Mission Impossible? Human Rights Due Diligence in the Arms Trade Industry

What is the endgame for war? The modern humanitarian law regime speaks little about what constitutes a just war and what constitutes an unjust war. However long we have tried to outlaw war, we cannot fool ourselves into thinking it is merely the choice of the powerful. Are we killing because this is the General’s order? Are we letting civilians die because we elude our conscience by telling ourselves “That is just a casualty”? Is the endgame sought in “how many killed” or are we all just too hot-blooded to end any game at all?

Grotius (1738) wrote that the end and purpose of war is to lead the population to a longer peace. The true testimony of war is not found in military victories. The graveyards only laugh at how far we have strayed from the true heart of humanity.

If we can’t stop all wars, at least we can try to ensure there is a life beyond war.

We have law that focuses on regulating state conduct in warfare and on controlling arms transfers through treaties such as the Arms Trade Treaty. Yet, today’s reality is also shaped by the military–industrial complex, where multinational corporations play a decisive role in determining the human rights conditions of people affected by war. What we see when civilians die in war isn’t an accident. The harsh reality seems to have become an accepted price of modern conflict. We see the numbers spiral out of control.

In 2024 alone, at least 48,384 people, the overwhelming majority civilians and over 500 human rights defenders, were confirmed killed in armed conflicts, according to UN data (Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, 2025).

Billions made from arms sales are definitely nothing abstract. They took the forms of weapons that tear through homes, schools, and medical units. Action on Armed Violence reports that from 2021 to 2024, the UK approved arms sales of up to £4.5 billion to Saudi Arabia, whose airstrikes in Yemen killed at least 717 civilians and injured more than 1,100 in that timeframe (Action on Armed Violence, 2024). These aren’t just statistics. Behind each number, a child, a family, a community is shattered.

We should never think that any of these sales could just happen by a national machine without parts. They are carried out by individual companies and manufacturers. Multinational or transnational enterprises in the arms trade have shouldered a highly influential role in determining the human rights condition of the people affected by armed conflict. These companies are not only suppliers of weapons. They can also influence whether conflicts are prolonged and whether civilians are protected (Gallea, 2023). It is therefore essential to hold them accountable not just after atrocities occur, but also preventively, by scrutinizing how they conduct business during armed conflicts.

Human rights due diligence (HRDD) is at the core of this consideration, aiming to prevent companies from exacerbating human rights conditions in armed conflict. HRDD in the arms trade industry aims to prevent the abusive use of sold weaponry and avoid committing violations of international humanitarian law by such arms.

John Ruggie (2011, p. 17) understood HRDD to be a process that would include not only the actual outcomes of a given business but the potential human rights impact as well. Thus, the scope of HRDD covers the activities of a company’s business operation and those directly linked to this company. In other words, HRDD focuses on the life cycle of a business and, in the case of arms trade, special attention should be given to the end-use monitoring of such trade.

A sculpted firearm with its tip looped into a knot — a statement of disarmament. Photo by Maria Lysenko on Unsplash

Let’s take a closer look at how this can be done. Baydas (2025, p. 6) found the dynamic of the arms trade to be long-term in general. Therefore, allowing companies to obtain critical information about the policies and practices of the end-users and end-use, which shows the feasibility of conducting human rights due diligence discovery even on remote partners involved in foreign wars. Some of the major companies have shown willingness to incorporate end-use monitoring in their selection of business partners. In a study of ten companies in the arms industry, Alwishewa (2025) found that there has been a clear trend that companies are taking HRDD into account. At the same time, the analysis also gave some important criticism to their practice of HRDD, namely, falling short of expectations or being less progressive to avoid loss of competitiveness in the market.

For instance, companies may only include activities that are under the full control of their operations, and may apply the examination only to part of the products’ life cycle instead of adopting a holistic approach. This is extremely problematic because they are putting out commitment but not holding themselves to the standard yardstick, indicating potential risks of blue washing or social washing to merely appear attractive on human rights issues.

These companies often respond strategically to uneven market conditions. Expanding their share in trade and maximizing returns can appear more advantageous than strict adherence to HRDD. So how could they do it in plain sight? They often find loopholes in existing regulations. Licenses and the framework of compliance with current, though limited, rules allow such activities to continue within legal boundaries, providing a structured, if imperfect, justification for their operations.

In 2023, the U.S. company, Lockheed Martin, was ranked as the No. 1 company with the highest revenue in arms-producing and military services by SIPRI. However, in its updated Code of Ethics and Business Conduct (2025), under international trade, Lockheed Martin did not explicitly reference any law on human rights consequences of arms trade, only referring to law and regulations in relation to export, import, and trade boycotts. Although they stated to comply with U.S. law and the laws of the countries where they do business, the internal corporate policy statements that they had listed were not accessible to the public.

This makes it difficult to measure the validity of such a promise. In a separate section on Human Rights, Lockheed Martin put its focus on employee-related labor rights issues and internal governance. Their 2019 policy statement on Good Corporate Citizenship and Respect for Human Rights made no specific reference to the link between arms use and human rights. Instead, it relied only on broad, overarching terms that offered sweeping commitments without concrete detail. This is the problem.

Holding the company only to the extent of domestic law and applicable binding rules can most likely create loopholes or a vacuum in their responsibility that might not be covered by the current legal framework (Erickson, 2023).

The failures of company law rest on the oversimplification that companies do nothing more than signing business contracts (Sjåfjell, 2020). In an unusual world, where profits are tied to aggressive outcomes, no business can operate under standard assumptions.

