Arms embargo is a type of restriction or sanction that applies either solely to weaponry or also to “dual-use technology”. It’s a tool used to discourage or prevent the sale, transfer, production, or manufacture of arms, or the supply of weapons and related equipment by one country or company to another. In the context of the proliferation of weapons and armed conflict, such restrictions can be used to prevent a state or non-state actor from acquiring or using more advanced weapon systems that could lead to mass atrocities.
The imposition of an arms embargo typically signals disapproval of an unwanted policy and can help galvanize international pressure against it. However, the effectiveness of arms embargos is limited by the ability of a targeted state to circumvent them, and they are often imposed too late to be effective. Furthermore, the UN’s Sanction Committees have to rely on Member States’ monitoring and enforcement capacities to ensure compliance.
In addition, the proliferation of front companies and third countries makes it difficult for the UN to effectively monitor arms transfers. Finally, many States do not make the violation of an arms embargo a criminal offence in their domestic law.
Moreover, arms embargos have unintended consequences that can negatively affect the process of conflict resolution. Hogendoorn argues that impartial arms embargos tend to prolong conflicts, as they reduce the relative military power of different factions and can make them less willing to negotiate. In contrast, partial arms embargos have a much more positive impact on the length of civil wars by reducing the availability of sophisticated weapons that could trigger a humanitarian catastrophe.