European Integration and the Arms Trade: Creating a New Moral Imperative?

Abstract

In what relation, if in any, does the arms trade² stand to ethical and moral issues? More precisely, how far should moral laws govern the organization of industry or control the mechanisms of trade? The simplest moral attitude to the arms trade — and so to all military preparations, killing and warfare (which is organized killing) — is that in any circumstances it is wrong, irrespective of its profitableness or political expediency. This pacifist view is entirely rational (that is, a blanket ban on arms sales should be matched by a parallel ban on the possession of arms, thereby ensuring a level playing field) but far from commonly sanctioned, particularly by states. Only Costa Rica and Iceland come close to the purely pacifist position, although even here there are some doubts concerning the ‘arming’ of the national guard in Costa Rica and fishing protection in Iceland. Instead, the majority of states (and individuals) appear to take a more pragmatic position by arguing that the arms trade and military preparations are prima facie right but not always so.³ This diluted moral attitude clearly implies a qualified acceptance of the arms trade, which in turn transfers debate to the question: in what circumstances are arms transfers not justified? Moral absolutes and moral certainties then become dissolved in political and economic discussions which produce compromises around individual transactions and particular weapon systems. In one form or another, therefore, the idea that some arms transfers are good and others bad has been the orthodoxy that has underlined government efforts to regulate the arms trade in the twentieth century.