Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A case for global democracy? Arms exports and conflicting goals in democracy promotion

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Journal of International Relations and Development Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Employing the framework of conflicting goals in democracy promotion as a departure point, the paper addresses the issue of arms exports to non-democratic countries as an important research topic which points to a reconsideration of certain fundamental conceptual and normative commitments underpinning democracy promotion. Empirically, we remind of the lingering hypocrisy of Western arms exporters, knowing that exports to non-democratic countries often hinder or block democratisation. This is not easily circumvented because of the many conflicting objectives both internal and external to democracy promotion itself. Yet, democracy and human rights promotion remain, ethically and pragmatically, important policy goals. Noting that the self-evident character of the state-based liberal democratic model is being increasingly questioned in the literature, we then critically explore a radical, and surprisingly natural, alternative vision: namely, if the commitment to democracy and human rights is to be genuine, only global democracy remains a viable way of resolving the many dilemmas, as it aspires to deal both with regulating arms exports and building accountable decision-making structures. Although we ultimately reject the globalist solution and lean towards a less radical constructivist approach, we endorse the underlying rationale that democracy promotion needs to embrace normative democratic theory sincerely.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. We will use in this paper the notion of democracy promotion as covering also the related modalities of advancing democracy abroad, such as democracy support, democracy assistance, democracy-building, and so on. We believe that no substantial part of our argument hinges on this terminological choice, although we are aware of the voices which point out the negative connotations of DP, stemming from its linkage to the recent practice of armed intervention in non-democratic countries.

  2. For discussions of validity of such a generalised statement, see Markoff and White (2009) and Burnell (2010).

  3. For examples of possible justifications of democracy, from guaranteeing peace to protecting rights to having epistemic superiority, see Dahl (1989, pp. 83–96), Saward (2003, pp. 25–31) and Estlund (2008, pp. 1–20).

  4. Admittedly, there is another, logically prior issue—namely the questionable implicit assumption that democratisation is a shared interest of both democracy promoters and democracy receivers (elites or regular citizens) (Zürcher et al. 2013, p. x, 5ff; 2011).

  5. The former refers to situations where there is a conflict of goals or instruments which are tied to DP itself; a typical example is the common dilemma between organising free nation-wide elections and ensuring equitable access to power to representatives of all significant segments of the given society (for example by means of power-sharing arrangements). Extrinsic trade-offs refer to cases when DP as such clashes with other valuable social goals or priorities of the involved actors, such as peace-building, state-building, economic development, or—most relevantly for our purposes—calculations of economic benefit (Grimm and Leininger 2012, pp. 397–98).

  6. In the normative phase, conflicts arise both intrinsically between competing visions of what type (model) of democracy is most desirable (think of liberal individualist vs. Confucian collectivist versus socialist egalitarian conceptions) and extrinsically between democracy and other goals and ideals that are in themselves valuable (peace, welfare and justice, stability, etc.). The strategic phase stands for (both intrinsic and extrinsic) ‘conflicts of appropriate timing, sequencing, and systemic interdependence’ (Grimm and Leininger 2012, p. 401). These may be triggered by differing political, cultural, and economic motivations of the involved actors. Examples include the need to supply governments with military equipment, so that anti-democratic forces are kept at bay, versus the ever-present danger of their abuse against any opposition forces. The operative phase describes the ‘micro level’ of disputes over implementation, e.g. prioritisation of certain policy steps.

  7. Such as the socio-political and economic condition of recipient countries; the nature of interaction between international and domestic actors (i.e. promoters and recipients), especially the extent of inclusion of the latter in decisions about DP policies; or the degree or lack of capacity to actually carry out the suggested policies. Assigning priority among competing goals should thus be sensitive to questions such as whether the given country is an authoritarian or transitioning regime, whether violent clashes are imminent or remote, or whether the nature of the democracy-to-be-achieved is relatively open or pre-defined by external actors (Grimm and Leininger 2012, 402ff).

