This website does not support Internet Explorer, your current browser.
Please view the site with a modern browser such as Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox.
Arms Embargoes
Overview of the Evidence
Our research review includes 16 reports: 1 that addresses the effects of arms embargoes on mass atrocities and 15 that address the effects of arms embargoes on closely related outcomes, such as civilian killings, human rights violations, and conflict recurrence. It found the following:
- A mix of findings as to whether arms embargoes were effective in helping prevent mass atrocities or closely-related outcomes, and
- Relatively strong evidence on the association of one factor—using arms embargoes concurrently with other atrocity prevention tools—with greater effectiveness of arms embargoes in helping prevent mass atrocities.
About Arms Embargoes
Definition
Arms embargoes prohibit arms transfers to a whole country (“blanket arms embargoes”), specific areas or forces within a country (“selective arms embargoes”), or individuals or groups regardless of location (“global arms embargoes”). Arms embargoes can target one or all sides of a conflict (“partial” and “impartial” arms embargoes, respectively) (SIPR 2007, pp. 2-3).
Theory of Change
If arms embargoes deny potential perpetrators access to arms or raise the costs of acquiring arms, they would reduce the likelihood or severity of mass atrocities by constraining their capacity for violence. If arms embargoes increase the expected cost of committing mass atrocities, potential perpetrators would be more likely to choose alternative options (Brubaker and Dörfler 2017, pp. 2, 8).