How did you come to choose your research topic – the responsibilities for the adverse human rights impacts of arms exports to conflict zones?

This research topic was something I stumbled across somewhat randomly in the months prior to the mémoire préliminaire de thèse. Originally, my topic was on the intersection of counterterrorism and international humanitarian law. Above all, what sparked my interest in the arms trade was the passive acceptance that arms exports are a fundamental part of global business despite being a trade closely linked to war, security, power, and, of course, significant and predictable human consequences. Researching the arms trade is challenging for a variety of reasons – a key one being the lack of transparency – and every part of my research journey was a learning process. 

Narrowing the topic to one which could be feasibly covered in a thesis was another issue, which resulted in my focus on four types of supply-side actors and small arms exports. The decision to focus on small arms was one of the earliest focal points for my research topic, arising from the complexities related to these weapons – they are an acceptable weapon of war, they are available for civilian use under the name of “firearms”, they are weapons which can be used and acquired by the majority of parties to conflict, and, unlike larger weapons systems, they do not require special training or upgrades, meaning that even old guns can circulate throughout regions. 

Can you describe your thesis questions and your methodology?

The overarching aim of my thesis was to clarify and elaborate the responsibilities that actors involved in the arms trade have for preventing and mitigating the misuse and diversion of arms – which is an essential precursor to accountability. The main research question therefore was: What responsibilities should supply-side actors have for human rights and international humanitarian law violations committed or facilitated by exported weapons?

Arms transfers are complex because of the number of actors involved, the legal and illicit methods through which arms can be obtained, and the various areas, levels and types of laws that regulate this area. To bring together these threads and interrogate their interactions, I used transnational law, and specifically the transnational legal order concept, as the framework for an expansive examination of legal instruments (including international and regional arms controls, domestic export regimes, soft law instruments and corporate policies). The arms trade also raises fundamental questions about the legitimacy and morality of providing weapons designed to kill and destroy targets as a means for ensuring peace and security. Incorporating the moral questions raised about arms exports was something which I felt was essential for my analysis. For this purpose, virtue ethics theory provided the theoretical grounding for my arguments for elevating human rights considerations and promoting ethical practices.

What are your major findings?

The key takeaways from my research are, first, even with the integration of human rights considerations into domestic, regional and international arms control instruments, national security justifications continue to be persistently deployed as a reason for minimising the protection of human rights and limiting the transparency of arms export decisions and processes. While it is evident from my research that national security acts as a justification built into the regulatory framework, this should not be the default presumption. I argue that the emphasis on ethical conduct in the performance of preventive responsibilities can impel a transformation in the regulatory framework for arms exports, from one which continues to be geared towards achieving security and commercial benefits, to one which elevates the protection of human rights as the foremost consideration.

My other major findings are that arms export regimes remain centred around state control and responsibilities, resulting in limited coordination between the supply-side actors and arms export control regimes. Other actors such as arms manufacturers and banks have received significantly less attention than their roles in the arms export processes should warrant, because of the focus on state responsibilities. Consequently, the implementation of responsibilities for these corporate actors is reliant on soft laws on human rights due diligence, which are influencing the development of corporate policies. 

In addition, the regulatory frameworks apply distinct provisions for the prevention of diversion and prevention of adverse human rights impacts. The synergies between two types of preventive responsibilities require a coordinated approach between different types and levels of controls for both to be effectively addressed. As part of this synchronised approach, the prevention of diversion and the prevention of adverse human rights impacts should accordingly be viewed as two points on a continuum rather than as unrelated objects of prevention.

Finally, for small arms specifically, there is a false dichotomy between small arms and firearms that has resulted in the development of the separate instruments for regulating these weapons at the domestic, regional and international levels. The persistence of this false dichotomy, despite the technical similarities between small arms and firearms, highlights the political, economic and national security concerns that hinder the development of a unified regulatory framework for small arms and firearms.

What could be the social and/or political implications of your thesis?

Fortuitously, my thesis identifies and examines an issue of ongoing relevance, and elaborates a three-fold argument for how responsibilities should be conceptualised to prevent or mitigate adverse human rights impacts: 

1. Responsibilities should centre on preventing bad outcomes, because the adverse human rights impacts of arms exports are significant and predictable.
2. Responsibilities should be extended to all key supply-side actors to ensure the effective implementation of preventive actions.
3. Human rights considerations should be elevated in arms export decision-making to counter-balance security and commercial interests and to promote ethical practices. 

There are several ongoing wars which illustrate the destructive human consequences that result from armed conflicts and increased arms transfers. Identifying, clarifying and conceptualising preventive responsibilities, as my thesis has done, is an important step in expanding the opportunities for accountability for controversial exports. Hopefully my research will also play a part in provoking a broader questioning of the morality of the arms trade business itself and the legitimacy of its place in an international society that is predicated on peaceful co-existence. 

*    *    *

Hiruni Alwishewa defended her PhD thesis in International Law on 7 February 2024. Professor Andrew Clapham presided over the committee, which included Professor Andrea Bianchi, Thesis Supervisor, and, as External Reader, Professor Anna Stavrianakis, School of Global Studies, University of Sussex, UK.

Citation of the PhD thesis: 
Alwishewa, Hiruni. “Responsibilities to Prevent: Responsibilities of Supply-Side Actors to Prevent the Adverse Human Rights Impacts of Arms Exports to Conflict Zones” PhD thesis, Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, Geneva, 2024.
The PhD thesis is available in public access on this page of the Geneva Graduate Institute’s repository.

Banner image: Non-Violence, sculpture by Carl Fredrik Reuterswärd, United Nations Headquarters, New York. Photo taken by Hiruni Alwishewa.
Interview by Nathalie Tanner, Research Office.