  8. As a matter of fact, member states of the United Nations most likely have the (legal) right to purchase arms from abroad, stemming from Article 51 of the UN Charter. This, however, does not entail a (legal) duty to sell, although a case could perhaps be made for a moral one. In any case, this paper does not deal with such examples.

  9. Although it has been also pointed out that overlaps and differences between the two processes have not been systematically explored; see Zulueta-Fülscher (2014, pp. 36–37) and Zürcher et al. (2009, p. 20).

  10. We comment upon other typical arguments in defence of arms exports throughout the article; for a systematic (critical) exposition see Christensen (2015).

  11. See, for example, O’Donnell’s (2010, p. 7) recounting of the powerlessness of ordinary citizens vis-à-vis the machinery of secret police in the 1970s Argentina.

  12. We say ‘essentially’ because it might be argued that many authoritarian governments actually do face both external and internal constraints, for example due to ethnic cleavages or conditions introduced by external donors. Although this is a relevant observation, it does not undermine the general point concerning the use of arms supplies by authoritarian states against pro-democratisation forces.

  13. We could no doubt identify corrosive effects on Western democracies themselves, arising, inter alia, out of the presence of a powerful military-industrial complex. Such considerations, although intriguing in themselves, would take us far beyond the present set of concerns.

  14. Some authors have claimed that criminal liability of arms trade exists under current international law—namely on the grounds of expectable, traceable, or predictable violations of universal human rights (see Bellal 2013, pp. 448–471).

  15. The list of top ten exporters for the period between 2010 and 2014 reads (in millions of US dollars): 1. United States (43,876); 2. Russia (37,383); 3. China (7612); 4. Germany (7387); 5. France (7304); 6. United Kingdom (6228); 7. Spain (4102); 8. Italy (4030); 9. Ukraine (3826); 10. Israel (3345). These figures include all types of weapons and ammunition. Worth noting is the predominance of liberal democratic countries in the list (7 out of 10 if Israel is included, and 11 out of the top 15) (see SIPRI 2016; Small Arms Survey 2012).

  16. Although Bermeo’s data cover US military aid only, generalisation is most likely possible here.

  17. Tilly’s (2007) account of state capacity is instructive here.

  18. Christensen’s (2015) philosophical scrutiny of arms exports proceeds on such an assumption.

  19. In this regard, Bermeo’s (2010, p. 84) claim that ‘democracy is singular’ (whereas ‘security is plural’) proves unconvincing.

  20. This ‘critical’ perspective on democratisation finds its counterpart in views according to which the ATT specifically and arms control in general only represent hegemonic assertion of either capitalist interests, or liberal militarism, or sovereign stateness in a Foucauldian governmentality disguise, or perhaps all at once (e.g. Krause 2011; Stavrianakis 2012, 2016). All voice the complaint that arms control efforts tend to be (naïvely) taken at face value, as presented by powerful liberal states, without looking into the ‘conceptual politics’ behind ordinary politics in the realm of arms trade. Although we share these authors’ normative concerns over a purportedly technical set of issues, we do not subscribe to the wider theoretical position they occupy (that is, critical security studies).

  21. By contrast, scholars of security have recently begun exploring the contours of a ‘security cosmopolitanism’ of which trade in small arms constitutes an important part (Burke 2013). Still, a straightforward argument from arms trade to global democracy is missing.

  22. There are other plausible interpretations of the notion of a basic structure, see Abizadeh (2007); the ‘impact’ version is however in line with the standard understanding of the consequences of economic globalisation.

  23. Compare an analogous argument about global justice in Nagel (2005, 145ff). Recent defences of the democratic nature of output legitimacy assume—illegitimately, in our view—that a democratic decision-making structure is already in place; see Steffek (2015).

