{"id":234,"date":"2026-06-02T09:42:32","date_gmt":"2026-06-02T08:42:32","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/kennisgroup.org\/?p=234"},"modified":"2026-06-02T09:45:01","modified_gmt":"2026-06-02T08:45:01","slug":"beyond-compliance-kennis-reflections-from-the-2026-constructive-dialogue-on-firearms","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/kennisgroup.org\/index.php\/2026\/06\/02\/beyond-compliance-kennis-reflections-from-the-2026-constructive-dialogue-on-firearms\/","title":{"rendered":"Beyond Compliance: Kennis Reflections from the 2026 Constructive Dialogue on Firearms"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"The fifth Constructive Dialogue on Firearms<\/a>, held online on 13 May 2026 following the meetings of the Working Group on Firearms under the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime (UNTOC), highlighted an increasing tension within international firearms governance discussions: while implementation of the Firearms Protocol continues to be approached largely through technical and legal lenses, the realities shaping firearms trafficking and armed violence are deeply embedded in broader political, social, economic, and human security dynamics.<\/p>\n

Created as part of the UNTOC review process, the Constructive Dialogues are intended to provide a structured space for engagement between States parties, civil society organizations (CSOs), academia, the private sector, and other stakeholders on the implementation of the Firearms Protocol. This year\u2019s discussions focused on the implementation of Articles 6 and 9 of the Protocol, addressing confiscation, seizure, disposal, and deactivation of firearms. Yet throughout the Dialogue, a broader question repeatedly emerged: can implementation of the Firearms Protocol move beyond narrow legal and technical compliance toward approaches that better address the political, social, and human impacts of armed violence?<\/p>\n

Discussions around Articles 6 and 9 illustrated this tension particularly clearly. While both sessions focused on highly technical implementation issues \u2013 confiscation, seizure, disposal, tracing, and deactivation \u2013 speakers repeatedly returned to the broader structural realities shaping illicit firearms trafficking and diversion, with many participants highlighting the limitations of narrow legalistic approaches to implementation. For example, participants highlighted how poverty, political instability, weak governance structures, corruption, and low remuneration among security personnel continue to create conditions in which illicit firearms markets thrive. In fragile and conflict-affected settings, firearms are often intertwined with livelihoods, political patronage, and community insecurity, complicating purely law-enforcement-driven responses. Speakers emphasized that firearms possession in some contexts is closely linked to economic survival, insecurity, social status, or political power. Young people in conflict-affected settings, for example, may experience firearms not simply as instruments of violence, but also as symbols of protection, masculinity, or economic opportunity. These dynamics challenge simplistic narratives that frame firearms trafficking solely as a technical or criminal justice issue and reinforce the need for prevention-oriented approaches that integrate education, civic engagement, economic empowerment, and peacebuilding initiatives.<\/p>\n

Closely linked to discussions on the implementation of article 6 and 9 was a broader concern regarding how the effectiveness of firearms policies is measured. Several participants highlighted the limitations of relying primarily on seizures, prosecutions, pricing data, or reductions in firearm-related deaths as indicators of success. While important, such metrics often provide only a partial picture of trafficking dynamics and societal harm. Discussions repeatedly pointed to the need for more comprehensive approaches capable of capturing the broader impacts of armed violence, including displacement, gender-based violence, fear and insecurity, access to services, and community resilience. These reflections reinforced the importance of moving beyond narrow legalistic approaches toward more contextualized and prevention-oriented understandings of firearms governance.<\/p>\n

Beyond the technical discussions surrounding implementation of Articles 6 and 9, the Dialogue also revealed a number of broader structural and political challenges that continue to shape international firearms governance. In particular, discussions repeatedly pointed to three interconnected issues: the fragmentation of multilateral firearms-related processes, the insufficient integration of gender and human rights perspectives into technical implementation discussions, and the continuing limitations placed on meaningful civil society participation within review and implementation mechanisms.<\/p>\n

