The international arms trade is among the most corruption-prone sectors. Arms deals tend to be surrounded by high levels of commercial and national security. This makes the trade particularly susceptible to the risk of corruption as a vehicle for illegal and undesirable arms transfers. Illicit arms transfers have negative consequences for international humanitarian law, human rights, and sustainable development as well as for efforts to combat violent organised crime and terrorism.
 

To prevent these corruption risks from materialising, the discrete arms export licensing regimes maintained by most arms exporting states should include an examination of the risk that arms are transferred in a process which risks being undermined by corruption at any stage. Yet even within some of the most advanced export control regimes, corruption risks are not specifically addressed.

Transparency International's Defence and Security Programme (TI DSP) thus strongly recommends that export licensing organisations test whether a licence application is free from corruption and bribery before issuing an export licence.

Member States of the European Union should also consider addressing corruption risks in export licensing much more prominently in the European Council Common Position defining common rules governing the controls of exports of military technology and equipment .

At the moment, the legally binding European Council Common Position only refers to corruption in its User Guide, where it considers it best practice to assess corruption risks for three of the eight criteria EU member states need to apply before issuing an arms export license: the respect for human rights and international humanitarian law in the recipient country, the national security of member states and their friends and allies, and the risk of diversion and undesirable re-exports. This underlines the cross-cutting nature of corruption risks in arms exports.

EU member states have expressed themselves as anxious to stamp out corruption wherever possible, including in the context of arms transfers, and have signed up to various anti-corruption agreements (such as the UN Convention Against Corruption, the OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions, and the Council of Europe Criminal Law Convention Against Corruption). It would therefore be consistent with this stance for EU member states to amend the European Council Common Position and agree a new ninth criterion whereby prosepective transfers would be refused, where there is a clear risk that they might involve corrupt practices.

Lastly, it is of uttermost importance that all Member States of the United Nations continue to work for a robust Arms Trade Treaty (ATT). An ATT, however, can only be truly robust if it includes a strong anti-corruption mechanism.

Read more on our Focus Areas.

Read more on Our Work.