References

  • Abizadeh, Arash. 2007. Cooperation, Pervasive Impact, and Coercion: On the Scope (Not Site) of Distributive Justice. Philosophy & Public Affairs 35 (4): 318–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Agné, Hans. 2014. Is Successful Democracy Promotion Possible? The Conceptual Problem. Democratization 21 (1): 49–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Agné, Hans. 2006. A Dogma of Democratic Theory and Globalization: Why Politics Need not Include Everyone it Affects. European Journal of International Relations 12 (3): 433–458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andersen, Louise, Bjørn Møller, and Finn Stepputat. 2007. Introduction: Security Arrangements in Fragile States. In Fragile States and Insecure People?: Violence, Security, and Statehood in the Twenty-First Century, ed. Louise Andersen, Bjørn Møller, and Finn Stepputat, 3–20. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, Richard, Steven M. Fish, Stephen E. Hanson, and Philip G. Roeder. 2001. Conclusion: Postcommunism and the Theory of Democracy. In Postcommunism and the Theory of Democracy, ed. Richard Anderson, Steven M. Fish, Stephen E. Hanson, and Philip G. Roeder, 152–168. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Angell, Alan. 1996. International Support for the Chilean Opposition 1973–1989: Political Parties and the Role of Exiles. In The International Dimensions of Democratization: Europe and the Americas, ed. Laurence Whitehead, 175–200. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Archibugi, Daniele. 2012. From Peace Between Democracies to Global Democracy. In Global Democracy: Normative and Empirical Perspectives, ed. Daniele Archibugi, Mathias Koenig-Archibugi, and Raffaele Marchetti, 254–273. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Archibugi, Daniele. 2008. The Global Commonwealth of Citizens: Toward Cosmopolitan Democracy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Barany, Zoltan D. 2009. Building Democratic Armies. In Is Democracy Exportable?, ed. Zoltan D. Barany, and Robert G. Moser, 178–204. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Barnett, Michael N., and Martha Finnemore. 2004. Rules for the World: International Organizations in Global Politics. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beaulieu, Emily, and Susan D. Hyde. 2008. In the Shadow of Democracy Promotion: Strategic Manipulation, International Observers, and Election Boycotts. Comparative Political Studies 42 (3): 392–415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bedard, Paul. 2011. Opposition Mounts To U.N. Gun Control Treaty | US News. http://www.usnews.com/news/washington-whispers/articles/2011/07/26/opposition-mounts-to-un-gun-control-treaty-opposition-mounts-to-un-gun-control-treaty. Accessed 17 June 2016.

  • Bellal, Anyssa. 2013. Transfers and International Human Rights Law. In Stuart Casey-Maslen, ed. Weapons Under International Human Rights Law, 448–471. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Belling, Vojtěch. 2014. Zrození suveréna. Pojem suverenity a jeho kritika v moderní politické a právní filosofii – Suverenita a normativní konstrukce reality [The Birth of the Sovereign. The Concept of Sovereignty and Its Critique in Modern Political and Legal Philosophy]. Brno: CDK.

  • Berman, Sheri. 2011. The Past and Future of Social Democracy and the Consequences for Democracy Promotion. In The Conceptual Politics of Democracy Promotion, ed. Milja Hobson, and Christopher Kurki, 68–84. Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bermeo, Nancy. 2010. Democracy Assistance and the Search for Security. In New Challenges to Democratization, ed. Peter J. Burnell, and Richard Youngs, 73–92. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bermeo, Nancy. 2009. Conclusion: Is Democracy Exportable? In Is Democracy Exportable?, ed. Zoltan D. Barany, and Robert G. Moser, 224–263. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blanton, Shannon Lindsey. 2000. Promoting Human Rights and Democracy in the Developing World: U.S. Rhetoric versus U.S. Arms Exports. American Journal of Political Science 44 (1): 123–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bloomfield, Alan. 2016. Norm Antipreneurs and Theorising Resistance to Normative Change. Review of International Studies 42 (2): 310–333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Booth, Ken. 2007. Theory of World Security. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bridoux, Jeff, and Milja Kurki. 2014. Democracy Promotion: A Critical Introduction. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bromely, Mark. 2012. The Review of the EU Common Position on Arms Exports: Prospects for Strengthened Controls | SIPRI. https://www.sipri.org/publications/2012/eu-non-proliferation-papers/review-eu-common-position-arms-exports-prospects-strengthened-controls. Accessed 3 November 2016.

