Profile report
small arms
22 June 2006

Profile in Word Format• in PDF Format

UN Documents • Historical Background • Other Sources • Key Facts • Measures Adopted by the General Assembly • Regional Measures • Details of Council Involvement • Arms Embargoes and Monitoring Mechanisms • Peacebuilding and Conflict Prevention • Underlying Problems • Next Steps • UN Documents • Historical Background • Useful Additional Sources

Key Facts
Recent conflicts have been increasingly fuelled by the availability of small arms. The direct impact they have had on the maintenance of peace has presented new problems for the Security Council in discharging its primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security. The Council has highlighted the importance of this issue by addressing small arms as one of the thematic issues that regularly appear on the Council's agenda, beginning in 1999 (see, for example, the first Council debate on small arms S/PV.4048).  In the 2005 World Summit outcome document (A/RES/60/1), world leaders highlighted their concerns of the issue, and the document reflects the possibility of an emerging international consensus, at a minimum, on the need for regulation of illicit arms transfers.

Previously, the General Assembly had invited the Secretary-General to establish a panel of governmental experts on small arms in 1995 (A/RES/50/70 B). Debates have followed within the General Assembly, the Commission on Human Rights and its Sub-Commission, and UN agencies. 

Worldwide, more than 640 million small arms and light weapons and 16 billion rounds of ammunition are in circulation today, with an additional 8 million new weapons entering the market each year. They are estimated by the Graduate Institute of International Studies in Geneva to be responsible for more than half a million deaths each year, including 300,000 in armed conflict. Of the 49 major conflicts in the 1990s, small arms were the key weapons in 47 of them.  Small arms and light weapons have been sufficient to destabilise states and entire regions, increase the lethality and longevity of conflicts, obstruct relief programmes, undermine peace initiatives, exacerbate human rights abuses and hamper development.   In his 2005 report, "In Larger Freedom," the Secretary-General noted that "the accumulation and proliferation of small arms and light weapons continues to be a serious threat to peace, stability and sustainable development."

Small arms are the most widespread, easily available and difficult to control of all the tools of war. Porous borders and cross-border arms trafficking have been highlighted in Council debates as a problem in controlling the trade in small weapons (S/PV.4720, S/PV.4896, S/PV.5127, S/PV.5390).  Further, particularly during times of conflict and immediately after a conflict, poor government controls have allowed these weapons to shift from one conflict area to another. 

As most countries affected by small arms violence are not arms producers themselves, attention has been focused on the supply of and trade in small arms.  Small arms are supplied by states and by private dealers, both legitimate and illegitimate.  Small arms are often repeatedly recycled across borders to refuel conflicts, amplifying the effect of the initial sale.  In the UN, concern has focused primarily on illegal arms sales, but the illicit trade is connected to the legal trade in small arms. The lack of transparency in even legitimate trade presents a significant challenge its the control.

Small arms represent a sizeable industry: valued at about US$4 billion dollars a year in authorised trade and over US$1 billion dollars a year in unauthorised trade. The top exporting countries, according to the Small Arms Survey 2005, include the United States, Italy, Brazil, Germany, Belgium, Russia and China.  Tackling the issue at the Council level has been sensitive matter, as several member states themselves are the source of the small arms and light weaponry.

There are currently two main approaches to countering the problem of the proliferation of small arms. The "supply-side" approach focuses on increasing accountability and government regulation of small arms in their production, transfer, sale and end-user certification. This approach aims to prevent arms transfers to states and non-state actors who are likely to commit serious violations of human rights and international humanitarian law.  It entails the use of mechanisms such as sanctions, public pressure, weapons-marking and increased post-transfer oversight.

The second, "demand-side" approach recognises that, in some countries, the abundant pool of small arms already available will not be affected by supply-side strategies.  This approach, therefore, seeks to curb the use of weapons already present by using external means such as peacekeeping operations to improve security within the state, while developing disarmament, demobilization and reintegration (DDR) programmes, and scaling back the number of available weapons.  

The Council has used both approaches in specific situations. The Council's supply-side approach has focused primarily on imposing arms embargoes, which apply to both state and non-state actors, and has had mixed success. For example, the current arms embargo in Côte d'Ivoire has not proven to be effective.  The report from the Group of Experts (S/2005/699) noted that the lack of clarity about the embargo led to possible violations, the tracking of small arms by Côte d'Ivoire officials was very opaque, and that multiple shipments of arms ignored the registration requirement of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) Moratorium.   The Council's demand-side approach has also yielded mixed results.  Despite the emphasis of Council members on the inclusion of DDR provisions in peace agreements, and as integral parts of UN peacekeeping mandates, DDR programmes themselves have had uneven success. For example, the failure of the DDR programme in Liberia in 1997 has been criticised as being partly responsible for the repeated outbreaks of conflict in that region.
top

