On 8 May 2026, the Flemish Government gave its final approval to the draft decree regulating the import, export, transit and transfer of military goods, civilian firearms, essential components and ammunition (Arms Trade Decree) to replace the Arms Trade Decree of 2012.

In this report, IPIS and Amnesty International Flanders conclude that the draft fails to ensure effective control of the arms trade. In several respects, it fails to ensure that a transfer is not authorised if there is a clear risk that the arms will be used to commit or facilitate serious violations of human rights or international humanitarian law in the country of end-use, or that the prohibitions of the UN Arms Trade Treaty are complied with.

The main findings of the report are:

• The draft makes no mention of the UN Arms Trade Treaty. However, explicit reference to the international legal framework serves to anchor the legislation, emphasises the importance attached to international law and prevents confusion regarding the obligations arising therefrom..

• The exemption from the licensing requirement for certain transfers under international cooperation programmes appears, as currently drafted, to be incompatible with EU law and provides insufficient control over end-use.

• The introduction of general licences for transfers and exports for the implementation of international cooperation programmes is contrary to the requirement for effective end-use controls in accordance with the obligations under the UN Arms Trade Treaty and the European Common Position.

• The application of the ‘no gold plating’ principle in the draft will not contribute to European harmonisation of human rights standards at an acceptable level, but rather to less restrictive standards and a ‘race to the bottom’.

• Flemish foreign policy aims to prioritise human rights and to uphold the international legal order. It is regrettable that the promotion of these interests is not integrated into one of the areas where, within the scope of Flemish competences, the effective impact and potential leverage are greatest.

• To ensure better control over end-use and a more practically feasible provision, it is recommended that this should operate automatically, as is currently the case, and that a new catch-all clause should be based primarily on end-use.

• The proposed regulation of transit, with additional relaxations, is a missed opportunity to remedy the existing shortcomings of the 2012 decree. This increases the risk that arms will be transited through Flanders that will be used in serious human rights violations or breaches of international humanitarian law.

• Effective end-use controls are undermined by relaxations regarding, for example, end-user certificates, and by the failure to assess compliance with EU criteria in the absence of a ‘clear threat’ to human rights, peace, security and stability. According to the UN Arms Trade Treaty, however, such controls must be applied in all cases of export.

• The draft bill problematically scales back the scope for export restrictions and conditions.

• Many of the relaxations in the draft effectively mean that the Flemish Government is shifting the responsibility for effective end-use control: to other states further downstream in the value chain, to the companies involved in the transfers, and to the federal government and the Minister of Defence.

• As regards companies’ due diligence obligations, it is recommended that these be enshrined in national and/or regional legislation, for all companies and sectors. The draft decree provides a starting point for clarifying these obligations, at least for companies involved in the arms trade.

• Transparency and accountability are key components of an effective export control system and of the government’s human rights obligations. The draft falls short with regard to the legal obligations concerning transparency.

• The draft limits the relaxations for transfers and exports relating to NATO member states or countries participating in the Wassenaar Arrangement on the basis of country lists. It is recommended that the criteria for and evaluation of these country lists be further specified by decree, and that a minimum criterion be included stipulating that only countries that are parties to the UN Arms Trade Treaty are eligible.

• The exemption from the licensing requirement and the extension of general licences undermine the possibility of restrictive measures.

The aim of a regulatory framework for the arms trade must be to prevent arms transfers from contributing to serious violations of human rights or international humanitarian law. There are no indications that this draft decree will prove more effective in this regard than the current Arms Trade Decree (2012); quite the contrary. We must therefore question the desirability and necessity of this new regulatory framework and, as far as Amnesty International Flanders and IPIS are concerned, answer in the negative.

Photo: Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II. © Robert Sullivan, Flickr