Search Climate Insights Directory

The document analyzes the illicit arms trade, categorizing it into semi-legal, state-sanctioned, and wholly illicit flows. It argues against the 'amorphous image' of easy global access to weapons, asserting instead that supply and demand are geographically and temporally variable. The authors detail how weapons are diverted from legal stocks, the role of illicit pricing as an indicator of supply constraints, and the multi-level governance structures—societal, national, and international—used to counter trafficking. It also evaluates international instruments like the Arms Trade Treaty and the UN Programme of Action, noting the challenges posed by state complicity and capacity gaps in developing nations.

The authors argue that while digital technologies offer opportunities for efficiency in crisis response, they are not neutral and can compromise core humanitarian principles. The paper identifies five analytical prisms for future research: the politics of humanitarian space, the rise of public-private partnerships, new methods of aid distribution (such as e-transfers), the reorganization of relationships between aid providers and recipients, and the emergence of new data-driven vulnerabilities. It concludes that the 'do no harm' imperative requires a more reflective approach to technology to ensure that digital divides do not marginalize the most vulnerable and that data collection does not create new security risks.

The paper analyzes the 'business-peace nexus,' where multinational corporations (MNCs) are reframed as peace actors. While B4P aims to embed corporations in public accountability structures, the authors argue it creates 'asymmetrical governance' locally, where corporate power is amplified and accountability is obscured.

The document examines the 'capitalist peace' thesis, which argues that capitalism—through free trade, investment, and property rights—reduces the likelihood of interstate conflict. It contrasts this with the 'democratic peace' and 'Kantian peace' frameworks, noting that while some scholars argue capitalism is the primary driver of peace, others see it as supplementary to democracy. The authors identify critical gaps in the current literature, specifically the lack of precise micro-foundations linking market attributes to peace and the difficulty in empirically distinguishing capitalist peace from commercial liberalism.