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

Part Four. Article 4 6272. A majority of delegations supported either option 2 or option 3 of therolling text contained in document A/AC.254/4/Add.2/Rev.1 or some compromisebetween the two. Some delegations preferred the inclusion of wording that wouldexclude the import or export of firearms by private individuals such as tourists orvisiting hunters, based on option 1 or some other formula. A few delegations supportedoption 4, which would limit application to firearms that had been illegallymanufactured and traded. Most delegations opposed option 4 on the grounds that, inorder to control trafficking in firearms, it was necessary to monitor and place restrictionson all firearms trade, in order to determine what was legal and what was not.There was general support for excluding state-to-state transactions on the grounds thatthey were more related to arms control than crime control, but there was some concernabout the precise meaning of the words “state-to-state transactions”. Most delegationswere of the view that this should exclude transfers from one Government toanother but not transfers between entities owned or operated by Governments, suchas state-owned arms manufacturers. One delegation proposed that transactions shouldbe exempted if only one party was a State, but others argued that doing so wouldeffectively exclude all acquisitions or transfers by a State. In a discussion regardingthe phrase “commercially traded”, there was some concern about what it meant andwhether it would exclude certain types of transactions from those covered by the protocol.The United States expressed concern that the phrase “commercially traded andmanufactured” might exclude surplus military firearms. Canada was of the view thatit excluded only firearms taken from one State to another in private hands and regardedthe exclusion as necessary. South Africa expressed concern about the possibleinterpretation that firearms simply given without consideration would not be “commerciallytraded”.3. The version of article 4 contained in document A/AC.254/4/Add.2/Rev.1 remainedunchanged in the intermediate drafts of the protocol (A/AC.254/4/Add.2/Revs.2-4).Rolling text (A/AC.254/4/Add.2/Rev.5)Eighth session: 21 February-3 March 2000“Article 4“Scope 8“This Protocol applies to [all classes of commercially traded and manufactured] 9firearms, their parts and components 10 and ammunition, but not to state-to-state trans-8This text was based on a proposal by Japan at the informal consultations held during the eighth session of the AdHoc Committee (see A/AC.254/5/Add.22), incorporating the words “or to firearms manufactured exclusively to equip a StateParty’s own army or security forces” from the proposal of China (see A/AC.254/5/Add.22).9The words “commercially traded” had been discussed at several sessions of the Ad Hoc Committee. Generally, theconcerns were that a broad interpretation might exclude too many cases (e.g., firearms made for military forces and subsequentlydiverted or legitimately traded into private circulation), but that if there were no limitations of this kind, the provisionwould include purely private individual transactions (e.g., sportsmen going abroad to hunt or shoot recreationally) (forthe latter cases, see below concerning article 10, paragraph 6, of the present protocol).10The words “other related materials” were replaced by the words “parts and components” throughout the text of thedraft protocol, as agreed at the informal consultations held during the eighth session of the Ad Hoc Committee (seeA/AC.254/L.174, para. 4).