Measures Adopted by the General Assembly
At the thematic level, while there has been much discussion in the General Assembly and its subsidiary bodies about the problem of small arms, very few binding measures have been adopted. One example is the Protocol against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Their Parts and Components and Ammunition, supplementing the UN Convention against Transnational Organised Crime (A/55/383/Add.2). This protocol, which entered into force on 3 July 2005, currently has 49 parties and 52 signatories. The Protocol commits the parties to regulate the manufacture, export, import and transit of firearms. It also requires firearms to be marked and records to be kept for ten years, and encourages, but does not require the regulation of arms brokers. The Protocol only covers commercial transfers, and does not regulate state-to-state transfers.

In addition, there are two nonbinding measures of relevance. The first, the UN Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects (known as the PoA), was adopted by participating states at the Conference on the Illicit Trade of Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects in July 2001. The second, the International Instrument to Enable States to Identify and Trace, in a Timely and Reliable Manner, Illicit Small Arms and Light Weapons, was adopted by the General Assembly in December 2005 (A/C.1/60/L.55).

The PoA calls on states to implement legislation or other measures to criminalise the illegal manufacture, possession, stockpiling and trade in small arms, and encourages the establishment of a small-arms registration system, through marking and tracking mechanisms. But the record of states in implementing the measures called for in the PoA is uneven.  A comprehensive review conference is scheduled for July 2006, to discuss progress and, it is hoped, adopt a plan of action for the future.   There will be pressure from NGOs and some states to strengthen this global instrument and to close some gaps in the document as it currently stands. Some of the gaps include the lack of explicit reference to state regulation of civilian possession and use of arms, the lack of clarity on international standards on arms transfers, the absence of measures to address arms transfers to non-state actors and a lack of a clear plan for tackling illicit production.

The Security Council first welcomed the PoA in a presidential statement in August 2001 (S/PRST/2001/21), and has continued to show support in subsequent statements (S/PRST/2002/30, 2004/1, 2005/7).   

The second measure, the International Instrument, adopted by the General Assembly in 2005, was the product of four years of negotiations and represents a compromise between states pushing for a legally binding and comprehensive agreement, and a small group of states, including the United States, Iran and Egypt, reluctant to restrict the sale of small arms. This instrument, as agreed, sets up a system to record the serial numbers of small arms and light weapons when they are sold or transferred between countries. However, as it is nonbinding, compliance wouldl be voluntary.
top

Regional Measures
Small arms and light weapons have been addressed at a regional level as well. The result of one such effort in 1998 was the ECOWAS Moratorium on the import, export, manufacture and sale of small arms and light weapons in West Africa. Unlike an arms embargo, a moratorium does not necessarily imply punishment, but acts as a preventative mechanism.  However, while strong on paper, this initiative by ECOWAS has not been very effective in preventing new supplies of arms entering West Africa. Another was the EU Joint Action on Combating the Destabilising Accumulation and Spread of Small Arms and Light Weapons, which was adopted by the Council of the European Union in December 1998. These initiatives have shown the commitment of governments in principle to tackle the proliferation of small arms in their region. 
top

Details of Council Involvement
The Council first engaged the issue at a ministerial-level meeting on 24 September 1999, when it addressed the strengthening of arms embargoes and arms flows into regions engaged in or emerging from armed conflict. The Council further raised the issue of including the terms of DDR in specific peace agreements.    Following the first UN Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects and the subsequent adoption of the PoA by participating states in July 2001, the Council held a day-long  open debate on  2 August 2001 to examine its role in the implementation of the action programme.  The presidential statement (S/PRST/2001/21) released later that month asked the Secretary-General to address the issue of small arms in his analytical reports on specific situations, as well as to submit a report containing concrete recommendations on  ways and means in which the Council could contribute to efforts to address the problems presented by the small-arms proliferation. 

The Secretary-General's report submitted in September 2002 (S/2002/1053) contained twelve recommendations for Council action to:

1. 1) encourage states to support efforts to develop an international document that would enable states to identify and trace, in a timely and reliable manner, illicit arms and light weapons;
2. 2) call on states to provide technical and financial support to the Interpol Weapons and Explosive Tracking System;
3. 3) assist the Secretariat in establishing a small arms advisory service;
4. 4) consider means to enhance interaction with the General Assembly in the context of the PoA;
5. 5) enforce sanctions and arms embargoes;
6. 6) continue efforts aimed at identifying links between illicit trade in small arms and light weapons, and the illicit exploitation of other resources;
7. 7) call on parties to conflicts to recognise the importance of DDR in post-conflict situations, and include such measures in the text of agreed documents;
8. 8) strengthen financing for DDR;
9. 9) encourage states to establish necessary legislative or other measures to ensure effective control over the export and transit of small arms and light weapons;
10. 10) pursue more vigorously the use of arms embargoes, under article 41 of the UN Charter;
11. 11) establish monitoring mechanisms for arms embargoes, and consider coercive measures against member states that deliberately violate those embargoes; and
12. 12) call upon states to enhance transparency in armaments, including through participation in the UN Register of Conventional Arms and the UN standardised instrument for reporting military expenditures.

