This research objective necessitates a number of complementary aims:

1. To identify and critically evaluate those national and international norms – whether they be moral or based on customary, peremptory or codified law – that govern the transfer of conventional armaments;
2. To identify and critically evaluate those norms which raise humanitarian or human rights concerns as a result of potential or actual use of conventional armaments;
3. To draw conclusions as to how the US categorizes certain weapons as “conventional”, or with few restrictions on their licensing and/or physical export;
4. To determine how such norms are applied nationally by the US, in particular those governing corporations and institutions involved in the production, trade and financing of conventional armaments;
5. To understand how the US has historically navigated existing norms relating to conventional weapons; and
6. To inform policy recommendations aimed at heightening the effectiveness of norms relating to conventional arms transfers.


Read entries related to the PhD here

Sadly following the launch of the report, its coordinating author, Karen Ballentine from the Fafo Institute of Applied International Studies passed away. This is extraordinarily tragic news, and Karen’s intellectual and good-natured contribution to the issue of business and peace will be surely missed.

First, whilst I agree with Rory in that civil society have a far more important role in the shaping and implementation of international norms (e.g. as occurred in the case of the landmines treaty or the formation of the International Criminal Court), I don’t think the issue is one of coordination, but rather one of expertise.

Apart from those viewing human rights in amongst what the investment industry has termed ESG Risk, I see many sophisticated proponents of a more normative-based alternative from civil society. For instance, whilst some work is being done to highlight those firms involved in the production, development and transfer of cluster munitions, it fails to offer anything but useful information on the (non-existent) “armaments industry”. How might an institutional investor, with interpretative fiduciary duties, ongoing responsibilities to generate competitive returns, and other competing interests manage the presence of such companies in the portfolio?

There is an answer, and that is very much individual to the investor itself, as well as the legal jurisdiction within which it falls. However, even an initial step in that direction would take something beyond the capacity of most NGOs out there today. In my experience, they are simply not equipped to apply their findings into any meaningful, practical advice for institutional investors.

Second, to add some colour to John’s response, it might be useful to consider what pressures and compromises someone like John has to make in order to get his ideas through the relevant decision-makers. Invariably, civil society, industry professionals and academics are involved in their formation, but in terms of getting traction, this is very much a function of how well one navigates the politics than is commonly appreciated.

International law, even when applied to ‘supreme crimes such as genocide is often contentious, and many argue that normative responses are far more useful in certain circumstances. For instance, to define war crimes as the ICC have done crystalises a view of what is permissible that falls short of what moral judgements might find tolerable.

Third, we must remember that the main driver of change toward investors considering their role in business and human rights, the UN Principles for Responsible Investment, was itself formulated by fifteen Western investors with little to no consultation with (or invoking of) any international legal or moral normative concepts as did the UN Global Compact.

Quite aside from the representation issue within the formulation of the UN and its treaties and declarations, it might best be cautious in being too prescriptive in setting standards without any consideration of difference across cultures, religions, and civilisations.

And so before reiterating my support for the ethos of Rory’s remarks, I might ask a more direct question than does John: why should a Western academic – John Ruggie – be the one vested with formulating the normative framework with which the investment industry operates?  [+]