The United States suspends all exports of weapons and ammunitions to armed non-state actors; militias; rebel forces Considering the unpredictability of rebel forces and the ways in which they may wage war, the DIPCR proposes that all arms sales to such groups should be suspended. In accordance with Michael Walzer’s problematic theory regarding the moral reality of war, we recognise that the ‘military code’ is unlikely to apply to rebel groups engaged in civil war. Having reviewed previous and relevant conflicts, there is little indication suggesting that combatants will follow a chivalrous code of conduct. Thus the DIPCR can not endorse any sale of arms where the occurrence of unscrupulous conduct is extremely likely. Moreover, historical trends suggest that rebel groups may not necessarily hold the same moral values, distinguishing combatants from noncombatants. At the absolute core of the issue, is that even if a war is just, there is no guarantee it will be fought out justly between all parties. As Walzer explains, a chivalrous conflict must contain the mutual intentions “to set certain classes of people outside the permissible range of warfare”. We recognise the shifting strategic landscape surrounding warfare may incorporate historically-known noncombatants such as women and children, as new combatants. Regardless, the DIPCR believes there should be a group of peoples consequently protected from warfare. This includes ordinary citizens (not in possession of arms) or captured and wounded soldiers. The overarching premise of this recommendation is the lack of certainty over whether arming rebels will ensure that only those who are liable to harm would actually be subject to it.