Weapons, Security, and Oppression: A Normative Study of International Arms Transfers

Christensen, James

doi:10.1111/jopp.12045

Cited by 5 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Provision of weapons is also a highly visible support type. Though democratic leaders do not have to worry about casualties on their own side when delivering weapons to warring parties, the provision of the equipment necessary for killing opponents and destroying infrastructure does not square well with democratic ideals of non-violent conflict resolution, just war and the protection of civilians (Christensen 2015). Again, this means that democratic leaders must invest heavily in justifying such partisan support and not least defending the actions and goals of those groups that receive the weapons (Schmitt 2014).…”

Section: Why Political Institutions Matter In Decisions To Intervenementioning

confidence: 99%

To Intervene or Not to Intervene? Democratic Constraints on Third-Party Support in Civil Wars

Sakstrup

Tolstrup²

2020

Gov. & oppos.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Do democracies and autocracies differ when it comes to whether and how they provide third-party support to warring parties in civil wars? We argue that the political institutions of potential third-party states have important consequences for both questions. We emphasize how three particular institutional characteristics of democratic polities constrain decision-makers. This makes democracies less likely than autocracies to intervene in intra-state conflicts in general, and less likely to provide combat-intensive support specifically. An empirical analysis of incidents of third-party support to actors in civil wars in the period 1975–2009 corroborates the overall argument, although the results regarding support types are less clear. These results have important implications not only for our understanding of civil wars but also for how foreign policy decisions are made across different regime contexts.

show abstract

Section: Why Political Institutions Matter In Decisions To Intervenementioning

confidence: 99%

To Intervene or Not to Intervene? Democratic Constraints on Third-Party Support in Civil Wars

Sakstrup

Tolstrup²

2020

Gov. & oppos.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Weapons transfers to outlaw states typically contribute to the infliction of wrongful harms in a number of ways. They provide the tools with which domestic security forces coerce, maim, and kill, and with which national armies aggress against outsiders; they increase the power of the state relative to internal dissidents; and they increase the power of the state relative to members of the international community (Christensen, 2015: 34). Consequently, there is a general presumption against arming such states; the provision of arms to oppressive and aggressive regimes is prima facie wrongful.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“… 1. The only article-length treatment of the issue is Christensen (2015). A revised and extended version of this discussion appears in Christensen (2017: 11–31).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Arming the Outlaws: On the Moral Limits of the Arms Trade

Christensen

2018

Political Studies

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

If, not unreasonably, we were to follow Albert Camus in assessing the relative urgency of philosophical questions by reference to the actions that they entail, it is likely that those surrounding the international arms trade would rank highly. "I have never seen anyone die for the ontological argument", Camus observed, dismissing its significance (Camus, 2000 [1942], p. 11). But countless people have died as a result of states approving or promoting the sale of weapons abroad. It is somewhat surprising, then, that the women and men whose job it is to think carefully about ethical issues have largely bypassed the subject. Political philosophers have devoted varying degrees of attention to related and adjacent

show abstract

The Ethics of Arming Rebels

Pattison

2015

Ethics int. aff.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite the popularity of arming rebels as a foreign policy option, there is very little, if any, detailed engagement with the ethical issues surrounding the practice. There is a growing literature on the ethical issues surrounding civil wars and, more specifically, the conditions for engaging in just rebellion; but the focus of this literature is largely on the question of the justifiability of the rebels themselves in engaging in civil war and their conduct when doing so, rather than the permissibility of the arming of rebels by other agents. It is precisely this issue that I want to address here. Overall, I argue that the process should be generally eschewed. More specifically, this article seeks to establish that arming rebels is generally impermissible and only exceptionally morally permissible (even, as I will argue, when rebels are engaged in unjust wars). The former, far more restrictive claim will be established in the first part of the article. The latter, more permissive claim will be established in the second part of the article.

show abstract

Weapons, Security, and Oppression: A Normative Study of International Arms Transfers

Cited by 5 publications

References 2 publications

To Intervene or Not to Intervene? Democratic Constraints on Third-Party Support in Civil Wars

To Intervene or Not to Intervene? Democratic Constraints on Third-Party Support in Civil Wars

Arming the Outlaws: On the Moral Limits of the Arms Trade

The Ethics of Arming Rebels

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About