Arms embargo is a sanctions-like policy instrument that restricts the transfer of military goods and technology to state or non-state actors. Arms embargoes are often imposed in geopolitically tense contexts to prevent weapons from falling into the wrong hands and fueling conflict. Yet, despite their logic and broad international support, arms embargoes have been systematically violated by states and armed non-state actors across different geographic contexts and time periods. To understand why and how these restrictions on the international transfer of weapons fail, this article analyzes seven broad factors that undermine an embargo’s potential for success.
The primary reason for arms embargoes’ failure is the enduring power of well-armed elites and militias. In fragile and conflict states, well-armed militias can easily seize power and impose their own authority, creating a gap between a state’s theoretical right to exercise force and its actual capacity to do so. This creates a space for new power structures to emerge, including factionalized elites and ruthless militias, which operate outside the framework of domestic and international law. These power structures are able to mobilize resources, control supply routes, manipulate markets, extort taxes, exploit natural resources, and commandeer state assets.
Moreover, the process of adopting an arms embargo is cumbersome and time consuming. Unlike other sanctions instruments, arms embargoes must be adopted by all 15 members of the UN Security Council (5 permanent and 10 rotating), allowing each member to wield a veto. Furthermore, UN sanctions packages are often watered down through exemptions, carve outs and differentiated criteria, all of which increase the risk of illicit arms diversion. Finally, the variety of entry points into embargoed states and the ease with which arms can be smuggled across borders make it difficult for sanctions implementers to detect and intercept illicit transferes.
About the Author
