The Arms Trade Treaty was the first legally binding multilateral instrument restricting the transfer of conventional arms, with the aim of reducing violations of human rights and humanitarian principles and the commission of crimes - such as genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity - caused by irresponsible or illegal arms transfers. Despite the inclusion of humanitarian norms as criteria for the authorization and monitoring of international arms transfers, the lack of signature and/or ratification of half of the ten largest arms exporters restricts the application of the Treaty, which already has its effectiveness compromised due to the lack of objectivity in the export criteria and by illegal arms transfers. Therefore, this work aims to reflect on the content, achievements, weaknesses and omissions of the text, as well as on ways to improve the norms of the Treaty, from the point of view of International Humanitarian Law. The research uses the deductive method, through the technique of bibliographic and documentary research. We conclude that, despite representing an advance in the international regulation of the trade in conventional weapons, it is still not sufficient to deal with the complexity imposed by reality, especially with regard to the detour and dissemination of armaments and the resulting abuses against International Humanitarian Law due to armed conflicts.

Aborda-se o fenômeno do uso da força para o caso da Líbia. O objetivo é analisar condições causais que influenciaram a participação de potências da OTAN na intervenção. O método é a Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA), pelo qual se analisam condições causais que contribuíram para o uso da força por França, Reino Unido e Estados Unidos em contraste com a Alemanha, que teve um comportamento desviante por não ter participado da intervenção na Líbia. Com ressalvas nos resultados, verificase uma maior relevância das condições diplomática e status para ocorrência do uso da força.