The UN Arms Trade Treaty: arms export controls,the human security agenda and the lessons of history

The UN conference to negotiate an Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) concluded on 27 July 2012 without reaching consensus on the text of a draft treaty and saw both the US and Russia calling for more time to negotiate. The ATT process marks the latest in a series of attempts to insert human security concerns into arms export controls. The setback in July raises questions about the current level of international support for the human security agenda, as well as the relative power of different actors to shape global governance structures. This article locates the ATT negotiations in the broader history of multilateral efforts to regulate the international arms trade, from the 1890 Brussels Act to post‐Cold War initiatives. The historical record shows that such efforts are more likely to succeed if they are negotiated or imposed by major arms exporters. The introduction of human security concerns, as well as the merging of export control and arms control agendas, went some way towards reversing this trend. In particular, it created a broad international coalition of supportive states and NGOs from the global North and South. Yet disagreements over the purpose of an ATT remained. The draft ATT included human security provisions, but China, Russia, the US and a number of emerging powers ensured that state security considerations remained paramount in decision‐making on arms exports. The US was the first major actor to announce its unwillingness to sign the draft ATT in July 2012 and two alternative interpretations of US actions are considered. The article concludes by considering the options available to supporters of the ATT process following the 2012 conference and examines the notion that the ATT campaign has become an initiative ‘out of its time’, one that might have had success in the 1990s but not in current circumstances.     

CONSTRUCTING CARIBBEAN CHRONOLOGIES: COMPARATIVE RADIOCARBON DATING OF SHELL AND WOOD ARTEFACTS FROM PRE‐COLUMBIAN SITES IN CUBA

The lack of robust chronological frameworks for pre‐Columbian archaeology in the Caribbean limits the interpretive potential of ongoing studies of inter‐site and inter‐island interaction. This paper reviews the dating of 28 wood and shell artefacts from sites in northern Cuba in an attempt to date pre‐Columbian activity in the region and develop dating methodologies for the study of pre‐Columbian interaction in the Caribbean. This research compares dates from wood and shell artefacts from the waterlogged site of Los Buchillones in north‐central Cuba with dates from shell artefacts from sites on eight islands in the Sabana–Camaguey archipelago in the Bahama Channel. In addition to providing a chronological framework based on absolute dates for pre‐Columbian activity in northern Cuba, this paper also considers the methodological issues of using shell for dating pre‐Columbian activity in the Caribbean.     

The graptolite Glossograptus Emmons and its proximal structure

Ni Yunan & Cooper, R. A., 1994:03:28. The graptolite Glossograptus Emmons and its proximal structure. Alcheringa 18, 161–167. ISSN 0311-5518.

New specimens of Glossograptus acanthus from the Ningkuo Shale of China, preserved in relief, help to resolve the much debated problem of the structure of Glossograptus. A model for the proximal structure of the genus is proposed, based on the new material and on Finney's (1978) Athens Shale specimens. The model confirms that Glossograptus has homologous structure and development with Pseudisograptus, and isograptid development type is primitive for the group containing both genera. A cladogram is presented in which the suborder Glossograptina Jaanusson (with families Glossograptidae and Cryptograptidae) together with family Corynoididae Bulman are subsumed within a redefined family Glossograptidae.     

The G20 as an improvised crisis committee and/or a contested ‘steering committee’ for the world

Arguably the most important catalytic effect of the ‘Great Recession’ of 2008–2009 has been the creation of the G20 at the leaders’ level. As a form of improvised diplomacy the G20 merits extensive scrutiny, revealing as it does the degree of adaptation possible in the international system. The G20 links a significant ideational component, a new dynamic between established and emerging powers, and a complex set of issues. The innovative quality of the G20, however, rests on two very distinct strands of activity and tests of accomplishments. The G20 can be viewed as a ‘recession‐buster’ with a vital but momentary purpose. Alternatively, the G20 can be taken to be an embedded ‘steering committee’ for the world. Both of these interpretations have validity. The crisis committee scenario highlights a technical regulatory‐driven agenda. The steering committee scenario by way of contrast showcases the connection between the G20 and a new type of global settlement. Passing the test as a crisis committee hinges on very specific deliverables. Passing the test as a steering committee is even more demanding as any move toward a new state‐specific ‘concert’ is highly contested. This article examines these debates, locating the G20 in a historical/comparative perspective and in terms of the wider context of shifting power structure at the beginning of the twenty‐first century.