Business and Human Rights in the arms sector

Recently, a lawsuit filed by Mexico in the state of Massachusetts against North American arms manufacturing companies was dismissed, related to the impacts that their indiscriminate sale generates in the Mexican population, under the argument that the end users supply or are members of criminal organizations. . However, this October 10, the Mexican government filed a second lawsuit before the United States Courts with similar arguments, this time, in the state of Arizona and emphasizing the issue of “ant trafficking.”

Given the doubts about whether or not the Mexican claims regarding the legislative interpretation of the damages of the armed industry towards the civilian population will proceed, it seems pertinent to point out that these demands have already fulfilled an important task: putting the issue of role of business and human rights (under a context of criminal violence).

The relevance of this requires a bit of context.

At the international level, there is a series of regulatory frameworks that identify the risk involved in uncontrolled transfers of firearms to populations in the world (the United States is not part of this regime).

In general, we find that the Arms Trade Treaty explicitly states as one of its objectives “to reduce human suffering”. Therefore, its provisions include the evaluation of exports in which the weapons have the potential to be used to commit serious violations of international humanitarian law and/or international human rights law (art. 7.1.i and 7.1.ii. ), as well as to generate “acts of serious violence” towards children and women (art. 7.4).

On the other hand, there is the Protocol on Firearms (binding instrument of the year 2001, complementary to the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime), with a focus on security for societies and which seeks to prevent and eradicate trafficking and the illicit manufacture of firearms, their parts, components and ammunition.

Thus, at the regional level there is the CIFTA and the Common Position of the European Union. However, the international arms control regime extends beyond the Treaties and there are a series of mechanisms that allow this content to be grounded in practice, such as the Wassenar Agreement, the UN Program of Action, the International Instrument Tracking and, recently, the Deviation Information Exchange Forum.

Said scenario makes it possible to note that the main actors are the States, although it is the private armed industry that shares the leading role in the research, development, promotion, intermediation and merchandise transactions (including the financial and insurance institutions that fund the companies that carry out the transactions). and protect them from any loss from the arms trade. Why does this matter?

First, because the States are the gateway to decide with whom to transact and under what conditions. And although these lawsuits do not talk about legal purchases from Mexico that were later diverted to an illegal market, it is important to identify the companies that do not care who buys from them or the destination of their products.

Second, because the transparency and accountability mechanisms become vital both for the seller and for the buyer. This redirects attention to the States, to establish necessary standards that mitigate obvious risks, such as the criminal use of firearms.

For all this, a strong collaboration and political will of the parties is required.

Twitter: @SaoriMontse