Gender Equality and the Arms Trade Treaty — Is a Seat at the Table the Key to Success?

www.shutterstock.com

The draft decision of the Fifth Conference of State Parties (CSP5) to the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), published last July, outlines how state parties hope to address the issue of gender inequality which pervades the area of arms trade [1]. An underlying theme of the decision is an issue which has occupied political scientists for many decades; is diversity of representation enough to secure outcomes which benefit the many rather than the few? Or should we be looking at the actual contributions of representatives, irrespective of gender, race, sexual orientation, and other characteristics?

To answer this question, let’s go back to political theory 101 — or more specifically, models of political representation. Hanna Pitkin’s study of political representation identified four distinct models, including descriptive representation, which is rooted in the belief that in order for a particular group’s needs to be met, a member of that group must be part of the decision-making process [2]. In her view, descriptive representation focused too much on who the representative was rather than what the representative did, and she concluded that substantive representation — addressing the needs of a group through policies and agendas — was the best way forward. Yet Pitkin’s dismissal of descriptive representation has been revisited by feminist scholars, including Jane Mansbridge, who argues that for historically persecuted groups, descriptive representation has more benefits than costs [3].

So how should we apply these conflicting opinions to the ATT? Perhaps, when addressing gender issues, having women at the table is necessary but not sufficient. Given their historical marginalization in discussions on armed conflict and violence, having women at the table may be a necessary starting point to address an area where gender perspectives have been traditionally ignored. Women bring a unique perspective to discussions, and their presence challenges the tendency to view women’s role in armed conflict as that of the victim, which in turn reinforces the construction of women as weaker than men [4].

The decisions in the final report of the CSP5 seem to reflect the conclusion reached above. The report encourages parties to the treaty to strive for gender balance in delegations while also calling for working groups to actively consider gender aspects in their sessions [5]. The following quote from the draft decision captures the CSP5’s position:

“Issues raised in… discussions included broad support for equal representation and full parity, while stressing this should not only be a quantitative analysis of the number of women in the room, but rather their meaningful participation ” [6].

It is thus clear that though descriptive representation will not solve all our problems, having a roughly equal male to female ratio at ATT conferences would be an important step in the right direction. So how has the CSP5 proposed to make this compositional change? The first working paper of the CSP5 stated that a target of 50% women “could be a useful aspiration” [7], but the final report failed to set any such targets [8]. The Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom’s report of the conference noted the concern of certain states that gender would displace expertise as a selection criterion [9]. This may explain why the language ultimately used in the final report, “leave[s] open… space for those with reservations to prevent progress” [10].

Without any real consequences for non-compliance, it is difficult to see how tangible progress can be made. And given the current ratio of men to women participating in disarmament fora is roughly 2:1, it is high time for stronger measures to be taken [11]. One approach might be setting a quota for each delegation which is tied to a valuable asset such as sponsorship or speaking time. The final report also suggested information sharing between Civil Society Organizations, which have a rich tradition of female input in arms trade discussions [12]. Such communication would undoubtedly be more effective in conjunction with tangible measures.

The International Conference Center in Geneva hosted the CSP5 last August (source: esrl.noaa.gov)

In sum, equal gender representation at disarmament conferences will not alone solve persistent issues of gender inequality in conversations surrounding violence and arms, but it would be one important milestone along the path. Tangible, reachable targets such as gender quotas could act as a catalyst for equal gender representation. Since the CSP5 demonstrated a considerable commitment to gender equality in adopting gender as its official theme, there is no reason why it shouldn’t take a bolder step toward gender parity, in dispensing with the language of aspiration in favor of clear and ambitious goals.

For more information on actions taken at the CSP5, take a look at Final Report and other references listed below. Share your opinions with the ATT Secretariat on twitter by tweeting @ATT_PS! #ATT #CSP5 #genderequality #genderrepresentation

References:

1. CSP5 President, “Draft Decision Of The President Of The CSP5 On Gender And Gender Based Violence,” published July 26 2019, https://thearmstradetreaty.org/hyper-images/file/ATT_CSP5_President's%20Non-Paper%20on%20Gender%20and%20GBV_EN/ATT_CSP5_President's%20Non-Paper%20on%20Gender%20and%20GBV_EN.pdf.
2. Cited in Karen Celis et al, “Rethinking Women’s Substantive Representation” Representation 44, no. 2 (2008): 99–110.
3. Jane Mansbridge, “Should Blacks Represent Blacks and Women Represent Women? A Contingent ‘Yes” The Journal of Politics 61, no. 3 (1999): 628–657.
4. Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, “Gender and Disarmament,” accessed September 30 2019, http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/resources/publications-and-research/research-projects/10637-gender-and-disarmament
5. CSP5 President, “Final Report,” published August 30, 2019, https://www.thearmstradetreaty.org/hyper-images/file/CSP5%20Final%20Report%20(ATT.CSP5.2019.SEC.536.Con.FinRep.Rev1)%20-%2030%20August%202019%20(final)/CSP5%20Final%20Report%20(ATT.CSP5.2019.SEC.536.Con.FinRep.Rev1)%20-%2030%20August%202019%20(final).pdf
6. CSP5 President, “Draft Decision Of The President Of The CSP5 On Gender And Gender Based Violence,” published July 26 2019, https://thearmstradetreaty.org/hyper-images/file/ATT_CSP5_President's%20Non-Paper%20on%20Gender%20and%20GBV_EN/ATT_CSP5_President's%20Non-Paper%20on%20Gender%20and%20GBV_EN.pdf.
7. CSP5 President, “Working Paper Presented by the President of the Fifth Conference of the State Parties to the ATT,” published 15 January 2019, https://thearmstradetreaty.org/hyper-images/file/ATT%20First%20CSP5%20Inf%20Prep%20Meet%20-%20Presidents%20Paper%20on%20Gender%20and%20GBV/ATT%20First%20CSP5%20Inf%20Prep%20Meet%20-%20Presidents%20Paper%20on%20Gender%20and%20GBV.pdf
8. CSP5 President, “Final Report,” published August 30, 2019, https://www.thearmstradetreaty.org/hyper-images/file/CSP5%20Final%20Report%20(ATT.CSP5.2019.SEC.536.Con.FinRep.Rev1)%20-%2030%20August%202019%20(final)/CSP5%20Final%20Report%20(ATT.CSP5.2019.SEC.536.Con.FinRep.Rev1)%20-%2030%20August%202019%20(final).pdf
9. Ray Acheson and Allison Pytlak, “Turning from the Final Report to Implementation, Let’s Make the ATT a Treaty that Saves Lives,” ATT Monitor 12, no.9 (2019): 1–2. 9.
10. Ibid.
11. CSP5 President, “Working Paper Presented by the President of the Fifth Conference of the State Parties to the ATT,” published 15 January 2019, https://thearmstradetreaty.org/hyper-images/file/ATT%20First%20CSP5%20Inf%20Prep%20Meet%20-%20Presidents%20Paper%20on%20Gender%20and%20GBV/ATT%20First%20CSP5%20Inf%20Prep%20Meet%20-%20Presidents%20Paper%20on%20Gender%20and%20GBV.pdf
12. CSP5 President, “Final Report” published August 30, 2019, https://www.thearmstradetreaty.org/hyper-images/file/CSP5%20Final%20Report%20(ATT.CSP5.2019.SEC.536.Con.FinRep.Rev1)%20-%2030%20August%202019%20(final)/CSP5%20Final%20Report%20(ATT.CSP5.2019.SEC.536.Con.FinRep.Rev1)%20-%2030%20August%202019%20(final).pdf