Madame President,
Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen,
We gather at a pressing moment in history.
The toll of armed conflict on civilians is mounting. The ICRC now counts more than 130 armed conflicts – twice as many as 15 years ago. Conflicts are lasting longer, growing more complex and trapping entire generations in cycles of violence.
At the same time, fears of additional large-scale conflicts are growing while military expenditure and the volume of arms transfers between States have risen dramatically in recent years.
Every day, from the Democratic Republic of the Congo to Sudan, Israel and the occupied territories, Iran, Ukraine, Myanmar and beyond, ICRC teams on the ground witness the immense suffering caused by armed conflict.
The widespread availability and misuse of weapons often fuel violations of international humanitarian law and human rights law and intensify harm, including sexual and gender-based violence. The use of explosive weapons with wide area effects in populated areas repeatedly prove devastating for civilians and the infrastructure they rely on to survive.
The Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) embodies both a recognition and a promise that the potential humanitarian consequences of arms transfers matter, and that they must inform decisions on whether those transfers go ahead. In joining the ATT, States Parties demonstrate leadership and commitment in putting that promise into practice.
I welcome Ecuador and Vanuatu as the newest States Parties, bringing the total to 118. Every new accession strengthens the prospect of a truly global standard for responsible arms transfers.
But the promise of the treaty can only be realized through its implementation. Its value is ultimately measured not only by the number of States that have joined it, or by the commitments that you will make in this room, but by how those commitments inform arms-transfer decisions in practice.
The ATT requires States that supply arms to apply great diligence in assessing the risks posed by the arms they transfer, and to implement timely, robust and practical measures that can realistically offset such risks. Where there is a clear risk that arms would be used to commit or facilitate violations of international humanitarian law or international human rights law, States must refrain from transferring them.
Yet there remains a significant gap between the promise of the treaty and its implementation in practice.
This is part of a wider concern of the ICRC. Far too often there is a dangerous disparity between discourse and action regarding even the most fundamental principles and rules of international humanitarian law.
The ATT entered into force over a decade ago. Still we see continued authorization of arms transfers that run counter to the humanitarian purpose of the treaty. How can this reality be reconciled with our shared commitment to preserving human dignity in armed conflict?
Arms-transfer decisions are rarely straightforward. They are taken against complex political, security and economic considerations. However, when those are allowed to override respect for IHL or human rights law, they seriously undermine the ATT’s humanitarian purpose.
This is precisely where commitment to the law is tested: not in words, but in the decisions taken by States to put it into practice.
The consequences extend beyond any single transfer or conflict. Every decision that gives effect to the treaty contributes to preserving a minimum of humanity in war and reinforces the international framework that protects us all.
I urge States to make respect for international humanitarian law a political priority – including through the faithful implementation of the Arms Trade Treaty.
This plea is also at the heart of the Global Initiative to Galvanize Political Commitment to International Humanitarian Law. During consultations under this Initiative, many States emphasized the need to carry out arms-transfer, export and procurement processes that comply with applicable obligations, taking into account assessments on the potential harm to civilians, impacts on essential services, diversion risks, compliance patterns and long-term destabilization effects.
For international humanitarian law, and for the Arms Trade Treaty, to fulfil their protective purpose, the ingredients remain the same:
- effective implementation of the law;
- good-faith interpretation that gives effect to its humanitarian purpose;
- and strong political will to uphold it in practice – including in the most difficult circumstances.
This conference, and the discussions on the ATT's five-year strategy, provide an important opportunity for States Parties to demonstrate that political will.
States Parties can support one another by sharing good practices, discussing challenges and working collectively towards stronger and more consistent implementation.
But it must also happen at home through rigorous and impartial risk assessments, effective national control systems and arms-transfer decisions that give full effect to the treaty and its humanitarian objectives.
The promise of the Arms Trade Treaty to reduce human suffering and contribute to peace and stability remains as urgent today as when the Treaty was adopted.
The ICRC remains deeply committed to supporting States Parties in the application of the treaty, and to all efforts to advance its universalization and faithful implementation.
Thank you.
