A/77/263

United Nations

General AssemblyDistr.: General
2 August 2022
Original: English

Seventy-seventh session
Item 102 of the provisional agenda*
Review of the implementation of the recommendations
and decisions adopted by the General Assembly at its
tenth special session

Work of the Advisory Board on Disarmament Matters
Report of the Secretary-General
Summary
At the request of the Secretary-General, the Advisory Board on Disarmament
Matters began a two-year programme of work on the topic of global militaryspending. Its first two meetings were held in February and June 2022.
The Board acknowledged that progress on this theme has been difficult in thepast. Nonetheless, it saw its task as pertinent and timely, not least given the extremely
challenging and dynamic current international security environment, whereantagonistic relations, arms race-like dynamics and trust deficits among and withinStates risk unintended strategic consequences. Recognizing that military spending ismultifaceted and multipurpose, driven by political and policy choices, the Board
anticipated a continuation of the upward trend in military spending in the immediate
period in view of increased geostrategic tensions and ongoing armed conflict. At thesame time, countries face serious economic strains induced by the coronavirus disease(COVID-19) pandemic and the need to invest significant resources in addressing
climate change and advancing the Sustainable Development Goals. The Board
consequently underscored the need for diplomacy and respect for international law
and the Charter of the United Nations. Further, sophisticated approaches would beneeded to foster the “transformative shift” in military spending sought by the
Secretary-General, avoiding prescriptions that failed to understand the goals andinterests that propelled it and the need to make distinctions among the types of
military spending. This included its use in response to natural hazards and healthcrises or in protecting civilians at risk, consistent with the right to self-defence under
Article 51 of the Charter.
Against this backdrop, the Board had in-depth discussions both with external
experts and among themselves on, inter alia, (a) the historic role of the United Nations
in reducing military spending and promoting transparency; (b) drivers, including
supply and demand, security threats and perceptions, domestic context, political* A/77/150.

22-12053 (E)160822*2212053*

A/77/263

economy and decision-making; and (c) implications at global, regional and national
levels, including socioeconomic consequences of military spending, with a view to
identifying areas where the United Nations and States could make a positive
contribution to reducing arms expenditures in the immediate, medium and longer
term.
The Board considered several potential areas for action, which it will continue
to examine and refine during the next year for presentation in its 2023 report to theGeneral Assembly. These included encouraging conflict prevention, mitigation andpeacebuilding activities, including through diplomatic initiatives; refreshing available
research, data and analysis that could update understandings of military spending in
the twenty-first century and foster greater dialogue on policy actions; pursuing
disarmament, arms control and non-proliferation efforts, including throughoperational transparency and confidence-building measures, so as to generate positive
incentives which might limit provocative military spending; examining ways in whichnotions of what constitutes security should be broadened to include non-traditionaltransnational threats, such as those related to climate change or pandemics, and theimplications for realigning financial allocations accordingly; fostering collaboration
between the United Nations and regional organizations in facilitating regionalseminars and workshops that promote transparency and dialogue on military spending
and capabilities; and enhancing global public support for disarmament and arms
control, including awareness of military spending, with a view to encouraging
political action to reverse the global upward trend.
In its capacity as the Board of Trustees of the United Nations Institute for
Disarmament Research (UNIDIR), the Board reviewed current programmes, activities
and finances of UNIDIR, including ongoing efforts to strengthen its policy impact,
achieve financial sustainability and further expand its global engagement. The Board
was briefed on the activities and initial impact of the New York liaison office and on
two initiatives that are part of the UNIDIR four-year strategic framework: (a) aworkstream focusing on a future and foresight approach allowing the Institute to
explore the cross-programmatic disarmament landscape in ongoing and new project
areas; and (b) the UNIDIR Academy for education and training, which serves as aplatform for pooling together the Institute’s various ongoing and future educationaland capacity-building activities. The Board approved the report of the Director on theactivities of the Institute for the period from January to December 2021 and the
proposed programme of work and financial plan for 2023.

2/22

22-12053

A/77/263

I. Introduction
1.
The Advisory Board on Disarmament Matters held its seventy-seventh session in
virtual format from 9 to 11 February 2022 on an adjusted schedule, as the ongoingcoronavirus disease (COVID-19) global pandemic had prevented the Board frommeeting in person in Geneva in January 2022 as originally planned. The Board held its
seventy-eighth session at United Nations Headquarters in New York from 28 to 30 June
2022. Elissa Golberg (Canada) presided as Board Chair of both sessions in 2022.
2.
The present report is submitted pursuant to General Assembly resolution
38/183 (O). As the Board is only midway through a two-year programme of work,
this report reflects a summary of key considerations to date. More formal
recommendations will be made to the Secretary-General following the Board’s
eightieth session. The report of the Director of the United Nations Institute for
Disarmament Research (UNIDIR) was approved by the Board in its capacity as theInstitute’s Board of Trustees and has been submitted in document A/77/144.

II. Substantive discussions
A.

Context and background3.
Over the course of its seventy-seventh and seventy-eighth sessions, theAdvisory Board, at the request of the Secretary-General, began a two-year programmeof work, considering the topic of global military spending.
4.
The request of the Secretary-General reflects his emphasis since 2018 on theneed for much greater action to prevent and end armed conflicts and a pre -occupation
with growing levels of military spending, which, according to latest data released by
the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, had surpassed $2 trillion for
the first time.1
5.
In Securing Our Common Future: An Agenda for Disarmament, the SecretaryGeneral proposed that the international community rethink “unconstrained militaryspending” 2 by fostering greater dialogue and closer cooperation, building confidenceon military matters and adopting a more comprehensive understanding of security,
not limited to military means, that supports not just the security of States but also thatof societies, communities and individual citizens.
6.
The Secretary-General returned to this theme in his 2020 and 2021 reports to the
Security Council on women and peace and security. In his 2021 report he identified
reversing global military spending as one of five goals for the decade related to womenand peace and security and recommended that the United Nations join forces with civilsociety organizations in innovative campaigns, using new data and evidence toadvocate for people-centred policies and reductions in military spending. 3
7.
In Our Common Agenda, released in September 2021, the Secretary-Generaldefined the need to “protect and manage the global public good of peace”, which
requires “a better understanding of the underlying drivers and systems of influence__________________

Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), “World military spending rises toalmost $2 trillion in 2020”, 26 April 2021. Available at www.sipri.org/media/pressrelease/2021/world-military-spending-rises-almost-2-trillion-2020.
2
Securing Our Common Future: An Agenda for Disa rmament (United Nations publication, 2018).
Available at www.un.org/disarmament/wp -content/uploads/2018/06/sg-disarmament-agendapubs-page.pdf.
3
United Nations, Security Council, Report of the Secretary -General on women and peace andsecurity (S/2021/827 of 27 September 2021).
1

