Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This article examines the impact of the changing structure of the international system on various aspects of the arms trade. The passing of the Cold War allows for comparative analysis of three distinct international systems: the interwar, the postwar or Cold War, and the emerging post-Cold War period. This involves gauging the impact of changing system structure (bipolarity, multipolarity), the degree of ideological conflict at the big-power level, alliance patterns, rates of military technological change, and so forth on such aspects of the arms trade as supplier markets, patterns of supplier-recipient relations, transfer modes, and levels of arms dependency by recipients. The emerging post-Cold War period already appears to evidence some trends in arms transfer patterns reminiscent of the interwar period, specifically those involving the depoliticization and denationalization of that trade. The impact of the Military Technical Revolution in an era of contracting global arms transfers is viewed as crucial to the emerging arms trade.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

1. Robert E. Harkavy , The Arms Trade and International Systems (Cambridge, MA: Ballinger, 1975).

Edward J. Laurance , The International Arms Trade (New York: Lexington Books, 1992).

Randall Schweller , “Tripolarity and the Second World War,” International Studies Quarterly, 37(1): 73-103 (Mar. 1993).

Stockholm International Peace Research Institute , World Armaments Yearbook (New York: Oxford University Press, annually), chap. on arms transfers.

5. Morton Kaplan , System and Process in International Politics (New York: John Wiley, 1957).

6. Richard Rosecrance , Action and Reaction in World Politics: International Systems in Perspective (Boston: Little, Brown, 1963).

Walter Russell Mead , “On the Road to Ruin,” in The Future of American Foreign Policy, ed. C. Kegley and E. Wittkopf (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1992), pp. 332-339.

8. Amelia C. Leiss et al. , Arms Transfers to Less Developed Countries (Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Center for International Studies, 1970).

9. Bruce Russett , Trends in World Politics (New York: Macmillan, 1965), p. 4.

10.

10. Rosecrance , Action and Reaction in World Politics, p. 260, fig. 13.

11.

11. Schweller , “Tripolarity and the Second World War.”

12.

12. Harkavy , Arms Trade and International Systems, chap. 2.

13.

13. Stockholm International Peace Research Institute , The Arms Trade with the Third World (New York: Humanities Press, 1971), pp. 17-41.

14.

14. These and subsequent data for the interwar period are drawn from Harkavy, Arms Trade and International Systems, esp. chaps. 3 and 4. In turn, those data were drawn from the in terwar military intelligence files located in the National Archives, Washington, DC.

15.

15. Schweller, “Tripolarity and the Second World War,” is to be credited with emphasizing the importance of revisionist versus status quo orientations in relation to systems structure.

16.

16. Richard Rosecrance , The Rise of the Trading State (New York: Basic Books, 1986).

17.

17. These conceptual issues, in historical context, are discussed in Charles W. Kegley and Gregory Raymond , A Multipolar Peace? (New York: St. Martin's, 1994).

18.

18. Charles William Maynes , “The World in the Year 2000: Prospects for Order or Disorder,” in The Nature of the Post-Cold War World (Carlisle, PA: U.S. Army War College, Strategic Studies Institute, Mar. 1993).

19.

19. Krause , Arms and the State.

20.

Patrick J. Garrity , “Why the Gulf War Still Matters” (Report no. 16, Center for National Security Studies, Los Alamos National Laboratory, July 1993).

21.

21. Stockholm International Peace Research Institute , SIPRI Yearbook 1993 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), pp. 415-518.

22.

22. Steven Erlanger , “Moscow Insists It Must Sell the Instruments of War to Pay the Costs of Peace,” New York Times, 3 Feb. 1993.

23.

23. William Branigin , “Asian Nations Express Concern about China's New Weapons and Bases,” Washington Post, 31 Mar. 1993. China has requested assistance from Israel for aerial refueling technology, electronic warfare gear, and radar systems for fighter aircraft. Ibid.

24.

24. Margaret Shapiro , “Against All Odds, Estonia Hums Along,” Washington Post National Weekly Edition, 28 June-4 July 1993, p. 17, which refers to Estonia's signing a deal to buy NATO-type weapons from Israel.

25.

U.S., Congress, House, Republican Research Committee, Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare , “Nuclear Trafficking in Europe,” 30 Nov. 1992.

26.

26. E. Laurance, S. Wegeman , and H. Wulf , Arms Watch: SIPRI Report on the First Year of the UN Register of Conventional Arms, SIPRI Research Report no. 6, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), pp. 70-104.

27.

27. Erlanger , “Moscow Insists It Must Sell the Instruments of War.”

28.

28. Branigin , “Asian Nations Express Concern,” p. 7, which refers to a naval base China is building with Burma on Hanggyi Island in the Bassein River and a monitoring station on Grand Coco Island in Myanmar waters just north of India's Andaman Islands.

The Changing International System and the Arms Trade

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References