National security versus human security: Intrastate conflict and states’ rhetoric on conventional arms control in the United Nations general assembly
2026-09-08
While arms control during the Cold War was primarily concerned with weapons of mass destruction and their role in national security, the end of the bipolar order shifted attention toward intrastate conflicts, the conventional weapons with which they are fought, and their humanitarian consequences for civilian populations. Yet we still lack systematic evidence on how governments directly involved in such conflicts perceive conventional arms control. I argue that acute intrastate conflicts, but not intractable conflicts, lead states to view conventional arms control primarily as a matter of national security rather than a humanitarian issue. I test this argument quantitatively, using data on states’ rhetorical positions on conventional arms control in the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) and on enduring internal rivalries (EIRs). Consistent with my expectations, I find that intrastate conflicts unrelated to EIRs are associated with a stronger emphasis on national security in UNGA speeches, whereas conflicts embedded in EIRs are not significantly related to states’ rhetoric on conventional arms control. These findings shed new light on the relationship between intrastate conflict and arms control.