ABSTRACT
Change is possible in international relations, even in the realm of hard security. In the last two decades, states have engaged in innovative forms of multilateral diplomacy in highly sensitive national security arenas. Radical innovations in thinking, diplomacy and negotiations have occurred in domains previously thought to be the exclusive purview of states. New norms now exist and international law has evolved to address some of the most complex areas of international security where human security is most imperiled. Creative new international security regimes have been developed and embryonic ones have progressed as a result of principled negotiations. Passion and fervor in crafting disarmament diplomacy have compelled the stipulation and recommendation of new duties and responsibilities, commitments and obligations. Egregious violations of the highest customary norms of international law have laid the foundation for new aspirations for building a better world. A belief in change, a strategic vision, and the moral championship of individuals in civil society and some states alike have been the prevailing paramount forces for change in the deeply ingrained conduct of states in international relations. The exploration of these phenomena was the motivation for my study in this book. The security of individuals is as important as the security of states. Long gone is the time where the state was the only referent object of international security. The protection of the individual is at the heart of the institution of new regimes and the motivation of change in international relations. My study is situated within a broadened and enlarged understanding of security that transcends the narrow view of the state as the sole object of security and views the individual as a relevant referent. One of the key mechanisms at the disposal of states and other actors for the application of a broadened and enlarged conception of security today is disarmament diplomacy. Through such disarmament diplomacy, human security can be ameliorated. With fewer arms to inflict unnecessary suffering, more lives will be saved and fewer lives will be ruined and shattered. Irresponsible and excessive arms transfers imperil human security and divert economic resources that could be best employed in the provision of good governance. For me and for many other authors, the implementation of the highest ideals
enshrined in human rights law (HRL) and the observation of the customary principles protected by international humanitarian law (IHL) are the means to improve human security and realize the goals and hopes of more humane forms of governance. The separation between “what is” and “what ought to be,” once widely accepted and propounded by realist theories of international relations, is anachronistic. Realism maintained that the international realm is that of repetition, continuity and the impossibility of change, and is devoid of ethics and high moral aspirations, with no room for new ideas and the power of international norms. The disconnection between “what is” and “what ought to be” is artificial because new ideas are the fabric of the international realm and are also its motor of change. To be clear, international law better understands this dichotomy, but in real terms. For international law, there is a separation between lex lata and lege ferenda, i.e. where international law is and where it should aspire or aim to be. However, this is also the bread and butter of international relations: they may be in a state where law exists, or even where there is no law, but efforts can be made for change and for the inauguration of a new era. Lege ferenda therefore reflects a world where states have agreed to have less of the means of destroying humanity and lex lata existed at a time when states could have as many weapons of mass destruction as they wanted and could do whatever they wished with them. As a consequence, the prohibition of weapons of mass destruction through several disarmament diplomacy treaties occurred as a result of national security interests, but also of ideals and diplomatic craft that changed lex lata to lege ferenda concretely through such treaties as the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the 1972 Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction, and the Chemical Weapons Convention of 1992. Also of note was the 1980 Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May be Deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects, which came at a time when several types of conventional arms also endangered human security. In the making of all these treaties, humanitarian considerations usually set in motion the processes of disarmament diplomacy. In these cases, moral imperatives alone did not have sufficient force to compel states to change from possessing the means of destruction to not possessing them. In all these cases, motivations close to national security were part of the incentive. A leading national security concern was the fear that one state would use certain weapons, or inadvertently use them, or transfer them to undesired users, thus imperiling all states. Essential humanitarian principles, enshrined in IHL through the Geneva Conventions since 1949 and now customary international law, have been key to driving disarmament diplomacy and were a constituent part of the moral motivations that led states to institute change. These principles are those of prohibiting the unnecessary suffering of combatants, outlawing indiscriminate weapons, and distinguishing between civilians and combatants. These humanitarian principles have since been part of the equation, mixed with other motives. However, it is of
recent vintage that such principles and the moral calculation that states do to change have assumed center stage and become the driving force of international relations. The cases of the 1997 Ottawa Convention that prohibited landmines and the 2008 Convention on Cluster Munitions epitomize this new trend. I do not claim that moral calculation and principled humanitarian concerns alone can lead to change in entrenched national security areas and lead to the negotiation of new international treaties; however, they are now a vital part of the equation. What is more, the articulation, observance and interpretation of such principled humanitarian concerns, which are part of IHL, as well as HRL principles, have not only played an essential role in motivating civil society and states to draw up new treaties that aim to enhance human security, but have also become a constituent part of such treaties. In other words, if progress in disarmament diplomacy previously meant respecting the continuing balance between legitimate military necessity and humanitarianism and improving the security of the state, today, such progress occurs when humanitarianism is at the heart of disarmament diplomacy and is a means of advancing human security. Embracing such disarmament treaties embodies humane governance, expands human security and represents the moral high ground in international relations. Without security, there is no development or investment; without development and investment, there is no human security. The achievement of security through disarmament diplomacy is what makes the prospects for an Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) so exciting. The discussion on this treaty is so complex because of two main factors. First, the arms trade is a multi-billion dollar, mostly secretive and often shadowy enterprise with multiple vested interests. The ATT will ensure more transparency in the arms trade and this alone will be a Herculean task. Second, developing nations that spend a disproportionate amount of their treasure on defense must come to terms with the need to spend a lesser amount and devote more to providing humane governance. Despite these intricacies, however, there is unanimous consensus among all states of the need for an ATT. This will be the first treaty to establish regulations on the conventional arms trade in terms of considerations of HRL, IHL and development. These have inspired and led the ATT process so far and have also inspired other processes examined here, e.g. the Geneva Declaration on Armed Violence. This is a pioneer and cutting-edge diplomatic initiative that establishes a measurable and concrete link between security and development. The Geneva Declaration shifts the diplomacy paradigm for the twenty-first century. It is a very ambitious initiative, for states can no longer speak about development strategies without taking security into account. It is also not solely a state initiative, because civil society is an active partner. The Geneva Declaration process is therefore a unique collaboration involving partnerships across several actors: governments, civil society and NGOs. Switzerland chairs and the core group monitors it. Switzerland has thus adopted a bi-multilateral network approach with the core group that has shaped a new way of doing diplomacy in this century in attempt to mainstream the linkage between security and development. The overarching goal is to reduce armed violence by 2015, and the framework is the UN Millennium
Development Goals (MDGs). There is a strong consensus that armed violence hinders the achievement of the MDGs. Solely addressing the tools of violence (i.e. small arms and light weapons) is not going to achieve the ultimate goal of reducing violence. So addressing the root causes is key. Theoretically, the pathway to where the world now finds itself with these initiatives has been fascinating and unprecedented. Realism is incapable of explaining why states are willingly engaging in the ATT process and others described here, which will lead to less sovereignty and more multilateral oversight in the area where it is least likely for states to be agreeable to accept such oversight. Prior to the ATT process, the area of the procurement of arms in preparation for waging war was the one least likely to be amenable to international negotiations. This has changed. The 1990s launched a new era that opened new avenues for disarmament diplomacy with its new paradigm. The enabling framework for this was the enlargement of the understanding of security to encompass human security. Arms are an overriding constituent factor in the rise of security concerns that favor the individual and aim for the achievement of freedom from fear of armed violence. The concerted activism and resulting civil society advocacy of all the cases I have examined started in this period. The literature on moral progress in international relations has also delegitimized and deprivileged the focus on national security and state interest and has shifted the focus to human security. These are all indicators of the realization by both the policy and international relations scholarly communities that the time is ripe for truly understanding and practising security in a new way, especially in the areas that lie at the core of security.