  • Bromund, Ted and Steven Groves. 2008. The U.N.’s Arms Trade Treaty: A Dangerous Multilateral Mistake in the Making. http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2009/08/the-uns-arms-trade-treaty-a-dangerous-multilateral-mistake-in-the-making. Accessed 17 June 2016.

  • Buchanan, Allen E. 2004. Justice, Legitimacy, and Self-determination: Moral Foundations for International Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burke, Anthony. 2013. Security Cosmopolitanism. Critical Studies on Security 1 (1): 13–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burnell, Peter J. 2010. New Challenges to Democratization. In New Challenges to Democratization, ed. Peter J. Burnell, and Richard Youngs, 1–22. Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carothers, Thomas. 2010. The Continuing Backlash Against Democracy Promotion. In New Challenges to Democratization, ed. Peter J. Burnell, and Richard Youngs, 59–72. Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carothers, Thomas. 2006. The Backlash Against Democracy Promotion. Foreign Affairs 85 (2): 55–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carothers, Thomas. 2002. The End of the Transition Paradigm. Journal of Democracy 13 (1): 5–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caverley, Jonathan D. 2014. Democratic Militarism: Voting, Wealth, and War. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, James. 2015. Weapons, Security, and Oppression: A Normative Study of International Arms Transfers. Journal of Political Philosophy 23 (1): 23–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cook, Robin. 2002. Putting Principle into Practice: The Role of Human Rights in Foreign Policy. Cambridge Review of International Affairs 15 (1): 45–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Da Silva, Clara. 2009. Creating a Human Rights Standard for the Arms Trade Treaty. Disarmament Forum 1–2, 27–35.

  • Dahl, Robert A. 1989. Democracy and Its Critics. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Soysa, Indra, and Paul Midford. 2012. Enter The Dragon! An Empirical Analysis of Chinese versus US Arms Transfers to Autocrats and Violators of Human Rights, 1989–2006. International Studies Quarterly 56 (4): 843–856.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doyle, Michael W. 1983. Kant, Liberal Legacies, and Foreign Affairs. Philosophy & Public Affairs 12 (3): 205–235.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dryzek, John. 2004. Democratic Political Theory. In Handbook of Political Theory, ed. Gerald F. Gaus, and Chandran Kukathas, 143–154. London: SAGE.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Dufek, Pavel. 2013. Why Strong Moral Cosmopolitanism Requires a World-State. International Theory 5 (2): 177–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dufek, Pavel, and Jan Holzer. 2013. Democratisation of Democracy? On the Discontinuity Between Empirical and Normative Theories of Democracy. Representation 49 (2): 117–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ekklesia. 2012. EU Accused of Hiding Own Report on Arms Trade. http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/16036. Accessed 28 June 2016.

  • Erickson, Jennifer. 2013. Market Imperative Meets Normative Power: Human Rights and European Arms Transfer Policy. European Journal of International Relations 19 (2): 209–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erickson, Jennifer. 2015. Dangerous Trade: Arms Exports, Human Rights, and International Reputation. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Estlund, David M. 2008. Democratic Authority: A Philosophical Framework. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Union. 2008. Council Common Position 2008/944/CFSP of 8 December 2008 Defining Common Rules Governing Control of Exports of Military Technology and Equipment. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32008E0944. Accessed 17 June 2016.

  • France24. 2014 France Will Not Halt Russian Warship Sale Despite Ukraine crisis—France 24. http://www.france24.com/en/20140306-french-built-warship-destined-russia-crimea-crisis-mistral-test-run. Accessed 17 June 2016.

  • Freedom House. 2016. Freedom House. https://freedomhouse.org/. Accessed 1 February 2016.

