article 7(4), the voluntary guide, and other recommendations that have been adopted within the framework of the Treaty since CSP5. Only Argentina expressed reservations with Mexico’s proposal, arguing that “adopting a sectoral approach could create inequalities that would favour discrimination instead of avoiding it.” This current position is in stark contrast to Argentina’s past contributions as one of the gender champions in the ATT.
The bravery of states and organisations who fought ten years ago for this provision to be included in the Treaty are being honoured today by the efforts of other states and organisations to implement it. This shows that the success of the Treaty ultimately lies on actors with diverse backgrounds, from different parts of the world, across different times, that come together to fulfil the ATT’s purpose of preventing human suffering. When working side-by-side, nothing can stop them–not even the most violent warmongers in the most troubling times.
[PDF] ()