The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The UN Arms Trade Treaty: arms export controls, the human security agenda and the lessons of history
Abstract
The UN conference to negotiate an Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) concluded on 27 July 2012 without reaching consensus on the text of a draft treaty and saw both the US and Russia calling for more time to negotiate. The ATT process marks the latest in a series of attempts to insert human security concerns into arms export controls. The setback in July raises questions about the current level of international support for the human security agenda, as well as the relative power of different actors to shape global governance structures. This article locates the ATT negotiations in the broader history of multilateral efforts to regulate the international arms trade, from the 1890 Brussels Act to post-Cold War initiatives. The historical record shows that such efforts are more likely to succeed if they are negotiated or imposed by major arms exporters. The introduction of human security concerns, as well as the merging of export control and arms control agendas, went some way towards reversing this trend. In particular, it created a broad international coalition of supportive states and NGOs from the global North and South. Yet disagreements over the purpose of an ATT remained. The draft ATT included human security provisions, but China, Russia, the US and a number of emerging powers ensured that state security considerations remained paramount in decision-making on arms exports. The US was the first major actor to announce its unwillingness to sign the draft ATT in July 2012 and two alternative interpretations of US actions are considered. The article concludes by considering the options available to supporters of the ATT process following the 2012 conference and examines the notion that the ATT campaign has become an initiative ‘out of its time’, one that might have had success in the 1990s but not in current circumstances.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Similarly, a feature of contemporary transnational initiatives on small arms, landmines and the ATT has been the way these have also been actively promoted by key states and civil society organisations from the global South (Bromley, Cooper and Holtom 2012, 1039; Afrat 2012, 66).”
From Race, Sovereignty, and Free Trade: Arms Trade Regulation and Humanitarian Arms Control in the Age of Empire (2018) · cites this paper as Bromley, Cooper and Holtom 2012, 1039
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Cooper, N. (2018) · Journal of Global Security Studies · doi:10.1093/jogss/ogy013 · Cited by 10
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- BROMLEY, M., COOPER, N., & HOLTOM, P.
- Affiliations
- Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SE)
- University of Bradford (GB)
- ORCID
- HOLTOM, PAUL
- Venue
- International Affairs
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2012-09
- Volume
- 88
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 1029-1048
- ISSN
- 0020-5850 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2165265153
- Cited by
- 54
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 6 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 2
- FWCI
- 9.95
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- International Affairs (publishedVersion)
- Bradford Scholars (University of Bradford) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Defense, Military, and Policy Studies
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Global Peace and Security Dynamics
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › International Relations and Foreign Policy
- Keywords
- arms export control, human security, arms trade regulation, multilateral negotiations, global governance, state security, emerging powers, non-governmental organizations, history of arms control
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review