Denise Garcia
Northeastern University, Political Science, Faculty Member
- Arms Control and Disarmament, International Law, Arms Trade Treaty, International Security, Norms in International Relations, Arms Trade, and 67 moreSmall Arms and light weapons, Human Rights Law, International Humanitarian Law, Human Security, Global Governance, International Regimes, Climate change policy, Arctic Governance, lAW OF STATE RESPONSIBILITY, Nonproliferation Treaties, Killer Robots, Campaign to Stop Killer Robots, Lethal Autonomous Weapons, Automated Weapons Systems, International Committee of the Red Cross, Wildlife In Warzones, The Geneva Conventions, Drones, Targeted Killing, Ethics of War, Targeted Killing, Nuclear Weapons, Nuclear Non-Proliferation Policy, Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty, Landmines and ERW, Ottawa Convention 1997, Landmines Convention, Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Treaty, Convention on Cluster Munitions, Armed groups, arms trade treaty, International Relations, Security, Strategic Studies, Politics, Climate Change, Political Science, United Nations, Geneva, Small Arms Survey, Cluster Munitions, Moral Progress, Geneva Declaration on Armed Violence, International Relations, International Relations Theory, Conflict Resolution, Syria, Ethnic Conflict and Civil War, Asymmetric Conflict, Syrian Refugee Crisis, Human Rights, Development Studies, International Studies, Conflict, Diplomacy, International organizations, Violence, Political Violence and Terrorism, Peacekeeping, Post Conflict Issues, Responsibility to Protect, Sustainable Development, Security, Foreign Policy Analysis, National Security, Critical Security Studies, Environmental Sustainability, Law of the Sea, Maritime Law, Peacebuilding, Polar Studies, Polar law and policy, and Arctic Counciledit
- Garcia’s research is at the intersection of security and international law. She is interested in the formation of ne... moreGarcia’s research is at the intersection of security and international law. She is interested in the formation of new international norms and agreements regarding key challenges to global governance, particularly disarmament and arms control, new weapons technologies, and climate change.edit
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Arms transfers beyond the state-to-state realm can have harmful effects for international security dramatically affecting the relations and behavior of states. This article examines why an emerging international norm on “prohibiting... more
Arms transfers beyond the state-to-state realm can have harmful effects for international security dramatically affecting the relations and behavior of states. This article examines why an emerging international norm on “prohibiting states to transfer arms to nonstate groups” has failed to diffuse at the international level. It discusses the already available international law framework existing at the regional and international levels upon which the potential norm could be built. The failure of the norm to diffuse at the international level can be primarily explained by the existence of a long-consolidated norm: the customary practice of states to transfer weapons to nonstate actors, that is, groups they deem legitimate to, without any interference or constraint.1 The unrestrained transfer of weapons is an established foreign-policy practice. It is the way states form, uphold alliances, extend friendships, and build spheres of influence (Sorokin 1994). Clearly, no state willingly wants to give this up. Therefore, the multilateral agreement on a norm barring most or all transfers of weapons to nonstate actors would curtail the freedom of action to build spheres of influence as states please. There are genuine ethical and moral dilemmas in this discussion, a nonstate actor may be a freedom fighter or a terrorist depending on different perspectives. The distinction between the categories “state” and “nonstate” actors may risk classifying actors in two camps: the good and the bad, respectively. This is problematic as a few states are known to be the most brutal perpetrators of egregious violations against their own citizens, whereas certain nonstate actors are legitimately fighting for the protection of vulnerable populations.