  • Garcia-Alonso, María, and Paul Levine. 2007. Arms Trade and Arms Races: A Strategic Analysis. In Handbook of Defense Economics, vol. 2, ed. Keith Hartley, and Todd Sandler, 941–971. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garcia, Denise. 2014. Global Norms on Arms: The Significance of the Arms Trade Treaty for Global Security in World Politics. Global Policy 5 (4): 425–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garcia, Denise. 2012. Disarmament Diplomacy and Human Security: Regimes, Norms and Moral Progress in International Relations. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaskarth, Jamie. 2006. Ethical Policies or Empty Promises? New Labour and Human Rights in British Foreign Policymaking. International Journal of Human Rights 10 (1): 45–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerschewski, Johannes. 2013. The Three Pillars of Stability: Legitimation, Repression, and Co-optation in Autocratic Regimes. Democratization 20 (1): 13–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilby, Nicholas. 2009. The No-nonsense Guide to the Arms Trade. Oxford: New Internationalist.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodhart, Michael. 2008. Human Rights and Global Democracy. Ethics & International Affairs 22 (4): 395–420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodin, Robert E. 2007. Enfranchising All Affected Interests, and Its Alternatives. Philosophy & Public Affairs 35 (1): 40–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodin, Robert E. 2010. Global Democracy: in the Beginning. International Theory 2 (2): 175–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grimm, Sonja, and Julia Leininger. 2012. Not All Good Things Go Together: Conflicting Objectives in Democracy Promotion. Democratization 19 (3): 391–414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Group of Governmental Experts on a Comprehensive, Legally Binding Instrument Establishing Common International Standards for the Import, Export and Transfer of Conventional Arms. 2008. Towards an Arms Trade Treaty: Establishing Common International Standards for the Import, Export and Transfer of Conventional Arms: Note/by the Secretary-General. http://repository.un.org/handle/11176/172033. Accessed 19 September 2016.

  • Habermas, Jürgen. 2002. On Legitimation Trough Human Rights. In Pablo De Greiff and Ciaran Cronin, ed. Global Justice, and Transnational Politics, 197–214. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hancock, Jan. 2007. Human Rights and US Foreign Policy. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansen, Susanne. 2016. Taking Ambiguity Seriously: Explaining the Indeterminacy of the European Union Conventional Arms Export Control Regime. European Journal of International Relations 22 (1): 192–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansen, Susanne T, and Nicholas Marsh. 2015. Normative Power and Organized Hypocrisy: European Union Member States’ Arms Export to Libya. European Security 24 (2): 264–286.

  • Harte, Julia and Jeffrey Smith. 2010. Investigators find Islamic State used ammo made in 21 countries, including America | Center for Public Integrity. https://www.publicintegrity.org/2014/10/05/15827/investigators-find-islamic-state-used-ammo-made-21-countries-including-america. Accessed 17 June 2016.

  • Held, David. 2010. Cosmopolitanism: Ideals and Realities. Oxford: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hobson, Christopher. 2012. Liberal Democracy and Beyond: Extending the Sequencing Debate. International Political Science Review 33 (4): 441–454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hobson, Christopher, and Milja Kurki. 2011. Introduction: the Conceptual Politics of Democracy Promotion. In The Conceptual Politics of Democracy Promotion, ed. Christopher Hobson, and Milja Kurki, 1–15. Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holtom, Paul. 2011. The Arms Trade Treaty: Challenges Ahead, Stockholm. http://www.nonproliferation.eu/web/documents/activities/consultative-meetings/01/holtom.pdf. Accessed 11 September 2017.