A wall poster with the slogan “You shouldn’t get used to war”. Photo by Lisa van Vliet on Unsplash

They are required to account for external costs imposed on society and the people living in it. This is not an action movie. This is real life. And whatever mission impossible, there is no hero in plotline to guarantee the endgame. We rest on the law and, beyond that, we act, manifest, protest, argue, and demand companies to change their way of business.

Some good indicators suggest that they may have the intention to embark on this transformation. In 2021, in CPS-718, Lockheed Martin stated that it may voluntarily elect to report violations of law other than those included in compulsory disclosure in the spirit of maintaining the highest standards of business ethics (Lockheed Martin Corporation, 2021, para. 4.5). However, the lack of transparency and monitoring also makes it difficult to be certain, as following through with their promises is a challenge.

For companies operating in the arms trade, responsibility cannot be reduced to a simple statement of “We did what was asked.” It means finding the place for human rights due diligence at every turn of business. Enforcing mandatory end-use monitoring is a good starting point, where firms track and evaluate the risks of their weapons being deployed against civilians, not just at the point of sale but throughout the product’s lifecycle (Ruggie, 2011; Alwishewa, 2022).

Beyond that, companies should publish inquiry reports on licensing, buyers, and due diligence assessments to allow voluntary scrutiny (Hartung, 2022; Baydas, 2025). One possible way is to adopt clear accountability mechanisms, such as linking executive pay and shareholder value to human rights performance, refusing contracts or partnerships where there is a credible risk of violations, and establishing grievance pathways for victims to seek remedy. Importantly, industry leaders shall create a new face for business that treats civilian harm as a wrong and not a collateral inevitability, aligning their business models with international human rights standards rather than exploiting regulatory gaps (Bakumenko & Chappell, 2025). By making these commitments, companies can move from being complicit in perpetual cycles of violence to being actors that, at a minimum, do not profit from the blood of civilians.

Bibliography

1. Action on Armed Violence. (2025). Exporting risk: How UK arms sales overlap with countries using explosive weapons in populated areas. https://aoav.org.uk/2025/exporting-risk-how-uk-arms-sales-overlap-with-countries-using-explosive-weapons-in-populated-areas/

2. Alwishewa, H. (2022). Arms exports to conflict zones and the two hats of arms companies. Journal of International Humanitarian Legal Studies, 13(1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/20414005.2022.2028472

3. Alwishewa, H. (2025). Human rights due diligence for arms companies: Lessons from supply chain regulations. European Journal of Risk Regulation, 16(2), 704–720. https://doi.org/10.1017/err.2024.83

4. Bakumenko, S., & Chappell, J. R. (2025, June 17). Weapons without consequences: How the global arms trade undermines the protection of civilians. The Global Observatory. https://theglobalobservatory.org/2025/06/weapons-without-consequences-how-the-global-arms-trade-undermines-the-protection-of-civilians/

5. Baydas, L. (2025). Human rights due diligence within the arms industry: Challenges, practices and opportunities. Business and Human Rights Journal, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1017/bhj.2025.1

6. Erickson, J. L. (2023). Demystifying the ‘gold standard’ of arms export controls: US arms exports to conflict zones. Global Policy, 14(S1), 131–138. https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.13181

7. Gallea, Q. (2023). Weapons and war: The effect of arms transfers on internal conflict. Journal of Development Economics, 160, 103001. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdeveco.2022.103001

8. Grotius, H. (1738). The rights of war and peace: Book I, Chapter I, What war is, and what right is (D. M. Hart, Ed.). http://davidmhart.com/liberty/OtherLiberals/Grotius/LawWarPeace/1738-edition/contents.html#book1_chapter1

9. Hartung, W. D. (2022). Promoting stability or fueling conflict? The impact of U.S. arms sales on national and global security. Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. https://quincyinst.org/research/promoting-stability-or-fueling-conflict-the-impact-of-u-s-arms-sales-on-national-and-global-security/

10. Lockheed Martin Corporation. (2019). CPS-021: Good corporate citizenship and respect for human rights (Rev. 3). https://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed-martin/eo/documents/ethics/cps-021.pdf

11. Lockheed Martin Corporation. (2021). CPS-718: Disclosures to the United States government (Rev. 10). https://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed-martin/eo/documents/ethics/cps-718.pdf

12. Lockheed Martin Corporation. (2023). Code of ethics and business conduct (Updated February 2025). https://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed-martin/eo/documents/ethics/Ethics-Code-of-Conduct-2023.pdf

13. Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. (2025, June). UN data shows surge in civilian deaths in conflict globally, highlights pervasive discrimination. https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/06/un-data-shows-surge-civilian-deaths-conflict-globally-highlights-pervasive

14. Sjåfjell, B. (2020). How company law has failed human rights – and what to do about it. Business and Human Rights Journal, 5(2), 179–199. https://doi.org/10.1017/bhj.2020.9

15. United Nations. (2011). Guiding principles on business and human rights: Implementing the United Nations “Protect, Respect and Remedy” framework. Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/publications/guidingprinciplesbusinesshr_en.pdf

Disclaimer

The opinions expressed herein belong solely to the columnist and do not represent the official position of our think-tank. Humanotions cannot be held liable for any consequences arising from this content. Content published on Humanotions may contain links to third-party sources. Humanotions is not responsible for the content of these external links. Please refer to our Legal Notices & Policies page for legal details and our Guidelines For Republishing page for republication terms.