Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.7
Site Design by Sekimori

« St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner under attack | Main | Oklahoma: not a good place for burglars »

Analysis of the failed small arms control treaty

Posted by David Hardy · 28 October 2012 01:06 PM

Interesting analysis. The popular narrative is that the U.S. killed the treaty. This analysis argues that the treaty was dead on its feet anyway, for reasons linked to other nations' interests. The treaty had many provisions, and the ones attracting the most opposition were ones that would have restricted arms transfers that were thought to pose a risk of fueling violations of international human rights law, or might adversely affect socio-economic development. No less than 39 countries were objecting to the last. The treaty had nowhere near a consensus backing it. Cuban, Iran, and Venezuela each had more objections than did the U.S..

"In conclusion, UN ATT Conference died from lack of consensus. This death was due less to failed diplomacy, or pressure by the firearms industry and gun rights groups, than it was the result of many years of abortive advocacy lead by an unraveling UK-based Control Arms campaign. Control Arms’ broad vision for the ATT was more extreme than consensus could sustain. Ultimately, humanitarian groups sabotaged consensus for an ATT by pushing diplomats too hard for far too much and provoked dispositive sovereignty concerns across the Asia, Latin America, and the Middle East in addition to the United States.

· non-US

2 Comments | Leave a comment

KSGunner | October 28, 2012 4:24 PM | Reply

An interesting point, and probably a valid one. I am do however have to disagree that there will be an ATT outside of the UN,or if there is it will be even less meaningful than treaties banning landmines or cluster munitions. Such treaties only work if the countries that make and export such weapons are all willing to sign on. The ones that really matter have shown time and again that the will not go against their own best economic or military interests that would be involved in signing on to these misguided pieces of toothless feelgood excuse for international diplomacy.

Mman | October 28, 2012 5:26 PM | Reply

"Gun control" is people control.

Leave a comment