  • Huntington, Samuel P. 1968. Political Order in Changing Societies. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hurrell, Andrew. 2007. On Global Order: Power, Values, and the Constitution of International Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Inglehart, Ronald, and Christian Welzel. 2010. Changing Mass Priorities: The Link Between Modernization and Democracy. Perspectives on Politics 8 (2): 551–567.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • International Committee of the Red Cross. 1907. Project of an International Declaration Concerning the Laws and Customs of War, Adopted by the Conference of Brussels, August 27, 1874. American Journal of International Law 1 (2): 96–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jarstad, Anna, and Timothy D. Sisk. 2008. From War to Democracy: Dilemmas of Peacebuilding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, Joel L. 1994. Financing the Arms Trade. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 535: 110–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krasner, Stephen. 2004. The Hole in the Whole: Sovereignty, Shared Sovereignty, and International Law. Michigan Journal of International Law 25 (3): 1075–1101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krause, Keith. 2011. Leashing the Dogs of War: Arms Control from Sovereignty to Governmentality. Contemporary Security Policy 32 (1): 20–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krause, Keith, and Jennifer Milliken. 2009. Introduction: The Challenge of Non-State Armed Groups. Contemporary Security Policy 30 (2): 202–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kurki, Milja. 2013. Democratic Futures: Revisioning Democracy Promotion. New York: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Laurance, Edward J., Siemon T. Wezeman and Herbert Wulf. 1993. Arms Watch: SIPRI Report on the First Year of the UN Register of Conventional Arms. SIPRI Research Report No. 6, Stockholm: Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.

  • Little, Adrian, and Kate MacDonald. 2013. Pathways to Global Democracy? Escaping the Statist Imaginary. Review of International Studies 39 (4): 789–813.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mann, Michael. 2005. The Dark Side of Democracy: Explaining Ethnic Cleansing. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mansfield, Edward D., and Jack L. Snyder. 2005. Electing to Fight: Why Emerging Democracies go to War. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Manzo, Kate. 2003. Africa in the Rise of Rights-based Development. Geoforum 34 (4): 437–456.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maoz, Zeev, and Belgin San-Akca. 2012. Rivalry and State Support of Non-State Armed Groups (NAGs), 1946-2001. International Studies Quarterly 56 (4): 720–734.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marchetti, Raffaele. 2008. Global Democracy: for and Against. Ethical Theory, Institutional Design, and Social Struggle. London: Routledge.

  • Markoff, John, and Amy White. 2009. The Global Wave of Democratization. In Democratization, ed. Christian Haerpfer, Patrick Bernhagen, Ronald F. Inglehart, and Christian Welzel, 55–73. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, Daniel. 2011. David Cameron: It’s Not Wrong to Sell Arms to the Middle East | Daily Mail Online. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1359712/David-Cameron-Its-wrong-sell-arms-Middle-East.html. Accessed 17 June 2016.

