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

7
commits States parties to cooperate in the tracing of illicit firearms, and in
providing prompt responses to requests for tracing assistance. The definition
of a “firearm” in the Protocol is quite broad: “any portable barrelled
weapon that expels, is designed to expel or may be readily converted to
expel a shot, bullet or projectile by the action of an explosive, excluding
antique firearms or their replicas” (Article 3 a.). In practice, the Protocol
thus covers many types of small arms and light weapons.
The Firearms Protocol is primarily concerned with “offences [which]
are transnational in nature and involve an organized criminal group” (Article
4.1). It does expressly exclude from its scope “State-to-State transactions or
State transfers in cases where the application of the Protocol would
prejudice the right of a State Party to take action in the interest of national
security consistent with the Charter of the United Nations” (Article 4.2).
The scope of the UN Firearms Protocol was subject to intense
negotiations, and the resulting agreement is quite broad in scope. But the
limits suggest that at least some States parties might regard attempts to use
the UN Firearms Protocol to trace flows of illicit arms to areas of armed
conflict or to countries subject to UN arms embargo to be beyond the scope
of the agreement, particularly if the lines of supply involved State-to-State
transfers at some stage. For this reason, tracing mechanisms derived from
the relatively broader UN Programme of Action also appear to be needed.
Other international agreements and standards exist for the marking
and tracing of ammunition and explosives. 12 These include the Convention
on Marking Plastic Explosives (in force since 1998), which establishes
important standards to enable tracing of plastic explosives that may be used
by terrorists, and international regulations for the transport of dangerous
materials, developed on the basis of the 1996 UN Model Regulations.
As the present study indicates, there is substantial experience with
systems for marking, record-keeping and tracing of illicit SALW. Moreover,
there are also many opportunities to greatly improve existing practices and
systems. It is obviously important to be realistic about priorities for any
international agreement. There is a difference between identifying and
encouraging best practices at a national level, and establishing and
implementing internationally-agreed systems and standards at a global
level. The following sections aim to identify opportunities and priorities in
both contexts.