Should We Sell Arms to Human Rights Violators? What the Public Thinks

Arms-exporting countries – even those that are liberal democracies – sell weapons to governments that violate human rights. The United States, Britain, France, and Germany, among other countries, have professed their commitment to ethical arms sales, but in practice they supply arms to human rights violators, in pursuit of security and economic interests. Does the public support the provision of weapons to human rights violators? We examine public attitudes on arms exports through a survey experiment in Israel – a major arms exporter that is often criticized for arming repressive governments. Our analysis finds that human rights violations substantially increase the public’s opposition to the sale of arms – by 21 percentage points. Furthermore, opposition to the arms sale arises even when the recipient country carries economic or strategic importance. And the public shows concern about the human-rights toll of both conventional weapons and cyber weapons. Overall, we find a public preference for arms exports constrained by human rights – a preference that is often at odds with governments’ export practice. This study enhances our understanding of the public's involvement in restraining arms exports - an issue which increases in importance with rising scrutiny and criticism of arms sales. The findings offer a premise for a new research agenda regarding the evolution and change in human rights norms in the arms trade and the translation of norms into policy impact.