At an event hosted by Frontline Club in London on 2 March, journalists, lawyers and campaigners examined the global arms industry at a time of rising geopolitical tension and increasing defence spending. The panel, titled The Profits of War, focused on the political, legal and media systems that shape the modern arms trade.
Moderated by the AOAV’s Executive Director Iain Overton, the discussion brought together the media scholar Justin Schlosberg, the international-law specialist Mira Naseer and the arms-trade campaigner Katie Fallon.
Overton opened by arguing that the scale of global military spending and the financial performance of defence firms indicate a system increasingly shaped by a permanent war economy. Global defence expenditure exceeded $2.4trn last year, he said, while arms companies have seen share prices rise amid conflict and rearmament. He also pointed to what he described as a “revolving door” between government and the defence sector, citing investigations suggesting thousands of officials have moved from the British Ministry of Defence into arms-industry jobs in recent years.
Schlosberg argued that the relationship between the defence sector and the information environment extends beyond traditional propaganda. In his view, the modern system is better understood as a “media-technology-military-industrial complex”, in which news organisations, digital platforms and technology companies play an important role in shaping public understanding of war. Structural features of media ownership and platform power, he suggested, can marginalise scrutiny of Western foreign policy and arms sales.
Naseer outlined the legal framework governing arms transfers and wartime conduct. International humanitarian law regulates the actions of states and individuals in conflict, she said, while domestic laws such as the UK’s International Criminal Court Act theoretically allow prosecutions for war crimes committed abroad by British nationals. In practice, however, corporate accountability cases are rare. Although legal mechanisms exist to prosecute executives who knowingly assist war crimes, evidentiary hurdles, jurisdictional limits and political reluctance often prevent such cases from proceeding.
Fallon focused on the operation of the UK’s arms-export licensing regime. Under current policy, export licences should not be granted if there is a clear risk that weapons may be used in serious violations of international humanitarian law. She argued that, in practice, the system frequently fails to apply this threshold. Drawing on legal challenges brought during the war in Yemen and debates over exports linked to the conflict in Gaza, Fallon said official assessments often conclude that there is insufficient evidence to determine whether violations occurred, allowing licences to continue.
The panel also discussed broader structural issues, including the role of defence spending in national politics and the influence of private capital within the arms industry. Speakers suggested that economic incentives, strategic alliances and domestic political considerations can limit the willingness of governments to impose restrictions on arms exports or pursue corporate accountability.
During questions from the audience, participants raised issues ranging from the role of financial markets in sustaining the arms trade to the challenges of using legal mechanisms to restrain it. Responding to a question about legal reform, Naseer said that while litigation can test existing frameworks, meaningful change would ultimately require political will and legislative reform.
Throughout the discussion, panellists returned to a central question: who benefits from the current structure of global rearmament. While governments justify military spending in terms of national security, several speakers argued that the financial incentives embedded in the defence industry create powerful pressures that sustain the system.
Did you find this story interesting? Please support AOAV's work and donate.
Donate