How effective is the Russian approach to arms brokering in light of its role in the maintenance of international peace and security? This Saferworld report argues that although the Russian system of brokering controls is very strong in some areas, loopholes remain. The report provides an overview of the way in which brokering is controlled in Russia, and seeks to promote debate within Russia and internationally about how arms brokering controls can be strengthened.
The Russian experience of controlling arms brokering contains a contrast between the strict controls on domestic brokering and the near-total lack of control over third-country brokering if the weapons neither originate nor transit through Russia. There is also a legal loophole which allows Russian citizens residing outside Russia to engage in arms brokering activities that would be illegal under Russian domestic law. The right to broker arms export and import deals on Russian territory is restricted to one entity, the state broker Rosoboroneksport. However, the fact that there is only one state broker has fuelled a belief that Russian controls are watertight and that Russia has no problems with brokering. Indeed, any potential problems associated with brokering fall by the wayside and are not widely discussed or even recognised by officials, journalists or the general public.
If a comprehensive definition of arms brokering is established and the Russian system is mapped against international best practice, a number of ‘grey’ or unregulated areas emerge:
- Confusion is caused by the lack of a clear definition of ‘brokering’ or ‘intermediation’ and related terms within Russian legislation.
- The whole issue of third-country brokering is off the radar. Beyond state monopoly controls on Russian territory there is an apparent legal vacuum which can be exploited by Russian and other citizens operating from Russia.
- Although there are procedures to enforce all United Nations Security Council embargoes, loopholes exist meaning that violating an embargo is not properly criminalised.
- Although the one-broker system has many strengths, it also raises questions about possible conflicts of interest and the extent to which Rosoboroneksport is subjected to proper oversight.
- Russian licensing decisions are not made according to a clear criteria-based system, and there are concerns as to whether sufficient attention is paid to the human rights and humanitarian situations in recipient countries.
- Russia has not always taken a constructive line in international initiatives to strengthen controls over arms brokering.
Therefore, while the Russian system of brokering controls is very strong in some areas, a number of areas of concern remain. Russia needs to:
- clearly define in legislation the key terms relating to arms brokering (at a minimum: ‘broker/intermediary’, ‘arms brokering/intermediation’, ‘third-country brokering’ and ‘extra-territorial brokering’) with previous legislation amended as necessary to accord with these definitions;
- develop a legal framework to control the activities of persons who may be operating on Russian territory as arms brokers between states beyond Russian territory;
- establish extra-territorial jurisdiction over Russian citizens, wherever they are resident, to ensure that Russian citizens anywhere in the world are not engaged in brokering activities that would be illegal under Russian domestic law;
- make more information publicly accessible on existing controls over licensing decisions, and the relevant procedures, with respect to deals brokered by Rosoboroneksport; and
- actively participate in international efforts to elaborate options for regulating key aspects of arms brokering and related activities.
