View/save PDF version of this document - La Strada International

Article 4.Scope of applicationA. Negotiation textsCanada (A/AC.254/4/Add.2)First session: 19-29 January 1999“Article IV“Scope“This Protocol applies to all classes of commercially traded firearms, ammunitionand other related materials but not to state-to-state transactions or transfers forpurposes of national security.”Rolling text (A/AC.254/4/Add.2/Rev.1)“Option 1“Article IV“Scope 1“This Protocol applies to all classes of [commercially] 2 traded [and manufactured]3 firearms, ammunition and other related materials but not to state-to-state transactionsor transfers for purposes of national security. 41Mexico proposed the deletion of this article (see A/AC.254/5/Add.1 and Corr.1).2Deletion proposed by Japan (see A/AC.254/5/Add.1 and Corr.1), supported by Croatia. Croatia also suggested usingthe same definition of the term “illicit trafficking” in both article II and article IV. The Syrian Arab Republic proposed tofocus only on illicit firearms used by criminal organizations. South Africa proposed to delete the words “commercially traded”,noting that they unnecessarily limited the scope of the protocol and might create loopholes that could be exploited (seeA/AC.254/5/Add.5).3Addition proposed by Japan (see A/AC.254/5/Add.1 and Corr.1), supported by the Syrian Arab Republic.4Mexico, the Republic of Korea and Turkey expressed their concern about the technical difficulties that might becaused by the scope of the protocol being strictly limited only to organized crime. Some delegations, including those ofAlgeria, France, Germany and the Netherlands, suggested that the scope of the protocol should not go beyond the mandateset forth by the General Assembly. Sweden suggested that, even though the protocol should be subordinate to the convention,whose scope was limited to transnational organized crime, application of the protocol should not necessarily be limitedto transnational organized crime. The United States expressed the view that some provisions of the protocol should gobeyond the scope of transnational organized crime and was supported by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and NorthernIreland. Belgium noted that this article might run the risk of violating the Geneva conventions on the rules of conflict.Belgium also noted that, in view of the subject matter dealt with in this protocol, the Ad Hoc Committee should give considerationto the insertion of a safeguard clause in respect of international humanitarian law for situations involving armedconflict, in particular domestic armed conflict, within the meaning ascribed to those terms by international humanitarian law(see A/AC.254/5/Add.5). Canada noted that the issue of individuals travelling with firearms legitimately would need to beconsidered since individuals could be traffickers.625