Arms embargo is the name given to UN sanctions that prohibit arms exports to a specified conflict-wracked country. The purpose is to deter armed actors from purchasing weaponry, but the effectiveness of this type of sanction has long been questioned. Arms embargoes are often ineffective because weapons have a long lifespan, can be easily re-exported or reverse-engineered, and are generally transported along the same routes as legitimate cargo. Furthermore, the smuggling of weapons can be highly profitable for both importers and suppliers, especially major exporters.
Moreover, the effectiveness of arms embargoes can be undermined by the goals and motivations of state actors. For example, when the US imposes an arms embargo against Iran, the intention is to discourage Tehran from supporting militias and militant groups in the region and to make it more likely that the country will engage in a diplomatic process for a political solution to its conflict. The US’s inability to achieve this goal shows that the arms embargo is not a magic bullet that can solve the Iranian conflict.
In addition, the success of an arms embargo is greatly diminished if neighboring states do not support it. The most effective way to strengthen the impact of sanctions is by ensuring that the participating countries speak with one voice and work in tandem. This tactic heightens the impact of arms embargoes by limiting the ability of intervening states to play off each other, as well as the capacity of rogue actors to target different intervening countries with their illicit weapons trade.
About the Author