  • Milliken, Jennifer, and Keith Krause. 2002. State Failure, State Collapse, and State Reconstruction: Concepts, Lessons and Strategies. Development and Change 33 (5): 753–774.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Müller, Harald, Marco Fey, and Carsten Rauch. 2013. Winds of Change: Exogenous Events and Trends as Norm Triggers (or Norm Killers). In Norm Dynamics in Multilateral Arms Control: Interests, Conflicts, and Justice, ed. Harald Müller, and Carmen Wunderlich, 141–160. Athens: University of Georgia Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nagel, Thomas. 2005. The Problem of Global Justice. Philosophy & Public Affairs 33 (2): 113–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Donnell, Guillermo A. 2010. Democracy, Agency, and the State: Theory with Comparative Intent. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Olsen, Gorm Rye. 2000. Promotion of Democracy as a Foreign Policy Instrument of “Europe”: Limits to International Idealism. Democratization 7 (2): 142–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patomäaki, Heikki. 2011. Democracy promotion: neoliberal vs social democratic telos. In Conceptual Politics of Democracy Promotion, ed. Christopher Hobson, and Milja Kurki, 85–99. Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perkins, Richard, and Eric Neumayer. 2010. The Organized Hypocrisy of Ethical Foreign Policy: Human Rights, Democracy and Western Arms Sales. Geoforum 41 (2): 247–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, Anne. 2003. Democracy and Difference. Some Problems for Feminist Theory. In Philosophy and Democracy: An Anthology, ed. Thomas Christiano, 309–19. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Piazza, James A. 2007. Draining the Swamp: Democracy Promotion, State Failure, and Terrorism in 19 Middle Eastern Countries. Studies in Conflict & Terrorism 30 (6): 521–539.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pogge, Thomas. 1992. Cosmopolitanism and Sovereignty. Ethics 103 (1): 48–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pogge, Thomas. 2002. World Poverty and Human Rights: Cosmopolitan Responsibilities and Reforms. Cambridge: Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pogge, Thomas. 2005. A Cosmopolitan Perspective on the Global Economic Order. In The Political Philosophy of Cosmopolitanism, ed. Gillian Brock, and Harry Brighouse, 92–109. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Poppe, Annika E., and Jonas Wolff. 2013. The Normative Challenge of Interaction: Justice Conflicts in Democracy Promotion. Global Constitutionalism 2 (3): 373–406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Price, Richard. 2008. Moral Limit and Possibility in World Politics. International Organization 62 (2): 191–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rawls, John. 1971. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Russett, Bruce M. 1995. Grasping the Democratic Peace: Principles for a Post-Cold War World. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saunders, Ben. 2012. Defining the Demos. Politics, Philosophy & Economics 11 (3): 280–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saward, Michael. 2003. Democracy. Cambridge: Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schedler, Andreas. 2013. The Politics of Uncertainty: Sustaining and Subverting Electoral Authoritarianism. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Schedler, Andreas. 2006. Electoral Authoritarianism: The Dynamics of Unfree Competition. Boulder: L. Rienner Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schedler, Andreas. 2002. The Menu of Manipulation. Journal of Democracy 13 (2): 36–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scheuerman, William E. 2014. Cosmopolitanism and the World State. Review of International Studies 40 (3): 419–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scheye, Eric, and Louise Andersen. 2007. Conclusion: Toward a Multilayered Approach to Security. In Fragile States and Insecure People?: Violence, Security, and Statehood in the Twenty-First Century, ed. Louise Andersen, Bjørn Møller, and Finn Stepputat, 227–246. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, Carsten Q. 2009. The Consolidation of Democracy: Comparing Europe and Latin America. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scholte, Jan Aart. 2014. Reinventing Global Democracy. European Journal of International Relations 20 (1): 3–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schraeder, Peter J. 2003. The State of the Art in International Democracy Promotion: Results of a Joint European-North American Research Network. Democratization 10 (2): 21–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sekerák, Marián. 2016. Towards a Worldwide (Deliberative) Democracy? Catholic Social Teaching and the Idea of Global Governance. Italian Political Science Review 46 (3): 291–311.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sidel, Victor W. 1995. The International Arms Trade and Its Impact on Health. British Medical Journal 311: 1677–1680.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • SIPRI. 2016. SIPRI National Reports Database. SIPRI National Reports Database. http://www.sipri.org/research/armaments/transfers/controlling/research/armaments/transfers/transparency/national_reports/sipri-national-reports-database. Accessed 17 June 2016.

  • SIPRI. 2017. Military Expenditure. https://www.sipri.org/research/armament-and-disarmament/arms-transfers-and-military-spending/military-expenditure. Accessed 17 January 2017.

  • Small Arms Survey. 2012. Small Arms Survey 2012. http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/publications/by-type/yearbook/small-arms-survey-2012.html. Accessed 11 September 2017.

