No description available.

This thesis explores how the newly adopted Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), the first internationaltreaty to regulate the trade in conventional arms, can address the issue of the illegal andirresponsible proliferation of small arms and lights weapons (SALW) and improve peace andsecurity. By far the most commonly used weapons in modern conflicts, SALW and theireffects mainly on intrastate conflicts, I argue, are the most important issues for the ATT toaddress. Being one of the prime sources of fuel for, and even cause of, the new trend ofincreasingly deadly and destructive intrastate conflicts today, controlling the largely illegaland internationally unregulated SALW market would be a crucial step to improving peaceand security.The thesis uses Security Dilemma theory to describe how arms and their proliferation posethreats to peace and security, while international law and regime theory is used to identifyhow legal action and structures of cooperation (regimes) can offer solutions to theseproblems. To determine to what extent the ATT can address these issues, the thesis uses acase study approach together with a content analysis of the ATT text to identify the relevantlegal provisions and how they can operate in the context of the theoretical framework.The findings of this study suggest that the most important aspect of the ATT is that itimposes prohibitions on any arms transfer that risks being used to commit acts of genocide,human rights abuses and other violations of international law, or that risk leading todiversion. These provisions could be used to stop the irresponsible kinds of arms transfersthat facilitate these crimes. The effects of the ATT are however largely dependent on the willof states, which will determine the effectiveness of the treaty. Nonetheless, as this thesisshows, the ATT provides tools and a legal platform that could, if utilized, have a substantialimpact on these issues.

Non-UN peace operations are becoming an increasingly important conflict mitigating tool. Whilst many studies find these operations unable to mitigate conflict and promote peace, the explanations for these findings mainly focus on material aspects like mission size and peacekeepers’ capability. In order to better understand the discrepancies between UN and non-UN peace operations’ success, this thesis argues that UN operations might be more efficient due to higher perceived legitimacy. In order to analyze whether the superior legitimacy of the UN explains their higher ability to mitigate conflict, this study analyzes whether non- UN peace operations authorized by the UN are more able to mitigate conflict than non-authorized peace operations. The argument is tested by applying an OLS regression to a data frame including all intrastate conflicts between 1993 and 2016 to study the covariation between conflict intensity and the presence of UN authorized and non-authorized peace operations. The results do not support the hypothesis that UN authorization increases non-UN peace operations’ conflict mitigating abilities. This suggests that material factors might better explain peace operations’ success or that UN authorization does not substantially increase the perceived legitimacy of non-UN peace operations.

No description available.