08.07.2014 Views

The Scope and Implications of a Tracing Mechanism for Small Arms ...

The Scope and Implications of a Tracing Mechanism for Small Arms ...

The Scope and Implications of a Tracing Mechanism for Small Arms ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

120<br />

With the scope <strong>of</strong> the Protocol firmly in mind, it should nevertheless<br />

be possible to establish a marking, record-keeping <strong>and</strong> tracing mechanism<br />

that covers the vast majority <strong>of</strong> transfers <strong>and</strong> transactions. Consequently,<br />

existing practices can be exp<strong>and</strong>ed to embrace virtually every aspect <strong>of</strong> the<br />

market, as follows:<br />

• <strong>The</strong>re should be no bar on the international free circulation <strong>of</strong><br />

in<strong>for</strong>mation individually identifying all lost or stolen SALW. <strong>The</strong> correct<br />

vehicle is the Interpol IWETS database <strong>and</strong> it should be m<strong>and</strong>atory <strong>for</strong><br />

every country to ensure the system is updated with relevant weapons.<br />

• Similarly, following the UNLiREC/OAS/CICAD initiative, there should<br />

be no bar on the free circulation <strong>of</strong> in<strong>for</strong>mation individually identifying<br />

every transfer or transaction on the commercial market involving<br />

surplus ex-military small arms <strong>and</strong> light weapons, including those sold<br />

as surplus stocks by State-owned arms industries. It should be<br />

m<strong>and</strong>atory <strong>for</strong> member States <strong>of</strong> economic regions to <strong>for</strong>ward the<br />

in<strong>for</strong>mation to a regional database, including all relevant<br />

manufacturers’, import <strong>and</strong> other supplementary markings to<br />

individually identify each weapon <strong>and</strong> the records should be crossreferenced<br />

with the parties involved in the transfer or transaction.<br />

• With regard to transfers <strong>and</strong> transactions involving State-owned or State<br />

controlled military stocks, at the very least the weapons should be<br />

uniquely identifiable <strong>and</strong> marked as having originated from one <strong>and</strong><br />

then imported by another. Records in both countries (<strong>and</strong> any<br />

subsequent) should provide sufficient detail to enable subsequent caseby-case<br />

tracing enquiries to individually attribute a specific weapon to<br />

the party having last recorded legal possession, including the parties<br />

involved in acquiring decommissioned ex-military stocks. In the latter<br />

case, as with Switzerl<strong>and</strong>, 10 each weapon should be clearly marked to<br />

show it is no longer in a military arsenal.<br />

Complementary examples <strong>of</strong> existing good practices can be found in<br />

treaties <strong>and</strong> protocols involving member States <strong>of</strong> the UN, OSCE, EAPC,<br />

NATO, OAS, EU <strong>and</strong> CIP amongst others.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!