Abstract
Conventional arms control imposes costs and benefits on states in civil wars: it restricts their own armament and that of rebel groups. I argue that the benefits outweigh the costs because states design conventional arms control measures that primarily curb rebels’ armament. I investigate these arguments through regression analyses of United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) voting records and a content analysis of UNGA speeches. While I find a positive relationship between civil wars and support for conventional arms control in the aggregate, I also show that states in civil wars consider both the benefits and the costs of arms control.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.