22-12053

3/22

A/77/263

that are sustaining conflict, a renewed effort to agree on more effective collective
security responses and a meaningful set of steps to manage emerging risks”. 4 With
regard to achieving this, the Secretary-General emphasized the need for a new agenda
for peace, which would focus, inter alia, on updating “our vision for disarmament so
as to guarantee human, national and collective security”. This would include investingin conflict prevention and peacebuilding, which could involve a set of commitments
including to “reduce excessive military budgets and ensure adequate social spending;tailor development assistance to address root causes of conflict and uphold humanrights; and link disarmament to development opportunities”.
8.
Addressing the Board at its June meeting through a statement delivered by the
Under-Secretary-General and High Representative for Disarmament Affairs, Izumi
Nakamitsu, the Secretary-General gave further direction to the members of the Boardin view of the change in geostrategic circumstances since he had initially asked themto consider innovative ways to address the issue of military spending. The Secretary General suggested that the current global context was bleak, with the armed conflictin Ukraine posing one of the greatest challenges to the contemporary international
order and its global peace and security architecture and serving as a stark reminder ofthe devastating impact of armed conflict, especially on civilians, and underscoring
the relevance of the Board’s work. Recalling that the disarmament and arms control
architecture has been under a heavy strain for some time, he expressed concern thatmilitary spending continued to soar, measures for transparency and confidence building were underutilized and major arms control instruments have beenabandoned. Underlining the need to seek more effective international security
arrangements, with disarmament and arms control forming an integral part of thosearrangements, the Secretary-General asked the Board to consider what more theUnited Nations could do to reimagine security, going beyond States and militaries andtaking into account the security of communities, societies and individuals. He
proposed the following three questions which could guide the Board’s discussions:• What opportunities are there to reinforce transparency, confidence-building andpractical dialogue as alternative measures to stockpiling weapons?
• How can we build effective and durable cooperation-based security architectures?
• How do we facilitate new and transformative thinking on military spending?
9.
The High Representative for Disarmament Affairs briefed the Board at bothsessions, noting that curbing military spending was a long-standing commitment of
the United Nations and its Member States and that revitalizing efforts to that end werelong overdue. Noting also the fraught geopolitical climate and the worrying state of
the global disarmament, non-proliferation and arms control regime, she observed thatthe upward trend in recent decades in military modernization, procurement andspending has been both a result and a cause of increasing distrust and worsening
tensions, making peaceful resolutions to conflict harder to achieve, especially inregions where confidence-building and security-related cooperation are low. She
added that moving towards a more peaceful future required an honest and pragmatic
assessment of current circumstances and an ability to seize positive opportunities tomitigate the likelihood that an antagonistic approach to geostrategic relations would
prevail in the near term and thus a consequential increase in military spending. Tochange that dynamic a new, more holistic vision of security would be required, one
encompassing a reduced reliance on military armaments. Consistent with the conceptof strategic foresight, the High Representative challenged the Board to consider apossible future in which the world is safer and more secure and where due regard is__________________
4

4/22

Our Common Agenda (United Nations publication, 2021), Available at www.un.org/en/content/
common-agenda-report/assets/pdf/Common_Agenda_Report_English.pdf , pp. 59–60.
22-12053

A/77/263

given to peace and development and there is greater shared prosperity and to identify
the actions necessary to get there, focusing on those areas where the United Nations
can add the most value.

B.

Expert presentations and discussions
10. At both meetings, the Board benefited from a series of expert presentations andquestion-and-answer sessions with diverse external speakers from various
geographies and disciplines, including conflict management, defence economics,
arms control, sustainable development, human security and gender equality.
11. The Board’s first meeting served as an initial scoping exercise, with a view todefining its future programme of work. Offering perspectives from their research withrespect to global military spending, Nan Tian, Senior Researcher, Military
Expenditure and Arms Production Programme, at the Stockholm International Peace
Research Institute, and Sam Perlo-Freeman, Research Coordinator at Campaign
Against Arms Trade, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, provided
briefings on the political, economic and social drivers that have pushed militaryspending upward in the last two decades, looking at national, regional and global
spending figures and their evolution over time. Madeleine Rees and Ray Acheson of
the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom offered a civil society
perspective on long-standing efforts to reduce military expenditures and promotetransparency, the efficacy of current global peace and security architecture, and ways
in which military spending undermines human rights, well-being and environmental
sustainability.
12. The Board’s discussions at its second meeting were organized to focus on
drivers, including considering questions of supply and demand, security threats andperceptions, domestic context and political economy decision-making, andimplications at global, regional and national levels of military spending, including
socioeconomic consequences. To that end, two panels of experts offered theirperspectives and recommendations.
13. Speakers on the first panel offered a geostrategic and defence economics
perspective. Richard Gowan, UN Director at the International Crisis Group, provided
a tour d’horizon of major global hotspots as a means of clarifying existing threat
perceptions and trust deficits. Fenella McGerty, Senior Fellow for Defence
Economics at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, spoke to regional“supply and demand” dynamics and trends, in addition to offering insights on ways
in which technological developments, for example, in artificial intelligence andcyberspace, influence military spending. Wuyi Omitoogun, Senior Political Adviser
at the African Union Liaison Office in the Sudan, provided an overview of the drivers
that underlie military spending and budgeting and decision-making in Africa,
highlighting that the underlying causes were often socioeconomic in nature,suggesting a mismatch in investments. Tong Zhao, Senior Fellow for Nuclear Policy
at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, reflected on drivers of increased
spending on military and weapons capabilities in the Asia-Pacific region andopportunities to mitigate arms racing, build confidence and create opportunities fordisarmament and arms control efforts.
14. Speakers on the second panel considered the question of military spending
through a lens of sustainable and inclusive development. Jennifer Blanke, currently
non-executive Director at the African Risk Capacity Group, provided a political
economy analysis of current global development and environmental trends and theirrelationship to arms control and disarmament. She proposed greater interaction
between security and development experts to nurture a holistic understanding of joint

22-12053

5/22

A/77/263

challenges and solutions. Ruth Carlitz, Assistant Professor of Political Science at the
University of Amsterdam, shared the results of a recent study of military spendingvis-à-vis human security spending, highlighting some of the opportunity costs of theformer, notably in conflict-affected countries. Adem Yavuz Elveren, Associate
Professor of Economics, History and Political Science at Fitchburg State University,
spoke to a clear link between militarization and gender inequality in both wartime
and peacetime and suggested that higher levels of democracy and stronger economic
development are key mitigating factors. Anthony Clayton, Professor of Caribbean
Sustainable Development at the University of the West Indies, advocated for moreaccurate diagnoses of the causes of insecurity whe n determining military expendituresand for enhanced positioning of pressing non-traditional security problems whichwere socioeconomic and environmental in nature and did not necessarily lendthemselves to military responses and how they could be resourced.
15. Finally, the Board discussed past initiatives of the United Nations and Member
States in this field and their benefits and shortcomings. Michael Spies, Political
Affairs Officer at the Office for Disarmament Affairs, provided a historical survey ofefforts within the United Nations to reduce military spending, including parallel
efforts to develop means for sharing information and for comparing military spendingof States with that of other States. He recommended several possible measures
including updating of research and improving the accessibility and comparability ofofficial data on military spending in the United Nations Report on Military
Expenditures (UNMilEx).
16. A more comprehensive summary of the experts’recommendations is available in annex I to the present report.