A recurring theme throughout the Dialogue was the fragmentation of international discussions related to firearms and armed violence. Participants repeatedly emphasized the importance of building stronger synergies across international and regional frameworks, including the Firearms Protocol, the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), the UN Programme of Action on Small Arms and Light Weapons (PoA), and wider peacebuilding and violence prevention agendas. Yet the discussions also revealed how these processes often continue to operate in parallel rather than in coordination. Interestingly, this fragmentation was visible even in the terminology used throughout the Dialogue. While some participants spoke in terms of \u201cfirearms\u201d \u2013 language associated primarily with criminal justice and trafficking frameworks \u2013 others referred to \u201csmall arms,\u201d terminology more commonly linked to disarmament, humanitarian action, and peacebuilding processes. While these distinctions may appear semantic, they reveal deeper institutional and conceptual divides in how the international community understands and responds to armed violence.<\/p>\n

At the same time, despite repeated references throughout the Dialogue to prevention, resilience, and differentiated impacts, cross-cutting issues such as gender and human rights remained surprisingly peripheral to many of the more technical discussions. This disconnect reflects a broader tendency within firearms governance processes to treat gender-responsive and rights-based approaches as complementary rather than integral to implementation itself. Yet discussions around youth engagement, masculinity, community insecurity, and conflict settings repeatedly demonstrated how deeply firearms-related violence is shaped by social norms, inequalities, and differentiated experiences of violence.<\/p>\n

Kennis used its intervention to emphasize that gender-sensitive firearms policies are not secondary or symbolic additions to implementation efforts, but essential to understanding the differentiated impacts of armed violence and designing more effective prevention responses. Firearms-related violence intersects closely with gender-based violence, coercive control, displacement, and community insecurity, yet these dimensions often remain insufficiently reflected in technical discussions surrounding tracing, seizure, storage, or deactivation measures \u2013 which indirectly reflects the continuing sensitivity of these discussions within multilateral firearms processes, where States have not always been able to agree on the relationship between firearms trafficking and gender-based violence.<\/p>\n

As one concrete example, Kennis referenced a recent UNODC research initiative on preventing and addressing firearms-related gender-based violence against women, which examined how States incorporate gender-responsive measures into firearms legislation and regulatory frameworks, including licensing procedures, risk assessments, and protection orders in cases of domestic violence. The initiative also drew from consultations with civil society organizations and other stakeholders, highlighting the importance of incorporating operational realities and lived experiences into policymaking processes.<\/p>\n

Finally, the Dialogue also revealed continuing tensions regarding the role of civil society within the Firearms Protocol review process itself. While the Constructive Dialogues remain one of the few formal spaces where civil society expertise is actively solicited, the online format and limited participation of States parties reduced opportunities for direct engagement and exchange. Several participants questioned whether holding the Dialogue after the Working Group meetings limits its potential influence on substantive state discussions and negotiations. Others noted the contradiction between formally recognizing the importance of civil society contributions while simultaneously restricting opportunities for interaction and participation.<\/p>\n

These concerns point to a broader challenge facing multilateral processes today: how to ensure that stakeholder participation is not reduced to symbolic consultation, but recognized as a meaningful contribution to implementation, monitoring, and policy development. In an increasingly securitized international environment \u2013 marked by armed conflict, democratic backsliding, and growing pressure on multilateral cooperation \u2013 these debates become even more significant. The Firearms Protocol remains a key component of the international arms control and violence prevention architecture. Yet the Dialogue made clear that its future effectiveness will depend not only on legal implementation, but also on the willingness of States and stakeholders to move beyond siloed and purely technical approaches toward more integrated responses grounded in human security, prevention, and rights-based approaches, where civil society expertise and participation must be recognized as essential rather than peripheral.<\/p>\n

Ultimately, the challenge facing the Firearms Protocol is not simply one of compliance, but of continued relevance: whether international firearms governance can evolve to better address the complex realities of armed violence in contemporary societies.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The fifth Constructive Dialogue on Firearms, held online on 13 May 2026 following the…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5,"featured_media":238,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-234","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/kennisgroup.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/234","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/kennisgroup.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/kennisgroup.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kennisgroup.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/5"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kennisgroup.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=234"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/kennisgroup.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/234\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":237,"href":"https:\/\/kennisgroup.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/234\/revisions\/237"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kennisgroup.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/238"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/kennisgroup.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=234"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kennisgroup.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=234"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kennisgroup.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=234"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}