1. Introduction

1.1 Background

The report examines persistent human rights risks in the arms sector, highlighted by the Yemen conflict, which has resulted in more than 380,000 deaths, including at least 154,000 from direct combat. UN bodies have identified that some airstrikes may amount to war crimes. Despite export controls prohibiting transfers where there is a clear risk of international humanitarian law (IHL) or international human rights law (IHRL) violations, arms continue to flow into high-risk contexts. Key drivers include weak political will, permissive legal interpretation, limited transparency, corruption, and insufficient human rights due diligence (HRDD). The report stresses the importance of applying the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights across the sector.

1.2 Defining the arms sector

The arms sector is defined broadly to include the full value chain, from research and production to transport, financing, insurance, and advisory services. It also covers dual-use goods and technologies. This wide definition reflects the multiple points where businesses may contribute to or be linked with human rights harms.

2. The current regulatory framework

2.1 Multilateral weapons control elimination or anti proliferation conventions

The Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) is the primary global framework, requiring states to assess and deny exports where there is an overriding risk of serious IHL or IHRL violations. While the ATT seeks to reduce human suffering, it covers limited weapon categories and does not explicitly regulate dual-use goods, constraining its effectiveness.

2.2 Domestic and regional export control legislation

Many states have domestic or regional export laws with human rights provisions, including the UK Strategic Export Licensing Criteria and the EU Common Position. These require licence refusal where there is a clear risk of serious violations. However, control lists and implementation vary, creating uneven protection and regulatory gaps.

2.3 Multilateral export control regimes

Voluntary regimes such as the Wassenaar Arrangement provide extensive control lists covering conventional and dual-use goods, including surveillance technologies. Although influential, their non-binding nature limits accountability and enforcement.

3. The challenge: Shortcomings of states and businesses

3.1 Lack of political will

States retain discretion over export approvals and face limited consequences for authorising transfers despite clear risks. Economic dependence on arms industries, geopolitical objectives, and close state–industry relationships weaken enforcement of human rights safeguards.

3.2 Lack of comprehensiveness in the regulatory framework

Ambiguous terms such as “clear” or “overriding” risk allow permissive interpretations. Inconsistent coverage across treaties and laws, particularly for dual-use and emerging technologies, undermines human rights protection.

3.3 Lack of transparency and oversight

Arms transfers are often shielded from public and parliamentary scrutiny on national security grounds. Judicial challenges are difficult, and civil society organisations and victims frequently lack legal standing, limiting oversight and accountability.

3.4 Lack of HRDD requirements for companies

Most states do not require arms companies to conduct HRDD through legislation or national action plans. This reinforces reliance on export licences as a substitute for independent human rights assessment.

3.5 Failure of arms companies to conduct human rights due diligence

HRDD relating to the end use of arms remains limited. While some companies, governments, and investors have adopted due diligence tools, many firms argue that state approval fulfils their responsibilities, contrary to the Guiding Principles.

3.6 Remedy and accountability in the arms sector

New mandatory due diligence laws in Europe expand access to remedy, but victims of conflict-related abuses still face legal, practical, and jurisdictional barriers.

4. Conclusion

The report concludes that existing arms control systems are failing to prevent transfers linked to serious human rights violations. Stronger, consistent application of the UN Guiding Principles by states and businesses is required to address regulatory gaps, weak enforcement, and limited transparency.

5. Recommendations

5.1 Recommendations to states

States are urged to ratify and implement the ATT, strengthen export control laws, mandate enhanced HRDD for the arms sector, improve transparency of licensing decisions, establish independent oversight, prevent offshoring to bypass controls, and grant legal standing to victims and civil society to challenge licences.

5.2 Recommendations to businesses and business associations

Businesses should implement robust HRDD across operations regardless of export licences, disclose human rights risk assessments, avoid offshoring to circumvent controls, ensure responsible lobbying, address corruption risks, and participate in grievance and remediation mechanisms where harm occurs.