C.

key

pointsandBoard discussions and possible pathways forward
17. Mindful of its timely and strategic importance, due not least to a fraught
geopolitical environment, the Board welcomed the opportunity to reflect in asustained manner on the topic of rising military spending in the hope of offering a
fresh perspective and recommendations in support of the Secretary-General. The
Board recognized that it was faced with a daunting task given the complex andinterdisciplinary nature of the subjects and the wide range of existing viewpoints. It
was also mindful that previous work in this area had yielded limited outcomes andthat the Security Council had not met its obligations under Article 26 of the Charterof the United Nations. The Board felt strongly that any approach should reaffirm andpromote the tools of diplomacy and cooperation as well as those of disarmament andarms control as critical elements of conflict prevention, mitigation and resolution,
designed to secure our common future.
18. Reflecting on the remarks of the Secretary-General that “States are seeking
security in weapons rather than dialogue”, the Board underlined that peace is among
the most important global public goods and recalled the vital role of the United Nations
as an institution that must help States to achieve this. In this context, the Board
reiterated its concern at the frequent paralysis of the Security Council in respect offulfilling its international peace and security responsibilities and at the erosion inrecent years of fundamental principles underpinning the contemporary international
peace and security architecture, including those enshrined in the Charter of the United
Nations and other sources of international law, and emphasized that those principles
must be reinforced. The Board underscored that the world faced significant challenges,
notably climate change, inequality and the many brutal armed conflicts across theglobe such as those in Ethiopia, the Syrian Arab Republic, Ukraine and Yemen whichcause death and human suffering, and that there is an urgent need to invest in
diplomacy and a readiness to seek cooperative responses to resolve all of these issues.

6/22

22-12053

A/77/263

19. In this regard, it would be necessary, as the Secretary-General had suggested, toreframe the global understanding of security so that it better accounts for the securityof communities, societies and individuals as well as the environment.
20. The Board emphasized that the international community must urgently focus on
strengthening the foundations, operation and accountability of the multilateral system
and its institutions. Board members agreed that the world is at a critical inflection
point where there must be a coming together to collaborate on addressing joint
problems rather than a splitting further apart. In this context, the Board saw mutually
reinforcing relationships among the strained and in some instances crumblingdisarmament, arms control and non-proliferation regimes, the increased investmentthat has been made in modernization and development of specific types of new andold armaments and the current fraught international environment. Preserving, whereappropriate, and fortifying the existing non-proliferation, arms control anddisarmament regimes, including by fostering trust and confidence-building andadvancing bilateral, plurilateral and multilateral diplomacy, were seen as essential
foundations for recrafting pertinent strategies for addressing the realities, challenges
and dynamics of today’s world.
21. Over the course of its two meetings, the Board engaged in in-depth discussions
both with experts and among themselves in which they reflected on areas where theUnited Nations and its Member States could make a positive contribution to reducing
arms expenditures in the immediate, medium and longer term. Several members also
provided contributions in writing to inform Board deliberations.
Classifications and data availability
22. The Board’s initial discussions focused on clarifying and defining the scope of
the issue of military spending and assessing some of the available data. It agreed that
there are various angles from which to approach military spending and that absolute
numbers reveal only part of the picture. The Board noted the need to understand theoverall context in which military spending in particular cases is situated and torecognize that there may not be a one size fits all formula to explain military spending
today or in the past.
23. The Board emphasized the need to adopt a sophisticated approach to the issue,
one that avoids prescriptions that fail to distinguish among the types of militaryspending or to acknowledge that not all military spending has been unnecessary or
problematic. Several Board members noted, for example, that ce rtain technologicaladvances in the military domain have produced positive, albeit not intentionallydeliberate, spillover effects in civilian and social sectors, while also appreciating thatinvestment in civilian capacities to undertake such activities has at times been
insufficient. The Board recalled that the Charter of the United Nations provides forthe right to self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a State Member of theUnited Nations and that certain types of military activities, aid or ope rations could
contribute to enhancing peace and security, as has been stressed by the Security
Council and the General Assembly in recent years.
24. The Board discussed whether, rather than expressly focus on reducing absolute
numbers of military spending, it may be more impactful to address the factors
underlying and driving military spending, notably with regard to regional or global
security concerns. The Board debated whether if by gaining a better understanding ofand addressing the underlying factors that drive certain kinds of significant andpotentially provocative military spending and providing incentives for States to lookbeyond military solutions, money might be diverted to other urgent priority areas suchas climate action and inequality.

22-12053

7/22

A/77/263

25. In discussing the impact of reduced military spending, the Board acknowledgedthat sizing down military budgets would not automatically result in a reallocation offunds elsewhere internally or externally such as for social safety nets or sustainable
development. How to support transitions in budget lines so that resources may beeffectively invested elsewhere is a question that would require further considerationand could be further explored, for example, through case studies. Additionally, theeconomic implications and effects of converting the military industry and personnel
must be practically considered and adequately addressed.
26. Throughout its discussions, the Board noted several data gaps and methodologicallimitations in research approaches which obscure a full comprehension of the scale andimplications of military spending. First, while quantitative spending figures offer
valuable insights, information about States’ resulting qualitative capabilities, including
with respect to nuclear weapons, cybercapabilities and fully autonomous weaponssystems, is only available sparingly, if at all. Second, there is no or limited (comparable)
information on procurement or research and development (R&D), which wereconsidered important contributors to (perceived) security threats and trigger reactive
boosting of military spending by others. Third, the use of geographical and spatial
categories does not reflect the aggregate of military spending of military defence
alliances that cut across such geographical classifications. The Board was of the viewthat research into (a number of) these areas might contribute to updating understandingof military spending in the twenty-first century and point to possible pathways forward
for dialogue and diplomatic actions.
Global, regional, and national trends, drivers, implications andsocioeconomic consequences
27. The Board sought to understand the political, military and socioeconomic
factors, perceptions and institutional structures that underpin and compel militaryspending. To that end, the Board spent time discussing supply and demand dynamics,
the impact of threats and threat perceptions, the importance of conflict avoidance andconflict resolution efforts, the role of arms procurement in diplomatic relat ions andthe influence both of institutionalized political economies within States and ofmilitary defence alliances between (groups of) countries. The issue of militaryspending by non-State actors and the availability of weapons to such groups becauseof spending of States or criminal organizations and because of military and politicalstrategies was also briefly explored.
28. The Board made several initial observations. First, it acknowledged that militaryspending does not exist in a vacuum, that it is multifaceted and multipurpose, driven
by political and policy choices. Members did not dispute the need for investments inmilitary and defensive capabilities but debated whether current expenditures
adequately reflected the actual and emerging threat environment and whether suchinvestments may further contribute to instability. Second, it spent some time
discussing how the composition of military budgets and military spending is
influenced by the ways in which armed forces are constituted. In this connect ion, it
debated to what extent the need to continuously develop improved versions of
weapons systems in order to maintain a development and production capacity was afactor for rising military spending. In this regard, the Board noted a connection often
made with employment and arms export decisions and a potential to prompt rising
military spending for both exporting and importing States. Third, it considered theuse and development of emerging technologies for warfare and the extent to whichthose technologies will influence future military procurement and spending. Concern
was expressed that this could contribute to destabilizing arms race-like dynamics,
increasingly blurred lines between offensive and defensive capabilities and thepropensity to spend more on new capabilities even if they do not reflect an assessment
8/22

22-12053

A/77/263

of the actual threat environment. Finally, when discussing relations and existing trust
deficits between and among States and their role in driving decisions on militaryspending, the Board agreed there is clear scope and pressing need for diplomatic
engagement and dialogue as well as pursuit of strengthened disarmament, arms
control and non-proliferation efforts, including through operational transparency andconfidence-building measures centred on the notion of cooperative security. The
Board will further examine opportunities for pursuing such efforts, with a view toreversing these trends and creating positive incentives.
Transparency and confidence-building
29. The Board spent time considering the Secretary-General’s request to identify
opportunities to reinforce transparency, confidence-building and practical dialogue asalternatives to stockpiling weapons and war planning. While acknowledging thattransparency does not automatically guarantee increased security or trust between
States, the Board nonetheless noted that enhanced transparency can serve as a tool for
reducing uncertainties which contribute to increased competition among certain
countries and is in turn driving military spending. The Board suggested that suchmeasures can serve to enable accountability and can be part of an effort to promote
serious re-engagement within and between States regarding their security concerns. In
this regard, the Board noted the utility and potential of the United Nations military
expenditures database and the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms as well
as of other unilateral, bilateral, regional and multilateral transparency and confidencebuilding measures which can reduce the possibility of hostilities, help avert escalation
and address perceptions and misunderstandings arising from military actions andpolicies, of which military spending forms an integral part. Noting that each country isin a unique and ever-changing strategic environment subject to domestic and politicalconsiderations, the Board observed scope to investigate whether and how transparency
and confidence-building measures may be best leveraged and expanded on as tailored
entry points for regional, subregional or bilateral security dialogues and to potentially
lay the basis for more ambitious cooperative action on security concerns, transforming
ideas about national requirements for security and contributing to progress with respect
to the socioeconomic conditions of citizens. At the multilateral level, the Board touchedbriefly on the need to focus on fostering transparency and confidence-building
measures in emerging fields such as outer space, where information exchange measureson national space security policies and on military expenditures could meaningfully
contribute to the closing of gaps in existing practice.
30. While acknowledging the transnational and cross-boundary drivers andimplications of military spending, postures and alliances, the Board spent some time
discussing the potential of regional approaches. It noted the strategic role that regionalorganizations have played in establishing and implementing security andsocioeconomic objectives and frameworks, making regional forums a viable v enue
for discussion and rethinking of military spending by States. Such forums have thebenefit of taking into account specific concerns involving neighbouring States andcould contribute to an improved security climate and fresh thinking and approaches
to tackling non-military security threats. Here, the Board saw potential forstrengthened exchanges and new initiatives to be established between the United
Nations and regional organizations on ways to facilitate regional seminars andworkshops that promote transparency and dialogue. The Board will continue toexplore potential pathways in this connection at its future sessions.
31. The Board discussed the Military Staff Committee under the Security Council,
which has not been fulfilling its obligations under Article 26 of the Charter of theUnited Nations. It deliberated on whether there is scope for military-to-military
discussions in a multilateral setting, whether by revitalizing and expanding on
22-12053

9/22

A/77/263

existing mechanisms (such as the Military Staff Committee) or creating new ones,
such as a military staff committee under the General Assembly or a group of experts.
In this context, the Board noted that there could be further enhancement of structural
military exchanges at the bilateral level between States, notably those in possessionof nuclear weapons, and that those exchanges might address a range of questions
including those related to doctrine.
32. Recognizing the intersectional nature and diverse implications of the topic,
including the myriad ways in which military spending can affect States, citizens,climate and the environment, and gender equality, the Board reflected on whether
future work may be able to identify actions that would result in broadening notions
and narratives of what constitutes security.
33. In this connection, the Board spent considerable time reflecting on how theinternational community faced both conventional security threats (for example,
threats of force and violence by State and non-State actors) and non-traditionaltransnational ones, such as those related to climate change and pandemics. It notedthat military means are not intended to address those non-traditional threats and thatno State can mitigate their impacts alone. The Board noted that climate change could
render parts of the globe uninhabitable, with catastrophic impacts on people, available
resources and livelihoods, and all too easily conjured up a foreseeable future ofincreased conflict. While urgently combating this challenge should therefore be seen
as a conflict prevention measure, the Board noted that climate change and othersocioeconomic challenges that can potentially drive conflict are sometimes dismissed
as grave threats to the well-being, safety and security of citizens and consequently ofStates. The Board resolved to further explore possible pathways that would lead
towards a broader, more comprehensive notion of security and security spending
targeted to twenty-first century threats and risks.
Research, analyses and data
34. As it sought to respond to the Secretary-General’s call for it to explore ways tofacilitate new and transformative thinking on military spending, the Board discussed
how new areas of specialized research could offer contemporary and contextual
assessments which could inform and enhance domestic and international discussions.
Studies mandated by the General Assembly could significantly contribute to theavailability of high-quality analyses of the interlinkages between disarmament anddevelopment and a more current understanding of the political, economic, social andenvironmental consequences of military expenditures. The Board noted that the last suchanalysis had been undertaken some three decades previously and did not include the realand expected impacts of the wars planned for and made possible by military spending.
A refreshed analysis should account for contemporary priorities, including in relation toclimate change, political institutions and gender. Beyond seeing the intrinsic value of
new research, the Board viewed academic and policy-oriented research as a tool forincreasing readily available expertise and capacity on military spending, thereby serving
as a powerful driver with respect to bringing greater prominence to the issue.
35. Additional areas for possible research or case studies proposed during thediscussion included, inter alia, (a) positive drivers and preconditions for reducing
military spending, including examples of successful military conversions;(b) scenarios that examine the implications of reduced military spending; (c) spending
patterns, including underlying domestic, structural and political causes, of specificcountries, groups of countries and defence alliances; (d) States’ qualitative
capabilities; (e) geopolitical instability and fragility; (f) weapon systems that had beendeveloped and procured but were either not used or used minimally which could givean indication of what factors contribute to overall military spending; (g) linkages
between military aid and debt levels; (h) a deep-dive assessment and comparison of
10/22

22-12053

A/77/263

the benefits of military spending and its negative social, political, cultural andenvironmental/ecological externalities in the short and long term and the militaryactivities in both peacetime and (preparations for) war enabled by t his spending;(i) costs and consequences of war, including nuclear war; and (j) a detailed breakdownof military spending which would enable a systematic analysis of budget lines,
especially with respect to procurement and research and development. It wassuggested that such research could provide a basis for conducting more informed
needs as well as cost-benefit analysis of military spending choices, while possibly
opening up routes to redirecting wasteful and unnecessary spending elsewhere.
36. The Board also discussed potential opportunities for the United Nations toenhance data collection and analytics, including through better leveraging of thepotential of the United Nations military expenditures database, which remains valid
but underutilized. Here, it saw scope for positioning the United Nations as a relevant,neutral and accessible hub for data and information, including through providing
comparable breakdowns that are unique to the United Nations military expenditures
database such as breakdowns according to research and development, for policy
experts, disarmament practitioners and the general public alike. In this context, recent
efforts of the Office for Disarmament Affairs to implement a data strategy wereacknowledged and greater progress was encouraged.
Outreach and advocacy
37. The Board noted the indispensable efforts, both past and present, of United
Nations entities and civil society groups to raise awareness and mobilize support
around important global issues. It noted, for instance, that the world’s youth havecollectively rallied around the issue of climate change, advocating for the urgent
political leadership, systemic shifts and decisive action required to stave off worst case scenarios and to enable a better, safer and more secure future for all. The Board
suggested that similar support for disarmament and arms control, including as centredon military spending, had the potential to heighten public awareness, with a view toleveraging it for political action. Noting the importance of adopting a gender
perspective and the role of education, public outreach, and compelling and diverse
narratives in this regard, the Board resolved to continue thinking about ways toinitiate or strengthen such efforts.
38. Furthermore, the Board saw scope for the Secretary-General and the United
Nations Secretariat and relevant entities, funds and programmes to expand on theiradvocacy efforts, including through a global and dedicated disarmament campaign,and more deliberately leverage their convening powers. In this context, it wasunderscored that a participatory and inclusive approach is vital, bringing in voices,
experiences and perspectives that do not always find space or footing in international
security discussions.

III. Board of Trustees of the United Nations Institute for
Disarmament Research
39. The Advisory Board on Disarmament Matters, acting in its role as the Board ofTrustees of UNIDIR, met formally twice in 2022, on 8 February and 27 June. The
first meeting was conducted virtually within a compressed time frame owing to thepandemic. The second was a hybrid meeting which was held at United Nations
Headquarters in New York. In both instances, the Board was briefed by the Directorof UNIDIR, Robin Geiss, and select UNIDIR staff on the implementation of theInstitute’s activities and on budgetary and human resource-related matters. The June
meeting also featured presentations on the activities of the New York Liaison Office;22-12053

11/22

A/77/263

the Weapons of Mass Destruction and Space Security programmes (by James Revill);and the Gender and Disarmament Programme (by Renata Dalaqua). An interim
informal meeting was held in April 2022 with available Board members. At themeeting, supplemental discussions were held with individual programme leads toreview evolving areas of research.
40. During its February 2022 meeting, the Board recognized the continued
resilience and agility of UNIDIR in 2021 and noted that, despite the continuingchallenges presented by the COVID-19 pandemic, a number of important milestones
had been achieved. In an outcome attributed to the new and modest pilot presence of
UNIDIR in New York, the year 2021 had seen the UNIDIR Director invited for the
first time to formally brief the Security Council. The Director will rep ort on theimpact of the New York liaison presence at the meeting of the Board in June 2023.
Finally, in 2021, the General Assembly approved the long-standing recommendationof the Board of Trustees to increase the regular budget subvention for UNIDIR. Thi swill help foster institutional stability of UNIDIR and enhance its capacity to convenedeliberations related to disarmament, arms control and non-proliferation and facilitate
the informed participation of all Member States in those deliberations.
41. Trustees took note of the benefits, as outlined by the Director and the Deputy
Director, of consolidating the UNIDIR research programme structure, establishing
new multi-year interdisciplinary research strategies for all UNIDIR research
programmes (in the period 2022–2025), and seeking to diversify the Institute’s
sources of funding.
42. In Board discussions with the Director, it was noted that continuous growth was
unlikely to be sustained at the previous level (in the period 2018 –2021) and that his
continued emphasis on consolidation, prioritization and partnership would remain
important. It was also noted that some donors have reduced their contributions owing
to the uncertainties arising from the pandemic, while certain others were constrainedby requirements to fund only official development assistance-eligible activities.
While the latter requirements had resulted in a shortfall, the Director noted that thiswas offset mostly by a few larger-than-expected contributions from other donors. As
a result, total income in 2021 amounted to 6.5 million United States dollars, a
reduction of only 0.3 million dollars when compared with the figure for 2020. In
2021, expenditure grew by 0.6 million dollars to a total of 6.7 million dollars. The
difference between income and expenditure was absorbed by a carry-forward ofaccumulated funds.
43. The Board took note of the alternative budget scenarios of UNIDIR for 2022: aconservative, scalable plan of 6.9 million dollars and an aspirational cost plan of
8.5 million dollars. It also took note of the renewed efforts of UNIDIR to effectively
monitor and strengthen its financial and other key administrative data, enablingenhanced managerial oversight and decision-making.
44. The Board was briefed on the Institute’s revamped resource mobilization
strategy, which was timely, given that most of the large multi-year funding agreementsof UNIDIR had ended in calendar year 2021 and inasmuch as a high level of thevoluntary contributions it receives (more than 85 per cent) are earmarked. The Board
commended the continuing efforts of UNIDIR to diversify its donor base and form
new partnerships, including through an outreach to foundations, the private sector andindividuals. Trustees took note of the ability of UNIDIR to secure funding from aphilanthropic entity vetted through the United Nations Foundation and offered,individually and through the Board Chair, to champion the Institute ’s cause andstrategically support its resource mobilization efforts.
45. The Board was briefed on two initiatives that are part of the UNIDIR four-year
strategic framework: a workstream focusing on a future and foresight approach
12/22

22-12053

A/77/263

allowing the Institute to explore the cross-programmatic disarmament landscape inongoing and new project areas and the UNIDIR Academy for education and training,which serves as a platform for pooling together the Institute’s various ongoing andfuture educational and capacity-building activities. The Board was encouraged by the
expansion and enhancement of UNIDIR youth engagement to harness the power ofnext generation voices, which it had remarked on previously, and took note of plans
to assess UNIDIR partnerships and research networks to fully maximize their impact
and plans to further leverage and diversify its global expertise and research pool.
46. Trustees took note of the advanced discussions of UNIDIR with the United
Nations University on the transition of a project entitled “Managing exits from armed
conflict” which aligns with the UNIDIR mandate and its workplan in the area of
conventional arms and ammunition. Trustees asked for a briefing at their June session
on how UNIDIR partnerships are evolving and where there may be gaps and future
opportunities. Trustees also discussed how UNIDIR could best demonstrate its
impact, notably by tracking and showcasing its policy influence.
47. The Board acknowledged the consolidation of the UNIDIR programme structure
and the scaling up of its outer space security-related work as a self-standing
programme as of 2022. Trustees encouraged the Institute to continue supporting theinternational community in identifying pathways to reinvigorating multilateral arms
control and disarmament in the face of a challenging international political andsecurity environment. Given the breadth and complexity of the multilateraldisarmament agenda, the Board stressed the need to remain focused on priorities andencouraged strategic partnerships.
48. On 28 April 2022, an informal intersessional board meeting was held in a virtual
format, with heads of programmes providing Board members with an overview of
new and priority areas of research and analysis. The discussion provided newmembers of the Board of Trustees in particular with an opportunity to engage with
the UNIDIR leadership team and to benefit from an overview of the Institute’s
strategic orientation, programmes and workstreams. It was suggested that such
briefings be integrated as part of onboarding for new members in future.
49. At its 27 June 2022 meeting, the Board considered and approved the 2023
proposed programme of work and financial plan. In this context, the Board took noteof comments and recommendations on the draft Director ’s report from the Advisory
Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions, areas of which the Board had
already been seized. The Board and Director discussed his annual report and it wasemphasized that in the current geopolitical environment, the role of UNIDIR as aprovider of impartial research and a convener and enabler of discussions on delicate
topics among States and its support for transparency-building measures are morecrucial than ever.
50. The Board noted the addition of a new country donor in May 2022 which brings
the total number from all continents to 27. In the context of a discussion on pa rameters
for private sector engagement, the Board noted its interest in a presentation at a future
meeting of the Board of Trustees on this topic.
51. The Director outlined his intention to prepare two budgets for UNIDIR operations:
one would capture principal planned activities of UNIDIR, reflecting estimates of
expected revenues; and the other, an aspirational budget, would include additional
activities which the Institute would be keen to pursue should resources become
available. The two budgets will enable UNIDIR to integrate fundraising into its outreachplanning throughout the year and adjust its outputs to match resources received.
52. Trustees commended the efforts of UNIDIR to expand its outreach activities byholding an executive briefing in collaboration with the United Nations Office at
22-12053

13/22

A/77/263

Geneva and a Discovery Day in collaboration with the United Nations library. The
Board was also briefed on UNIDIR youth-focused activities, including successful
implementation of its Graduate Professional Programme (GPP), Model UN and essay
competition. Trustees expressed the need to focus continued attention on accessibility
for GPP candidates so that a wider geographical pool of candidates could be givensuch an opportunity, which would have longer-term knock-on benefits for building
wider regional capacity and interest in disarmament and arms control matters. The
Institute’s newly established peer-review process was also considered. The Board
welcomed the new approach and in particular the upfront emphasis on how
publications will be showcased.
53. Trustees were briefed on the evolving nature of the Institute ’s various
collaborations and partnerships, which currently number just over 90 across six
continents, although they are still heavily concentrated in Europe and Northern
America. Board members noted with interest plans of UNIDIR to establish a global
disarmament research network and, as management further defines its parameters,
encouraged clear goals and priorities for research. The Board encouraged UNIDIR t oleverage this modality to enhance diversity in research expertise. UNIDIR was asked
to share a more comprehensive overview of its collaborations grouped by theInstitute’s priority areas of research and action. The Board discussed the need forclear parameters which would allow for a common two-way understanding ofpartnerships and collaborations.
54. The Board was briefed on the activities and initial impact of the New York
Liaison Office. In its first year of operation, the position has helped to estab lish new
avenues for cooperation with Member States and other parts of the United Nations
system. The Board encouraged UNIDIR to continue this progress and to consider
ways in which its current substantive briefings and orientation sessions can be madeavailable to New York-based delegations. The Director noted that cost savings had
been achieved by no longer renting office space (the officer is using a workspace athome). As the bulk of the work in New York is related to the Conventional Arms andAmmunition Programme, some 80 per cent of salary and operations are paid for bythat element of the UNIDIR budget line. The remaining 20 per cent is covered byother programme and institutional funds.
55. Trustees were provided with detailed presentations on the UNIDIR space
security programme and the disarmament, deterrence and arms control dialogue
convened by the UNIDIR weapons of mass destruction programme. They
acknowledged the planned growth in future research opportunities in both areas.
Trustees encouraged UNIDIR to seek to continue and expand the disarmament,
deterrence and arms control dialogue subject to funding as a valuable and practicalformat. The transversal nature of the UNIDIR Gender and Disarmament Programme
was also reviewed, with a particular focus on current and future activities carried out
with the Institute’s Weapons of Mass Destruction, Space Security, Conventional Arms
and Ammunition, and Security and Technology programmes, as well as with the
Middle East Weapons of Mass Destruction Free Zone Project. Board members wereencouraged by the progress being made by UNIDIR and emphasized the importanceof continuing to track impacts.
56. Finally, the Director shared with Board members an initial draft vision for
identifying, capturing and reporting on specific impacts and beneficiaries of the workof UNIDIR. Members of the Board of Trustees offered their reactions and encouraged
further refinement of the framework. It was noted, recognizing that such a change
would take time, that this will continue to be a focus area for UNIDIR in the nearterm. The Board will be provided with regular updates on progress.

14/22

22-12053

A/77/263

IV. Future work and other matters
57. The Board will continue the programme of work in 2023, benefiting from theviews of experts reflecting diversity in terms of backgrounds, expertise, nationalities,
age and gender. The Board will present recommendations on the above -mentioned
matters in the 2023 report of the Secretary-General on the work of the Advisory Board
on Disarmament Matters to be presented at the eightieth session of the General
Assembly.

22-12053

15/22

A/77/263

Annex I
Summary of expert presentations at the seventy-seventh andseventy-eighth meetings of the Advisory Board on
Disarmament Matters
Seventy-seventh meeting1.
In his presentation to the Board at its seventy-seventh session, Nan Tian, SeniorResearcher, Military Expenditure and Arms Production Programme at the StockholmInternational Peace Research Institute, provided a quantitative overview of evolving
spending trends. He noted that despite an initial drop at the end of the cold war,
military spending has been steadily on the rise since the late 1990s and was estimatedat 2 trillion United States dollars in 2020, with the top 15 biggest spenders
representing over 80 per cent of the worldwide figure. Despite the overall economic
downturn induced by the COVID-19 pandemic, Mr. Tian continued, military spending
as part of gross domestic product (GDP), the so-called military burden, has increased
to a global average of 2.4 per cent (up from 2.2 per cent), reflecting States’ politicaldesire to modernize and develop new weapons enabled by new technologies, interalia, in response to perceived security threats. Mr. Tian emphasized that current dataoffered only a partial picture and reflected an underestimate of military spending
owing to a lack of transparency and off-budget spending by some States.
2.
Mr. Tian argued that to reverse the current upward trend and to provide incentives
for States to look beyond military solutions, more should be done to counter the narrativethat sustains an upward trend in military spending, including through evidence-based
research into opportunity costs and identification of convincing arguments pointing to
the benefits of redirecting spending to other policy areas such as sustainable
development and climate action which enhance “human security”.
3.
Sam Perlo-Freeman, Research Coordinator at Campaign Against Arms Trade,
United Kingdom, and Fellow at the World Peace Foundation, also addressed trendlines. Like Mr. Tian, Mr. Perlo-Freeman spoke to the drivers propelling State-based
military spending, including perceived enhanced security threats, political positioning
and growing economic capacities, notably in regions where commodity prices hadenabled growth. He argued that there are perverse incentives and risks associated withmilitary spending, including corruption where weak oversight and governancestructures were prevalent, and mentioned the role of the “military-industrial complex”
in this regard. Even where corruption was not an issue, Mr. Perlo-Freeman proposedthat close ties between Governments and defence firms had often resulted in
procurement decisions that might benefit industry but did not reflect actual needs. As
a result, he said, rising military spending may exacerbate insecurity rather than
mitigate it and stimulate an overreliance on military responses. Mr. Perlo-Freeman
also stressed the detrimental impact of military activities on the environment andclimate, including militaries’ large carbon footprint.
4.
Madeleine Rees, Secretary-General of the Women’s International League for Peaceand Freedom (WILPF), and Ray Acheson of WILPF and Reaching Critical Willemphasized that there are strong interlinkages between military spending, militarizationand climate change. They argued that military activities were important contributors to
climate change and expressed their hope that efforts necessary to significantly reducecarbon emissions would inevitably lead to reductions in such activities. Stressing thatthe most significant security threat today is the destruction of the planet due to climatechange, they argued that mobilization for urgent action was needed, with all policies –including military and security policies – reframed accordingly. In their view, oldparadigms, institutions and structures had not delivered results.
5.
Recalling the long-standing role of the women’s movement in promoting social
justice and gender equality as antidotes to militarism, Ms. Rees and Ms. Acheson
16/22

22-12053

A/77/263

argued that a new narrative was needed, including application of feminist perspectives
that sought to tackle systemic inequalities and violence. This included, in their view,recognizing that existing bodies such as the Security Council had not demonstrated acapacity to adapt to these threats (and should be abolished) and that the United
Nations needed to pursue innovative and holistic strategies addressed by the“de-growth” movement, especially demilitarization, decarbonization, decolonizationand disarmament. They argued that the United Nations should become more actively
involved in, inter alia, researching the link between climate change and militarization,
promoting divestment from structures that sustain violence and inequality andfostering greater collaboration across United Nations entities dealing with climate
action, human rights, economics, disarmament and humanitarian action. They alsosuggested that the General Assembly was a viable alternative forum with respect tofollow up on Article 26 of the Charter of the United Nations.
Seventy-eighth meeting
Panel 1: Threats and perceptions – the geostrategic landscape
6.
Richard Gowan, UN Director at the International Crisis Group, provided a tourd’horizon of major global hotspots and shared his organization’s perspective on thecurrent geopolitical context, including trust deficits. He argued that while there
appears to be no direct linear relationship between military spending and levels ofconflict (citing Africa as an example in this regard, he noted that military spending inthat region has been relatively low at 2 per cent but that half of all active conflicts arelocated there, with the number having increased by 50 per cent over the last five
years), the issue nonetheless raises significant concerns, not least because suchspending appears to divert attention from non-military solutions to dispute resolution
and displaces resources from sustainable development. Mr. Gowan noted that large
military expenditure is further reinforcing strategic competition, and referring to East
Asia, he observed that apparent spending increases by China and the United States ofAmerica are contributing to arms race-like dynamics in the region.
7.
Mr. Gowan recommended placing emphasis on investments that tackle some of
the underlying root issues that drive military spending, including in establishing orrevitalizing military-to-military dialogue and confidence-building measures, with aview to rebooting conversations about various (regional) security architectures andtransparency. He advised that countries need to consider the tools and assets being
deployed to address security challenges, noting, for example, that internal domestic
insurgencies may not be best addressed through robust deployment of military assets
or at least not without their being accompanied by mediation and peacebuilding
efforts that favour dialogue and investment in addressing local grievances. The sameconsiderations are relevant for addressing the issue of local affiliates to transnational
terrorist entities.
8.
Fenella McGerty, Senior Fellow for Defence Economics at the International
Institute for Strategic Studies, expanded on the broad regional dynamics and trends
in military spending “supply and demand” and defence economics. She proposed useof three categories to forecast drivers and brakes, noting that they differ across regions
and over time: (a) economic conditions, including inflation, fiscal policies, and desireof countries to bolster domestic defence industries; (b) strategic factors, including
regional threats, desire to develop new technologies and maintaining a credible
military force: and (c) political factors, including membership in alliances, national
governance and public sentiment regarding military spending.
9.
Ms. McGerty cautioned that rapid increases in military spending do not
automatically lead to greater military capability (or security). Increased investment
without a comprehensive plan that accounts for specific objectives and required
capabilities risks wastage and inability of the military and the defence industry toabsorb such investments. She believed that while at present it will be politically
22-12053

17/22

A/77/263

challenging to advocate for reductions in military spending, the United Nations could
play a role in stimulating greater transparency, encouraging the accompaniment of
any increases by coherent plans, and facilitating confidence-building measures anddialogue with a view to addressing some of the strategic factors that may drive ill considered military spending.
10. Wuyi Omitoogun, Senior Political Adviser at the African Union Liaison Officein the Sudan, shared his expertise on military spending and budgeting in Africa. He
noted that while spending of Africa in absolute terms is small in comparison with thatof other regions, in relative terms the figures are high. Trends and drivers underlying
military spending in the continent included rising armed conflicts, regional rivalry,domestic insurgencies, constitutional changes in Governments and a perceived needfor modernization of programmes.
11. Mr. Omitoogun argued that despite increases in military spending, the region
has not become safer and that it is experiencing a resurgence of anti -government
movements and growth in terrorist attacks. Part of the problem, he believed, is thatthe causes underlying violence and conflict, including social and economic needs,social exclusion and lack of basic education, are often left unaddressed. He
recommended a complementary two-track approach, focused explicitly on enabling
practices and principles of good governance for the adequate and effective
management of resources and facilitating a process of reconceptualization of security
and realignment of military spending in such a way as to tackle underl ying drivers
and systems of conflict and violence successfully.
12. Tong Zhao, Senior Fellow for Nuclear Policy at the Carnegie Endowment forInternational Peace, reflected on drivers of increased spending on military andweapons capabilities in the Asia-Pacific region and opportunities to mitigate arms
racing, build confidence and create opportunities for disarmament and arms control
efforts. More broadly, he noted that military spending alone does not tell a complete
story, as countries face different economic, strategic and regional concerns andconsiderations which are continuously evolving.
13.

Mr. Zhao identified three key areas of consideration for the region:(a) The need to address the root causes exerting an influence on an increasein military spending, noting that information and perception gaps existing between
States often underlie threat perceptions. As a result, the public, including government
officials and policy experts, have increasingly divergent views on a wide range ofbasic factual issues, making it increasingly difficult for them to understand and talkto each other. This contributes to deep strategic distrust, which in turn contributes to
upward levels of military spending;(b) The lack of transparency, checks and balances, democratic accountability
and public discussion as a contributing factor to a predominant narrative according towhich national security is to be reached only through building greater military power;(c) The adoption of hedging strategies and development of indigenous
defence industries by many regional actors, as relations between certain States
become more competitive and less predictable, with spending consequently
increasing in the near to medium term. Technology-driven military competition,
including with respect to hypersonic missiles, cyber offensive capabilities, space andcounter-space technologies, artificial intelligence and lethal autonomous weaponssystems, constitutes another driver. Mr. Zhao concluded that often, this means thatthe risks for increasing misunderstanding, incidents and inadvertent conflict
escalation are overlooked.
14. Mr. Zhao proposed several mitigating measures that United Nations entities
could take (a) studying prevailing information and perception gaps with a view tomaking this an issue to be addressed and discussed at global high-level official
dialogues; (b) promoting arms control and disarmament measures through training
18/22

22-12053

A/77/263

and education programmes with a view to building countries’ capacities and increase
public awareness; and (c) organizing official and expert-level dialogues and studies
on regional arms control regimes and options, including on technical and policy
feasibility of concrete arms control and confidence-building proposals.
Panel 2: (Re)framing security threats and solutions
15. Jennifer Blanke, currently non-executive Director at the African Risk Capacity
Group, provided a political economy analysis of current development andenvironmental trends and their relationship to arms control and disarmament. She
recalled that the blueprint States have agreed on tackling the negative externalities of
the world’s exponential, albeit unevenly distributed, economic growth, in the cont extof the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. While Sustainable Development
Goal 16 deals with peace and security, the Goals do not directly reflect the link
between military spending and development, which she believed should be looked at
in a mutually reinforcing way, asserting that there can be little prosperity without
security and little security without prosperity. Thought of in these terms, investment
in sustainable development is also security spending, she said. In this regard, she
noted the potentially positive effects of military research and development on
spurring (technological) innovation or productivity enhancements, which in turn canhave positive spillover effects on development.
16. Ms. Blanke emphasized that investments in sustainable development throughspending on education, health, infrastructure, and sustainable energy reinforce humansecurity. She saw a leading role for the United Nations in fostering a better
understanding of these linkages, including by enabling exchanges and collaboration
between experts in the security and development fields with a view to nurturing aholistic and coherent understanding of joint challenges and solutions.
17. Ruth Carlitz, Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of
Amsterdam, shared the findings presented in her recent paper prepared for the United
Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women (UN-Women),which analyses military spending vis-à-vis human security spending, paying specificattention to policies designed to benefit women and girls and trends in conflictaffected countries. She concluded that countries classified as fragile and conflict affected have tended to spend relatively more on defence than on social protection
and gender-responsive policies, with the portion being more than twice the portion
spent on health and education, in contrast with countries not so classified. She notedthat during the budget implementation phase, spending on defence tends to rise
relative to other sectors, with low-income countries overspending their defence
budgets by 5 per cent, while being prone to underspending for sectors such as healthand education.
18. Ms. Carlitz believed that a lack of transparency in many countries constitutes asignificant obstacle to adequately assessing military spending, with reliance on
aggregate data potentially leading to perverse consequences (notably if donors
condition aid to reduced levels of military spending, which previously has led someGovernments to adjust their budgeting processes). Moreover, current data rely heavily
on Governments and their discretion in respect of what is classified and reported as
military spending. She believed that various steps could be taken to improvetransparency and the availability of data, including encouraging States to report into
the military expenditures database, exploring ways to integrate military spending into
the framework of Sustainable Development Goals-related reporting (pointing to aforthcoming Stockholm International Peace Research Institute-United Nations Trust
Facility Supporting Cooperation on Arms Regulation (SIPRI-UNSCAR) pilot),enhancing public demands for transparency and justifications for off-budget spending
and encouraging a greater level of research into budgetary decision-making, paying
specific attention to trade-offs, decision makers and influence, including ways inwhich women’s participation impacts budget outcomes.
22-12053

19/22

A/77/263

19. Adem Yavuz Elveren, Associate Professor of Economics, History and Political
Science at Fitchburg State University, presented the key findings of his recent researchfor UN-Women on the correlation between militarization and gender equality. He noted
that, overall, literature shows that military spending crowds out social spending,increases income inequality, and that increasing the representation of womenparliamentarians often leads to more spending on social issues, including health. His
own research demonstrated that there is a clear link between militarization and genderinequality in both wartime and peacetime and that higher levels of democracy andstronger economic development are key mitigating factors. He consequently argued
that reducing military spending is likely to reduce gender inequality; democratic
governance models should be improved as a means of mitigating the negative impactsof military spending; and attention should be paid in academic and (economic) policy
discourse to applying a so-called gender lens to military spending, which demonstrates
that higher levels of spending have a negative impact on gender equality which further
down the line inevitably negatively impacts economic growth.
20. Anthony Clayton, Professor of Caribbean Sustainable Development at the
University of the West Indies, emphasized the need to convince policymakers toreconsider current definitions of security, which had failed to adequately address
current and future threats that were socioeconomic and environmental in nature anddid not necessarily lend themselves to military responses. Noting that global military
expenditures had increased every year since 2015 and had reached an all -time high of2 trillion United States dollars in 2021, Mr. Clayton argued that such investments were
not well positioned to address climate-induced risks such as resource-based disputes
and forced migration. Mr. Clayton advocated for conversations that focus on
accurately diagnosing and positioning the broad range of pressing non-traditional
security problems. Such an approach, he believed, could provide an equally useful lensthrough which to examine military spending and how it fits into the broader debate on
reducing security risks, emphasizing more cost-effective approaches that focus onadaptation (adopting innovative approaches to meeting food, energy and infrastructure
stresses) rather than defence (closing borders, securing supplies). He argued that such
efforts could be resourced, for example, by repurposing existing military spending,tackling tax havens and eliminating fossil fuel subsidies and fast fashion.
Panel 3: Understanding what has been done by the United Nations previously
21. Michael Spies, Political Affairs Officer at the Office for Disarmament Affairs,
provided a historical survey of efforts within the United Nations to reduce militaryspending, including parallel efforts to develop means for sharing information andcomparing military spending between States. The United Nations Report on Military
Expenditures was discussed as a vehicle for promoting greater transparency on military
matters which was underutilized with Member States sharing information neither
uniformly nor consistently. Mr. Spies also noted shortcomings in the United Nations
data-collection and analytics capacity in this context, although efforts were under way
to remedy this situation. Mr. Spies recommended several steps that could be taken atvarious levels to rethink military spending, including through commissioning a study(or series of studies) that would update the existing political, economic, social andenvironmental consequences of military expenditures, in furtherance of work
undertaken at the request of the General Assembly in the mid-1980s (which would
account for new issues such as private military companies, climate change and genderinequality). Such an exercise, alongside work by the Office for Disarmament Affairs to
improve the accessibility and comparability of official data on military spending,including through seeking, on a pilot basis, to render those data comparable between
States and over time, could generate an audience for the issue. Mr. Spies also suggested
that reconsideration could be given to developing methodologies for quantifying theamount of financial savings that can be realized from the implementation ofdisarmament agreements which could ultimately result in an international funding
facility for releasing saved resources for sustainable development purposes.
20/22

22-12053

A/77/263

Annex II
Members of the Advisory Board on Disarmament Matters 2022
Leena Al-Hadid
Ambassador
Permanent Representative of Jordan to the United Nations and other internationalorganizations in Vienna
Nabeela Abdulla Al-Mulla
Distinguished lecturer at the American University of Kuwait and Chairman of theBoard of Trustees of the Kuwait College of Science and Technology
Kuwait City
Lewis Dunn
Former United States Ambassador to the Review Conference of the Parties to theTreaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons
Elissa Golberg (Chair)
Ambassador of Canada to the Republic of Italy, Ambassador designate to Albania,
San Marino and Malta, and Permanent Representative of Canada to the United
Nations agencies based in Rome
Jean-Marie Guéhenno
Inaugural Kent visiting professor in conflict resolution at the School of Internationaland Public Affairs at Columbia University
New York
Mary Kaldor
Emeritus Professor of Global Governance and Director of the Conflict Research
Programme in LSE IDEAS at the London School of Economics and Political Science
LondonMarina KaljurandMember of the European Parliament
Brussels
Anton Khlopkov
Director of the Center for Energy and Security Studies
Moscow
Li Chijiang
Vice-President and Secretary-General of the China Arms Control and Disarmament
Association
Beijing
Zia Mian
Senior Research Scholar and Co-Director
Program in Science and Global Security at the Princeton School of Public andInternational Affairs of Princeton University
Princeton, New Jersey
Amina Mohamed
Cabinet Secretary for Sports, Culture and Heritage of Kenya
Nairobi
Marty Natalegawa
Former Minister for Foreign Affairs of Indonesia

22-12053

21/22

A/77/263

Eghosa Osaghae
Director General of the Nigerian Institute of International Affairs
Lagos
Shorna-Kay Richards
Ambassador of Jamaica to JapanTokyo
Margot Wallström
Former Minister for Foreign Affairs of Sweden
Robin Geiss (ex officio member)
Director of the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research
Geneva22/22

22-12053