Key content

The Inter-American Court of Human Rights has issued an advisory opinion calling on governments to take stronger measures to combat arms trafficking and provide victims with legal redress. The decision comes at a time when Mexico is increasing pressure to stem the flow of illegal firearms from the United States, and is expected to be an important milestone in addressing gun trafficking within the international human rights law system.

In an advisory opinion issued last week, the Costa Rica-based tribunal said governments owe a "duty of due diligence regarding activities that may lead to illegal firearms trafficking." This duty includes supervising and monitoring gun manufacturers to ensure they do not encourage human rights violations and providing effective judicial remedies to victims of rights violations.

Why is it important?

The reason this ruling is attracting attention is because it contains international criticism of the U.S. ‘Protection of Lawful Traffic in Arms Act (PLCAA)’. U.S. federal law largely exempts gun manufacturers from legal liability for crimes committed with their products. The tribunal noted that “indiscriminate access to firearms” threatens the “right to life” and “right to bodily integrity” of vulnerable groups, including women and children.

According to Mexican government estimates, smugglers smuggle up to 500,000 firearms from the United States into Mexico each year. This is considered a major cause of gun deaths in Mexico. According to recent remarks by Mexico's defense minister, approximately 80% of guns recovered from Mexican crime scenes are American-made.

Drug cartels routinely use military-style semi-automatic firearms purchased from U.S. retailers in attacks against civilians and authorities. This includes powerful firearms, such as the .50-caliber rifle used to shoot down a government helicopter.

Historical Context

Mexico's gun-related murder rate has risen sharply since the U.S. ban on assault weapons expired in 2004. The resumption of free sales of military-style weapons in the U.S. opens a channel for these weapons to flow across the southern border and into Mexican criminal organizations.

In 2021, Mexico filed a lawsuit against seven gun manufacturers in the United States. The charges were that these companies had engaged in negligent business practices that contributed to the arming of the cartels. However, last year, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the lawsuit, saying that companies are protected from legal liability for criminal actions by third parties based on the Protection of Lawful Traffic in Arms Act (PLCAA).

The Inter-American Court of Human Rights' advisory opinion began in 2022 when the Mexican government requested the court to review the question, "What responsibility do the state and gun manufacturers bear for human rights violations committed with firearms?"

A recent joint investigation by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) and the New York Times found that cartels used ammunition manufactured at U.S. Army-owned facilities in some of their attacks. Smugglers can purchase such ammunition, including armor-piercing variants, on the civilian market thanks to agreements between the U.S. government and private contractors.

Future outlook [AI analysis]

Although the United States is a member of the Organization of American States (OAS), it has never ratified the Inter-American Convention on Human Rights and is therefore not legally bound by the court's decision. However, this opinion is likely to set an important precedent within the international human rights law system.

Jonathan Lowy, executive director of Global Action on Gun Violence, said in a statement that the decision "makes clear that the Protection of Lawful Traffic in Arms Act, the law that protects the U.S. gun industry, violates basic principles of international human rights law." Representative Rowe previously represented Mexico in a lawsuit filed by Mexico against U.S. gun manufacturers.

It is highly likely that Central and South American countries, including Mexico, will increase diplomatic pressure on the United States based on this advisory opinion. In addition, criticism of America's gun policy and manufacturer immunity laws is expected to intensify on the international stage.

However, it is expected that it will be difficult to revise or abolish the law to protect legal arms trade in the United States in the short term. This is because the gun industry's powerful lobby and political sensitivity surrounding the Second Amendment (right to bear arms) remain high. This decision is likely to serve as a force for shaping international discourse and long-term policy change rather than as an immediate legal binding force.