In a presidential statement in October (S/PRST/2002/30) the Council took note with appreciation of the report and requested the Secretary-General to report on the implementation of all his recommendations by the end of 2003.

The Secretary-General has since submitted three reports, in December 2003, February 2005, and February 2006 on the progress towards the implementation of these recommendations. In his most recent report to the Council in February 2006 (S/2006/109) the Secretary-General noted significant progress since his last report. In particular, he noted the adoption of the International Instrument to Enable States to Identify and Trace, in a Timely and Reliable Manner, Illicit Small Arms and Light Weapons (recommendation 1); the enhancement of the Interpol Weapons Electronic Tracing System (recommendation 2); the focus of the Council on the links between illicit exploitation of natural resources and the illicit trade in small arms (recommendation 6); the emphasis placed by the Council on the importance of inter-mission cooperation in the implementation of DDR (recommendation 7); and the Council's attention to mechanisms to support and monitor arms embargoes (recommendation 11).  He noted two areas of concern which require attention: the enforcement of sanctions remains dependent on the political will of member states (recommendation 5), and support for the UN body, Coordinating Action on Small Arms (CASA) to enhance the development a coordinated and coherent approach to small arms.  Overall, the articulation of the twelve recommendations by the Secretary-General has served to focus the attention of the Council members on specific actions related to addressing the problem of small arms.

The debates in the Council have explicitly linked the proliferation of small arms and the increase in the number of mercenaries to instability and threats to the peace and security in numerous areas. Furthermore, the proliferation of small arms has been linked to the growth in the numbers of child combatants in both international and internal armed conflicts. The Secretary-General has also pointed to the impact of small arms on the observed increases in civilian fatalities, particularly among women and children. 

The Council has attempted to stem the flow of small arms in two main ways: first, by establishing arms embargoes and focusing on funding for illicit arms, and second, by taking small arms and light weapons into account in conflict-prevention actions, peacekeeping operations, peacebuilding activities and by establishing DDR programmes.
top

Arms Embargoes and Monitoring Mechanisms
Arms embargoes have recently been employed frequently by the Council in an effort to target specific regimes or rebel groups and their military capabilities. Effectively monitored and enforced arms embargoes have the potential to directly hamper the targeted parties' abilities to wage war and, as such, can become an effective mechanism for the Council. Under article 41 of the UN Charter, states have a legal obligation to abide by embargoes enacted by the Council. Small arms and light weaponry are typically covered by these arms embargoes, which may be applied to state or non-state actors.  The 1990s saw the beginning of a proliferation of arms embargoes, some of which have since been terminated: Iraq (1990-2003), Libya (1992-2003), Somalia (1992-present), Haiti (1993-present), Angola (UNITA) (1993-2002), Rwanda (1994-present), Sierra Leone (1997-present), the former Yugoslavia (1991-1995 and 1998-2001), Ethiopia and Eritrea (2000-2001), the Taliban and Al-Qaida (2001-present), Liberia (2003-present), Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) (2003-present), Côte d'Ivoire (2004-present) and Sudan's Darfur region (2004-present).

In general there has been an improvement in recent years in the Council's efforts to monitor and enforce arms embargoes through the increased use of Groups of Experts and Monitoring Teams. Also, the Council has begun to address capacity issues in member states that inhibit sanctions enforcement at the local level. For example in the DRC the Council sought to monitor and strengthen the arms embargo, which had been found to be ineffective at stopping the flow of small arms into the region, with resolutions 1493 (2003), 1533 (2004) and 1565 (2004) which mandated the UN Mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo (MONUC) to monitor the arms embargo in the DRC, and to seize and collect arms whose presence violated the arms embargo imposed in resolution 1493.  The Group of Experts on the DRC provided a list of those found violating the arms embargo, and Council members continue to press the neighbouring states to enforce the embargo.