  • Smith, Ron, and Bernard Udis. 2003. New Challenges to Arms Exports: Whither Wasenaar? In Arms Trade, Security and Conflict, ed. Paul Levine, and Ron Smith, 94–110. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Staniland, Paul. 2012. States, Insurgents, and Wartime Political Orders. Perspectives on Politics 10 (2): 243–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stavrianakis, Anna. 2011. Small Arms Control and the Reproduction of Imperial Relations. Contemporary Security Policy 32 (1): 193–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stavrianakis, Anna. 2012. Missing the Target: NGOs, Global Civil Society and the Arms Trade. Journal of International Relations and Development 15 (2): 224–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stavrianakis, Anna. 2016. Legitimising Liberal Militarism: Politics, Law and War in the Arms Trade Treaty. Third World Quarterly 37 (5): 840–865.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steffek, Jens. 2015. The Output Legitimacy of International Organizations and the Global Public Interest. International Theory 7 (2): 263–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stohl, Rachel J., and Suzette Grillot. 2009. The International Arms Trade. Cambridge: Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stohl, Rachel J., Matt Schroeder, and Dan Smith. 2007. The Small Arms Trade: A Beginner’s Guide. Oxford: Oneworld.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stroschein, Sherrill. 2008. Making or Breaking Kosovo: Applications of Dispersed State Control. Perspectives on Politics 6 (4): 655–674.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, Daniel C. 2001. The Helsinki Effect: International Norms, Human Rights, and the Demise of Communism. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Tilly, Charles. 2007. Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Weber, Max. 1994. The Profession and Vocation of Politics. In Weber: Political Writings, ed. Peter Lassman, and Ronald Speirs, 309–369. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Wendt, Alexander. 1992. Anarchy is What States Make of it: The Social Construction of Power Politics. International Organization 46 (2): 391–425.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wezeman, Pieter and Siemon Wezeman. 2015. Trends in International Arms Transfers 2014, Stockholm. http://books.sipri.org/files/FS/SIPRIFS1503.pdf. Accessed 11 September 2017.

  • Whitehead, Laurence. 2010. State Sovereignty and Democracy: An Awkward Coupling. In New Challenges to Democratization, ed. Peter J. Burnell, and Richard Youngs, 23–41. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wisotzki, Simone. 2013. Humanitarian Arms Control: The Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Treaty, the Programme of Action on Small Arms and Light Weapons, and the Convention on Cluster Munitions. In Norm Dynamics in Multilateral Arms Control: Interests, Conflicts, and Justice, ed. Harald Müller, and Carmen Wunderlich, 82–106. Athens: University of Georgia Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolff, Jonas. 2012. Democracy Promotion, Empowerment, and Self-determination: Conflicting Objectives in US and German Policies Towards Bolivia. Democratization 19 (3): 415–437.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolff, Jonas, and Lisbeth Zimmermann. 2016. Between Banyans and Battle Scenes: Liberal Norms, Contestation, and the Limits of Critique. Review of International Studies 42 (3): 513–534.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wunderlich, Carmen. 2013. Theoretical Approaches in Norm Dynamics. In Norm Dynamics in Multilateral Arms Control, ed. Harald Müller, and Carmen Wunderlich, 20–47. Athens: University of Georgia Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Youngs, Richard. 2009. Democracy Promotion as External Governance? Journal of European Public Policy 16 (6): 895–915.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zulueta-Fülscher, Kimana. 2014. Democracy-Support Effectiveness in “Fragile States”: A Review. International Studies Review 16 (1): 29–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zürcher, Christoph. 2011. Building Democracy While Building Peace. Journal of Democracy 22 (1): 81–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zürcher, Christoph, Nora Roehner, and Sarah Riese. 2009. External Democracy Promotion in Post-Conflict Zones A Comparative-Analytical Framework. Taiwan Journal of Democracy 5 (1): 1–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zürcher, Christoph, et al. 2013. Costly Democracy: Peacebuilding and Democratization After War. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The paper is an output of a research project funded by the Czech Science Foundation (code GA16-13980S). We are grateful to JIRD’s anonymous reviewers for their comments and suggestions on previous drafts of the paper; they have helped improve the argument substantially. We also want to thank Andrew L. Roberts, Petr Preclík, Hubert Smekal, Martin Chovančík, Petr Ocelík, and other participants in the Research Seminar of the Faculty of Social Studies, Masaryk University, for their views on earlier versions.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Political Science, Faculty of Social Studies, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic

    Pavel Dufek

  2. International Institute of Political Science, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic

    Michal Mochtak

Authors
  1. Pavel Dufek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michal Mochtak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michal Mochtak.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dufek, P., Mochtak, M. A case for global democracy? Arms exports and conflicting goals in democracy promotion. J Int Relat Dev 22, 610–639 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41268-017-0114-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41268-017-0114-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation