Developing a code of conduct for conventional weapons

Abstract

Mitsuro Donowaki is an ambassador in Japan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and a member of the U.N. SecretariatGeneral’s Advisory Board on Disarmament Matters. Previously, he served as Ambassador to the Conference on Disarmament (1989-92), as Ambassador for Arms Control and Disarmament Affairs in Tokyo (1992-93), and, most recently, as Ambassador of Japan to Mexico. He was also a member of the 1992 Panel and 1994 Group of Governmental Experts of the United Nations on the implementation and development of the U.N. Register of Conventional Arms. Unlike weapons of mass destruction, on which there is more or less a consensus that they should be rigorously regulated and eventually eliminated, conventional weapons are regarded as legitimate means with which states are entitled, in time of need, to exercise their sovereign right to individual or collective self-defense. Indeed, a tacit quid pro quo may exist between the goal of prohibiting weapons of mass destruction and the continuing availability of conventional weapons. As a result, conventional weapons have seldom been treated as objects for a global control. For example, even the Coordinating Committee for Multilateral Export Controls (COCOM) was not a global control mechanism. Instead, it was a mechanism for denying certain technologies only to one group of nations. Another example may be the Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE) Treaty, in which the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and former Warsaw Pact states agreed to put ceilings on various types of conventional weapons and to reduce them. In spite of its historic significance and success in reducing conventional arms, this agreement is largely a regional arrangement that reflects a drastic change in the power structure of the world, rather than an indicator of a new trend toward the global reduction of conventional weapons. Today, it is a recognized fact that conventional arms can be legitimately produced, developed, deployed, traded, and even used by any U.N. member state under Article 51 of the U.N. Charter. However, the end of the Cold War has brought new attempts to modify and limit the previous “sanctuary” of conventional weapons. Three such efforts (transparency, small arms limitations, and bans on dual-use transfers) are discussed at the outset, along with their difficulties to date. Then, a fourth and more promising route—the notion of creating a “code of conduct” for conventional arms transfers—will be examined in greater detail. In light of the problems facing existing efforts, it may be time for us to start thinking about a code of conduct, rather than a legally-binding instrument, on the transfer and production of conventional weapons. TRANSPARENCY IS NOT ENOUGH