| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
175316
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Arms dependency is typically framed as a security issue that states seek to avoid. Dependency creates an opportunity for an exporter to attempt to exert influence over the importer’s foreign and domestic policy. However, the arms trade is a trade and influence attempts to create economic costs for exporters by damaging relationships with current and potential customers. Thus, heavily dependent states do not necessarily need to change suppliers to avoid the threat. Additionally, as arms transfers are a signal of political support, dependency may be a sign of a mutually beneficial relationship rather than one that is potentially dangerous. This article evaluates these arguments using logistic regression models to evaluate changes in suppliers of major weapons systems. It finds that the relationship between dependence and arms transfers is more complex than previously argued where the nature of the relationship depends both on the type of exporter and the type of arm being exported.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
160581
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Since the height of the Cold War, major democratic arms suppliers have claimed that they take into consideration the human rights records of existing and potential purchasing states. After the Cold War, supplier policies suggested an increased focus on matters of human rights. But do their records match their rhetoric and their formal policies? We examine the arms transfer patterns of the four major democratic suppliers between 1976 and 2009. We argue that, if practice matches policy, then democratic suppliers should not transfer weapons to states violating human rights. However, because the global interests of these suppliers shift over time, we expect some transfers of major weapon systems to states that violate human rights, but not of the types most implicated in human rights abuses. Thus, we build on the existing arms transfer literature by disaggregating exports based on weapons type. The ordered logits we run for each major democratic supplier from 1976 to 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. This research is important not only to arms and human rights research, but to foreign policy scholars in general. The patterns of supply and the continued preference of states to provide major conventional weapons to states with poor human rights records reveal important policy priorities for these democratic states.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
153064
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Arms transfers provide exporters an avenue to provide security to other states while gaining economic benefits. Arms transfers provide importers an avenue to gain security without having to rely on alliances. Past research uses aggregate measures of the monetary or security value of major weapon system transfers without accounting for strategic differences in possible use in interstate and civil conflict. This article presents a data set on interstate transfers of major weapon systems between 1950 and 2010 building upon Stockholm Peach Research Institute’s Arms Trade Register with several improvements. First, it disaggregates land weapons and air weapons into categories reflecting their strategic capabilities. Second, model level characteristics (e.g. age, speed, and range) are drawn from Jane’s Defence sources. Additionally, the data set covers a larger range of time and states than previous data sets categorizing arms. To demonstrate the usefulness, this article first presents summary statistics of the data set and then replicates an earlier test to show that the effect of human rights and regime types on United States transfers differs across the categories of arms compared to alternative measures of arms transfers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|