Human rights and democratic arms transfers

rhetoric versus reality with different types of major weapon systems

Richard A I Johnson, Spencer L Willardson

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

Since the height of the Cold War, the policies of major democratic arms suppliers have stated that human rights violations in the importing state affect their decision to export. After the Cold War, the focus on the importer's human rights record increase in exporter policies. We examine the arms transfer patterns of the four major democratic suppliers between 1976 and 2009 to determine empirically whether the patterns of transfers match policy. We argue that if practice matches policy, then democratic suppliers should not transfer weapons to states violating human rights. However, as global interests of these suppliers have shifted over time we condition our arguments by stating that if practice matches policy, then there still may be transfers of major weapon systems, but of types that are not as useful for violating human rights. We build on existing arms transfer literature by disaggregating exports based on weapons type. The ordered logits we run for each major democratic supplier from 1976-2009 show that the major democratic suppliers generally do not account for human rights violations in the importing state, with the one exception being the United States transfer of land weapon systems.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)453-464
Number of pages12
JournalInternational Studies Quarterly
Volume62
Issue number2
Early online date21 Mar 2018
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Jun 2018

Fingerprint

weapon
supplier
rhetoric
human rights
human rights violation
cold war

Keywords

  • arms suppliers
  • Cold War
  • human rights violations
  • arms transfer patterns
  • global interests
  • exports
  • weapon types

Cite this

@article{16ddf4d8ad204b86b613f005f7026996,
title = "Human rights and democratic arms transfers: rhetoric versus reality with different types of major weapon systems",
abstract = "Since the height of the Cold War, the policies of major democratic arms suppliers have stated that human rights violations in the importing state affect their decision to export. After the Cold War, the focus on the importer's human rights record increase in exporter policies. We examine the arms transfer patterns of the four major democratic suppliers between 1976 and 2009 to determine empirically whether the patterns of transfers match policy. We argue that if practice matches policy, then democratic suppliers should not transfer weapons to states violating human rights. However, as global interests of these suppliers have shifted over time we condition our arguments by stating that if practice matches policy, then there still may be transfers of major weapon systems, but of types that are not as useful for violating human rights. We build on existing arms transfer literature by disaggregating exports based on weapons type. The ordered logits we run for each major democratic supplier from 1976-2009 show that the major democratic suppliers generally do not account for human rights violations in the importing state, with the one exception being the United States transfer of land weapon systems.",
keywords = "arms suppliers, Cold War, human rights violations, arms transfer patterns, global interests, exports, weapon types",
author = "Johnson, {Richard A I} and Willardson, {Spencer L}",
note = "This is a pre-copyedited, author-produced version of an article accepted for publication in International Studies Quarterly following peer review. The version of record Johnson, R., & Willardson, S. (2018). Human rights and democratic arms transfers: rhetoric versus reality with different types of major weapon systems. International Studies Quarterly. is available online at: https://doi.org/10.1093/isq/sqx077",
year = "2018",
month = "6",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1093/isq/sqx077",
language = "English",
volume = "62",
pages = "453--464",
journal = "International Studies Quarterly",
issn = "0020-8833",
number = "2",

}

Human rights and democratic arms transfers : rhetoric versus reality with different types of major weapon systems. / Johnson, Richard A I; Willardson, Spencer L.

In: International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 62, No. 2, 01.06.2018, p. 453-464.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Human rights and democratic arms transfers

T2 - rhetoric versus reality with different types of major weapon systems

AU - Johnson, Richard A I

AU - Willardson, Spencer L

N1 - This is a pre-copyedited, author-produced version of an article accepted for publication in International Studies Quarterly following peer review. The version of record Johnson, R., & Willardson, S. (2018). Human rights and democratic arms transfers: rhetoric versus reality with different types of major weapon systems. International Studies Quarterly. is available online at: https://doi.org/10.1093/isq/sqx077

PY - 2018/6/1

Y1 - 2018/6/1

N2 - Since the height of the Cold War, the policies of major democratic arms suppliers have stated that human rights violations in the importing state affect their decision to export. After the Cold War, the focus on the importer's human rights record increase in exporter policies. We examine the arms transfer patterns of the four major democratic suppliers between 1976 and 2009 to determine empirically whether the patterns of transfers match policy. We argue that if practice matches policy, then democratic suppliers should not transfer weapons to states violating human rights. However, as global interests of these suppliers have shifted over time we condition our arguments by stating that if practice matches policy, then there still may be transfers of major weapon systems, but of types that are not as useful for violating human rights. We build on existing arms transfer literature by disaggregating exports based on weapons type. The ordered logits we run for each major democratic supplier from 1976-2009 show that the major democratic suppliers generally do not account for human rights violations in the importing state, with the one exception being the United States transfer of land weapon systems.

AB - Since the height of the Cold War, the policies of major democratic arms suppliers have stated that human rights violations in the importing state affect their decision to export. After the Cold War, the focus on the importer's human rights record increase in exporter policies. We examine the arms transfer patterns of the four major democratic suppliers between 1976 and 2009 to determine empirically whether the patterns of transfers match policy. We argue that if practice matches policy, then democratic suppliers should not transfer weapons to states violating human rights. However, as global interests of these suppliers have shifted over time we condition our arguments by stating that if practice matches policy, then there still may be transfers of major weapon systems, but of types that are not as useful for violating human rights. We build on existing arms transfer literature by disaggregating exports based on weapons type. The ordered logits we run for each major democratic supplier from 1976-2009 show that the major democratic suppliers generally do not account for human rights violations in the importing state, with the one exception being the United States transfer of land weapon systems.

KW - arms suppliers

KW - Cold War

KW - human rights violations

KW - arms transfer patterns

KW - global interests

KW - exports

KW - weapon types

UR - https://academic.oup.com/isq

UR - https://academic.oup.com/isq/article/62/2/453/4951414

U2 - 10.1093/isq/sqx077

DO - 10.1093/isq/sqx077

M3 - Article

VL - 62

SP - 453

EP - 464

JO - International Studies Quarterly

JF - International Studies Quarterly

SN - 0020-8833

IS - 2

ER -