“Arms transfers to countries involved in human rights violations undeniably contribute to further violations and negatively affect human rights,” said Khawla Al-Rowaishan. “They are one of the main causes of atrocities and crimes committed in various regions around the world.”

Al-Rowaishan is the director of Accountability and Redress at Mwatana for Human Rights, an independent Yemeni organization that advocates for human rights and provides legal aid to victims of rights violations, including through litigation against arms exports.

States and private companies have obligations and responsibilities under international law and standards to prevent, address and mitigate the negative impact on human rights caused by arms transfers.

However, there are several gaps between what States and the private sector should do and what they do in practice, with devastating consequences on civilians, rights activists say.

As the world faces the highest number of conflicts since World War II, an increasing number of human rights advocates, lawyers and non-governmental organizations are turning to courts to compel States to prevent arms supplies that fuel violations, and hold States and companies accountable.

Mwatana has filed several legal cases in European national courts with the aim of holding European arms manufacturers and individuals involved in the export of arms to parties to the conflict in Yemen accountable for rights violations. The complaints also seek a halt to unlawful arms exports and provide redress for victims and their families.

Between 26 March 2015 and April 2022, Mwatana documented 1,070 airstrikes carried out by the Saudi Arabia/United Arab Emirates-led coalition.

Mwatana said the attacks resulted in the deaths of thousands of civilians, caused widespread destruction of civilian infrastructure, including schools, hospitals and health centres, and created a dire and tragic human rights situation in Yemen.

“Looking at the weapons used in most of these attacks, we find that they are European or American-made, transferred to the Saudi/UAE-led coalition before and during the conflict in Yemen,” Al-Rowaishan said.

“Halting arms exports to the coalition could have mitigated the humanitarian crisis and opened up opportunities for achieving peace in Yemen.”

Gaps

A UN Human Rights report published this month said that despite risks that arms transfers contribute to serious violations of international humanitarian and human rights law, States and private actors have continued to send them to the military in Myanmar, Israel, and the parties to the conflicts in the Sudan, South Sudan and Yemen.

The report, presented during the 58th session of the Human Rights Council in Geneva, Switzerland, called on States and the private sector to do more to tackle the human rights impacts of arms transfers.

States must conduct stronger risk assessments, refrain from transferring arms where it violates international law, prevent unlawful transfers by others, ensure judicial oversight, and provide remedies to victims, it said.

Cannelle Lavite, co-director of business and human rights at the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights (ECCHR), an independent, non-profit legal organization, said a robust export control regime is needed to mitigate the impact of arms transfers on human rights.

ECCHR has launched strategic litigation in national courts in Europe to stop arms exports to Israel and Yemen and hold States and companies accountable for serious violations of international law. ECCHR also promotes transparency and the redress of affected communities for the role of States and private companies involved in arms supplies.

Working with its Palestinian partner organizations Palestinian Center for Human Rights, Al Mezan and Al Haq, the Berlin-based ECCHR has supported five Palestinians in Gaza who lost relatives in the war and whose lives are in acute danger in Gaza in filing several legal actions in German courts against the export of weapons and other military equipment from Germany to Israel.

“In the context of arms transfers to Israel, the human rights impact of these transfers is especially grave due to the high level of destruction of civilian life and infrastructure through Israel’s military operation in Gaza since October 2023,” said Lilian Löwenbrück, Legal Advisor in the International Crimes and Accountability Program of ECCHR.

Mwatana and ECCHR say there are many challenges when it comes to making sure that States are meeting their obligations to tackle the negative impact of arms transfers.

There is a significant lack of transparency on arms transfers, narrow procedural rules make it difficult for litigants to bring cases before national courts, and judges are excessively hesitant in ruling against governments. This raises “significant concerns about a sidelining of the role of the judiciary in controlling arms transfer decisions in many States”, the UN Human Rights report cautions.

For Al-Rowaishan, accountability and redress for victims are basic first steps to mitigate the negative effects of arms transfers on human rights.

Businesses’ responsibility

Under the UN Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights, businesses also have a responsibility to respect human rights and humanitarian law and address the risk of adverse impacts.

The UN human rights report also notes a failure by businesses to conduct due diligence assessments, and highlights examples where businesses have been involved in unlawful arms transfers.

However, holding companies accountable in court for serious human rights and humanitarian law violations over their arms supplies also faces challenges, including lack of transparency on arms exports.

“Companies continue to claim that their export decisions rely on the licenses delivered by the States, thereby refusing to acknowledge their own responsibility to ensure that their activities do not contribute to human rights violations,” Lavite said.

James Yap, Acting Director of the International Human Rights Program at the University of Toronto, said the transnational nature of the arms industry, coupled with the large opacity surrounding arms exports, make corporate accountability difficult.

“Arms, like all goods, can move quite freely from country to country,” said Yap, who represents a coalition of Palestinian and Canadian individuals and NGOs who are suing the Canadian government to stop arms exports to Israel.

“The flexibility and adaptability of global supply chains, along with an inadequate regulation of the supply chains, has been a major issue because most countries only regulate direct arms exports,” he said.

According to the Arms Trade Litigation Monitor, an initiative launched in 2023 to raise awareness of legal efforts challenging arms supplies, there has been a dramatic increase in recent years in the number of legal cases against government decisions to export arms.

“It’s all about ensuring respect for internationally protected human rights and the rule of law,” Yap said. “Now is the time to step up and take action.”