FIRST YEAR OF THE ARMS TRADE TREATY - CONCEIVED TO BE DEAD ON ARRIVAL OR AN EMBER TO BE STOKED?

Challenging explanations are offered by current scholarship on the motivation driving responsible arms transfer implementations and the possible merits of the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT). While polarizing perspectives are to be expected on such a landmark treaty, early practical impact assessments remain negativistic. At the same time however, much of the literature and popular opinion credits the ATT with "norm establishment" achievements and it is the subject of this article to scrutinize what those norms actually are. The presented paper outlines the starkest deficiencies of the ATT, perceived prior to and after its adoption. The findings provide a basis for a data grounded discussion of the contending explanations of motivations to weaken the treaty to such an extent, as well as adopt its final form between the realist explanation of norm contestations by state modernism, economic justifications, procedural concerns, and liberal militarism. Although the article finds that all four explanations can be anecdotally supported, it posits that none of the four positions are in isolation capable of a full explanation for major stakeholders' behavior and proceeds to amalgamate a joint explanation with factors influencing resistance to joining or promoting a stronger global conventional arms trade regulation standard. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]