Arms Trade and its Ethicalities

Arms trade is one of the most lucrative businesses in the world and it is not without significant international risk. One of the only businesses with predictable increase in profit year after year. Until 2013 there was no global set of rules governing the trade in conventional weapons. The Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) sets out rules who help the decision-making process on whether arms transfer should occur, moreover, it provides cooperation and assistance for countries with developing regulatory systems and safe weapons stockpiles. The aim of the ATT is to reduce armed conflict and violence, help the UN carry out its peacekeeping, and foster a safe environment for humanitarian actors operating in volatile environments. 

The seven main countries exporting arms are (1) the US, (2) Russia, (3) France, (4) China, (5) Germany, (6) Italy, and (7) the United Kingdom. The US, France, Germany, Italy and the UK have increasingly had stricter immigration rules, with governments who are less interested in helping refugees and giving countries humanitarian aid, as well as more right-wing governments who oppose the idea of immigration from war torn countries. The Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT) has found that most arms trade goes to autocratic countries, as well as most licenses going to repressive regimes, which brings significant international risks home to its citizens and neighbouring countries. Not only that, the UK arms trade export has doubled to £8.5bn, with Eurofighter Typhoons being delivered to Qatar and missile and bomb deliveries to Qatar and Saudi Arabia. Moreover, the arms being given to Ukraine by the UK is also a raise for concern, as the UK has not put any measures in place to safeguard these weapons when the conflict ends (the EU and US have). In addition, by selling weapons to Saudi Arabia, the UK is indirectly bombing Yemen and its civilians.

The availability of weapons and ammunition leads to human suffering, political repression, crime and terror among civilian populations. Think of our episode about Papua-New-Guinee and how tribal violence has worsened with the acquisition of weapons and ammunition, making it deadlier every year. Or for example the violence in Sudan, where more and more civilians are being mass murdered and with Sudan being in danger of becoming the next Rwanda regarding mass genocide. Or even the example of the genocide in Gaza, where Israel has disabled the UNWRA and has repeatedly shot peacekeepers and free press, raising the question on whether weapons can ever be ethically used. What greater good is there that requires the killing of civilians? Isn’t what we deem ethical and justifiable depending on policy, policy that can be changed, thought that can be changed? What makes one life worth it and another not? One can argue that mass murders, and entities like Al-Queda and ISIS would deserve what is coming for them, but isn’t that a perception of views? What makes us able to say that certain people deserve death? 

The Global Arms Trade: Escalating Conflict, Ethical Dilemmas, and International Risks

The widespread circulation of weapons does not just escalate conflicts, it perpetuates cycles of violence that are difficult to break. When arms become a tool for power rather than defense, they reinforce the authority of those who wield them, often at the expense of civilians caught in the crossfire. In many regions, the militarization of state and non-state actors has led to entrenched conflict, where peace negotiations become nearly impossible due to the sheer availability of arms. As long as there are weapons to fight with, there will be those willing to use them, regardless of the human cost.

This raises the question: how do we shift the paradigm? The argument that some wars are necessary and some killings are justified is rooted in the assumption that force is the only effective response to security threats. But history shows that lasting stability is rarely achieved through violence alone. Sustainable peace requires disarmament, governance reforms, and accountability mechanisms that prioritize human security over state power. If we accept that certain deaths are “necessary,” we must also ask—necessary for whom? And at what point do we recognize that policies built on destruction only breed further instability?

Ultimately, the ethical considerations surrounding weapons use demand a reassessment of global security policies. Should the international community be focusing more on restricting arms flows, regulating their trade, or even eliminating certain categories of weapons altogether? Without a fundamental shift in how security is defined, arms will continue to be both a symptom and a cause of instability. If we are to move toward a more peaceful world, the discourse must move beyond who has the right to kill, and instead, focus on how we prevent the need for killing in the first place.

Listen to Wolf-Christian Paes talk about Arms Trade here.