INTRODUCTION

The inclusion of a specific Article on dispute settlement is common practice in many multilateral treaties, especially those negotiated under the auspices of the United Nations (UN). The Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) is no different.

Article 19 addresses how disputes related to the interpretation or application of the Treaty should be settled. Several dispute settlement mechanisms, commonly used in the resolution of disputes arising from the interpretation or application of multilateral treaties, are mentioned: negotiations, mediation, conciliation, judicial settlement, arbitration and other peaceful means. States Parties may also pursue arbitration. The forms of dispute settlement set out in the ATT are not exhaustive. However, it is important to note that all forms of dispute settlement must be by mutual consent.

NEGOTIATING HISTORY

Dispute settlement, along with other ‘final provisions’, was not a core issue during the ATT deliberations and negotiations. However, there were some elements that generated debate.

One such issue was denials of arms export authorizations by a State. This issue proved to be a divisive one as States debated whether dispute resolution mechanisms should be available in such circumstances. Some, mainly arms importing States, called for an effective dispute settlement mechanism to address denials. Other States, particularly arms exporters, wanted the dispute settlement provision to clearly state that transfer denials were a matter of national sovereignty. These States also emphasized that there is no obligation to export arms and no right to import them and that including a dispute settlement provision on transfer denials might contradict the Treaty. Certainly it was never the intention of the ATT to establish a legally binding obligation to export arms, so providing a means to address arms transfer denials could seem contradictory.