Purchases of illicit arms are frequently funded by the exploitation of resources such as diamonds, drugs and timber. The Council has endeavoured to address this linkage by imposing additional embargoes on these resources when appropriate.  For example in July 2000 (S/RES/1306), the Council added an embargo on diamonds to its sanctions on Sierra Leone, and in December 2005 (S/RES/1643) to the sanctions regime on Côte d'Ivoire. The Panel of Experts on Liberia issued two reports in 2004 (S/2004/396, (annex) and S/2004/752 (annex)) with specific recommendations to Liberia to ensure that the revenue from the Liberian timber industry would not be used to fuel conflict in Liberia and neighbouring countries.
top

Peacebuilding and Conflict Prevention
The Council has also recognised the need to go beyond arms embargoes to tackle the problem of the destabilising effect of arms still present in a country in post-conflict situations.  The presence of large amounts of small arms can often destabilise ongoing peace efforts and transitions towards stable and peaceful societies.  Efforts in this area show the convergence of peacekeeping operations with development programmes. A key element increasingly in peacekeeping mandates is the demobilisation and disarmament of former combatants and the Council has been very involved in taking small arms out of the hands of former combatants.

The conventional approach used in early peacekeeping missions emphasised disarmament only after the ceasefire or peace agreement, followed by limited reintegration efforts.  The first UN peacekeeping operation to undertake DDR was the UN Observer Group in Central America (ONUCA), which began in 1989. Since then, peacekeeping operations have taken varying roles in the disarmament efforts. During the 1990s, it became clear that DDR efforts needed to become more clearly integrated into the peacekeeping missions and their mandates from the very beginning in order to secure the peace. In 1998, the Secretary-General first featured DDR as one of the priorities of peacekeeping missions in his report on peacekeeping in Africa (S/1998/318). Over the course of 1999, various Council presidential statements further highlighted the importance of successful DDR.  The Secretary-General's report in February 2000 (S/2000/101) further articulated the role of the UN in DDR. 

Today, DDR has come to occupy a central position in peacekeeping operations and transitions to peace.  The Council has called for DDR to be made a central part of peace agreements. For example, resolution 1497, regarding Liberia, calls for the establishment of a DDR programme during the peace process. There are currently six peacekeeping missions with specific provisions for weapons collection and destruction in the planning and implementation phases of DDR:

• Burundi (resolution 1545, paragraph 5)
• Democratic Republic of the Congo (resolutions 1291, Paragraph 7 (c) and 1565, Paragraph 4 (g))
• Côte d'Ivoire (resolution 1609, paragraphs 2 (d), (e), (f), (h), and (i))
• Haiti (resolution 1542, paragraph 7 I (c))
• Liberia (resolution 1509, paragraph 3 (f) and (g))
• Sudan (resolution 1590, Paragraph 4 (iv)).

top

Underlying Problems
Despite numerous arms embargoes, DDR campaigns and legal instruments, trade in illicit small arms continues to be a major and growing problem in many parts of the world.  The issue remains controversial partly due to states' involvement in the production and the lucrative trade of the weapons themselves. One example of the contentious nature of the issue is the recent lack of agreement on a draft Security Council resolution, drafted in February, which has yet to be voted on.

Support for supply side measures has also not been uniform: political will on the part of states involved in the supply and export of small arms to scale back their arms sales has been lacking as well. A second but related issue is that of legislation to track and trace sales of illicit small arms.  Three of the top arms suppliers in the world, China, Russia and the United States, have opposed legally binding measures. Current or recent members of the Council who have called for legally binding measures include members of the EU, Argentina and Brazil. Further, the control of small arms supply is dependent on national legislation, the implementation of which has been uneven.  Disparate approaches at national, sub-regional and regional levels have created loopholes, allowing arms suppliers to simply operate through countries with the weakest legislation.

On the demand side also, measures to tackle the problem of small arms has not been uniform.  The strongest support for efforts has come from states such as the members of the EU, Norway and Canada.  The least support has come from states such as Albania, Angola, China, Egypt, Iran and the United States, among others. The lack of consistent support for demand side measures can be seen, for example, in the difficulty in financing DDR programmes as part of peacekeeping operations (S/2005/69).
top

Next Steps
The issue of small arms is likely to be on the agenda of the Council in the summer, when the PoA undergoes its first comprehensive review at a conference to be held from 26 June to 7 July 2006 at UN Headquarters in New York.  The Council is expected to address the impact of small arms on peace and security through:

•  the continued inclusion of small arms and light weaponry in arms embargoes imposed during times of conflict; and
• the inclusion of DDR programmes in peace settlements and peacekeeping operations.

top

UN Documents

top

Historical Background

top

Useful Additional Sources

• Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue, Missing Pieces: Directions for Reducing Gun Violence through the UN Process on Small Arms Control, July 2005 
• International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA), 2005: Biting the Bullet, Report on the PoA
• Small Arms Survey 2005: Weapons at War
• Small Arms and Light Weapons, Selected United Nations Documents, 2005
• World Bank Position Paper: Linkages between Disarmament, Demobilisation and Reintegration of Ex-Combatants and Security Sector Reform, MRDP Secretariat Paper. Washington D.C.: World Bank and MDRP Secretariat

top