#dighr

1. POSSIBILITIES FOR A
HUMANITARIAN TAX ON
ARMS TRANSFERS
Lunch and Learn
Rhonda Ferguson
November 28, 2018
Dahdaleh Institute for Global Health Research
York University

2. Overview - The 5 W’s
Who: Dr. James Orbinksi (DIGHR), Dr. Craig Scott
(Osgoode) Dr. Jinyan Li (Osgoode), Dr. Rhonda Ferguson
What: Multidisciplinary, collaborative research project
looking at the feasibility of a universal tax on the arms trade
to (1) fill the humanitarian funding gap and (2) discourage
arms transfers
Where: International focus, possible case study
When: Present. Political will and interest might be higher
now because of migration ‘crises,’ instability, and
agreement on arms regulation

3. Why?
Source:UnitedNations Officefor the Coordinationof HumanitarianAffairs(2018)

4. Continued…
• At the same time, the arms trade is ‘booming’ (Economist, 2018)
• Value of the global arms trade: 88.9B (SIPRI, 2016), 100B expected in 2018 (SIPRI)
• Top 100 arms companies sold over 5T in arms since 2002 (Amnesty International)
• In past five years, volume of conventional weapons transfers highest
since the end of the Cold War (Amnesty International)
• China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States (five
permanent members of the UN Security Council) responsible for over
70% of the arms trade (Amnesty International)
• Much of the increase in recent years is driven by smaller countries
seeking to build up military supplies in the context of instability (Economist)
• Natural resource scarcity – on its own and as a cause of conflict - may
create a greater demand for weapons in the future

5. Historical Objections
Arms tax proposed in the 1980s for development efforts,
but has not gained much traction
Major objections:
• Lack of compliance/enforcement
• Illicit trade not captured
• Could increase domestic production
• Different treatment of domestic use versus export
• Burden on developing countries
• More profit for underground traders (Brzoska 2004, 2017)

6. Relationship with Health
• Arms transfers exacerbate conflict, causing injury and
death directly
• Armed conflict can lead to the destruction of healthcare
infrastructure
• Diversion of financial resources away from health
infrastructure, programmes, and personnel
• “Guns versus butter”
• Threaten food security in a country, impacting hunger and
malnutrition in the short, medium, and long-term

7. Ethical Concerns
• Legitimize the arms trade?
• Antithetical to humanitarianism?
• How does this fit into our ideas about global justice?
• How do we understand harm? Is any amount of harm acceptable?
• Obligation to share the benefits and burdens of arms
trade

8. Why a tax?
Converts the framing of humanitarian financing from one of
‘goodwill’ and ‘charity’ to one of obligation (on businesses and/or
States)
• This has an empowering function for recipients
• charity -> entitlement
• Helps to ensure that the fulfillment of fundamental needs in crises are not
subject to budgetary limitations
• Indicates that that such businesses ‘owe’ something to those suffering
the negative social externalities of their product
• Can be a form of regulation (depending on elasticity)
• Can reduce volume of transfers

9. A Few Notes on Terminology
Arms transfers versus trade
• The former reflects weapons transfers that may be made as gifts, aid,
or other types of in-kind contributions rather than straight-forward
trading of money for goods
Humanitarian services versus development aid
• Humanitarian aid:
• Responds to peoples’ basic needs during crises
• Provision of services based on the principles of, inter alia, impartiality and
neutrality
• Development funding:
• Can and has been used to purchase more weapons
• Tends to be allocated through state-level decision-making
Dual-use technologies
• Technologies that can be used for peaceful or military objectives

10. Relevant Legal Obligations
• Arms Trade Treaty (adopted 2013, in force 2014)
• Objectives include, inter alia, the reduction of suffering
• Assessment (Article 7)
• International Human Rights Law
• ‘Extraterritorial’ obligations
• State parties to international instruments have obligations to those
outside of their territory; does an arms trade tax help to fulfill those
obligations?
• Clear obligation to cooperate for health, development, and food
rights (ICESCR)
• Does a tax constitute ‘cooperation’ in this regard?
• International Humanitarian Law

11. US Arms Exports 1950-2017

12. What’s next?
1. Produce and article fleshing out the ethical considerations raised
• Harm/benefit analysis, based on conceptions of justice
• Particular consideration of the impact on small and developing countries and legitimate uprisings
• Could draw on taxation for human rights arguments (DeSchutter)
2. Produce an article on emerging issues in light of digital trade and new technologies
• Encouragement of barrier-free trade in new trade agreements (e.g. USMCA chapter)
• May drive down the cost of weapons & increase volume of small arms/missile (blueprint) transfers
• Is a tax an innovative solution in this context?
• Could look at the potential health impacts of these new technologies and highlight the weak legal architecture around
them
1. Conduct an assessment (as per Arms Trade Treaty Article 7) of a recent transfer
• Room for creativity here, as such analysis have not been conducted/no cases to date
• Assess the potential of transfer to (a) intensify conflict or (b) lead to violations (specifically of the right to
health) or humanitarian law
• Answer the question of what a ‘serious’ health-related violation is
• Make a case for either not following through with the transfer, or the need to apply a tax to address the
negative consequences (if they do not meet the threshold for ‘serious violations’ or prohibition)
2. Case study: Transfers to parties to the conflict (e.g. in Yemen)
• Involves mapping of transfers and linking to health-related consequences
• Could also be used as a bases for #3