Civil war and state support for conventional arms control

Abstract

Conventional arms control imposes the costs and benefits for states in civil wars: it restricts their own armament and that of rebel groups. I argue that the benefits outweigh the costs because states design conventional arms control measures that primarily curb rebels’ armament. I investigate these arguments through regression analyses of United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) voting records and a content analysis of UNGA speeches. While I find a positive relationship between civil wars and support for conventional arms control in the aggregate, I also show that states in civil wars consider both the benefits and the costs of arms control.