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

628 Travaux préparatoires: United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crimeactions or transfers [for purposes of national security,] 11 [or to firearms manufacturedexclusively to equip a State Party’s own army or security forces]. 12“[Options 1 to 4 were deleted]”Notes by the Secretariat4. At the eleventh session of the Ad Hoc Committee, an informal working grouprecommended replacing the text with the following paragraphs (see A/AC.254/L.267):“1. This Protocol shall apply, except as otherwise stated herein, to the preventionof illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in firearms, their parts and componentsand ammunition; and to the investigation and prosecution of offences established inarticle 5 of this Protocol where those offences are transnational in nature and involvean organized criminal group.“2. This Protocol shall not apply to state-to-state transactions or transfers forpurposes of national security, consistent with the Charter of the United Nations.”5. The working group also proposed that a note should be included in the travauxpréparatoires to the effect that the words “state to state transactions” referred only to transactionsby States in a sovereign capacity (see the interpretative note below under sectionC). There was general support for the proposed paragraph 1, but further discussion tookplace on the scope of the exclusion set forth in paragraph 2. China, Egypt and Pakistanreserved their position on the possibility of reintroducing into article 4 the text containedin the last square brackets of the rolling text contained in documentA/AC.254/4/Add.2/Rev.5: “[or to firearms manufactured exclusively to equip a StateParty’s own army or security forces]”, pending finalization of article 9. A further proposal,made by Egypt and Saudi Arabia and subsequently supported by China and Pakistan(see A/AC.254/L.270 and Add.1), did not resolve the issue. Mexico indicated its preferencefor placing the second paragraph of article 4 in a separate article entitled “savingclause” and reiterated its doubts as to the usefulness of the phrase “except as otherwisestated herein”. On the final day of the session, the Chairman of the Ad Hoc Committeeproposed a number of changes to resolve outstanding issues, one of which was to replaceparagraph 2 with the following text (see A/AC.254/4/Add.2/Rev.6, annex):“2. This Protocol shall not apply to state-to-state transactions or to State transfersin cases where the application of the Protocol would prejudice the right of a State11Many delegations present at the informal consultations held during the eighth session of the Ad Hoc Committeeexpressed concern about the phrase “for purposes of national security”. Some argued that it was either redundant vis-à-visthe words “state-to-state transactions” or unacceptable, as authorizing transfers by individuals or non-State organizationsundertaken for national security purposes. Japan clarified the intended meaning as covering situations where military forcestravelled across borders with their firearms and this was acceptable to most delegations. Others raised the examples of personalprotection officers or bodyguards travelling with senior officials. One delegation supported interpretation of the wordingto include cases of covert travel or transfers for “national security” purposes. Most of the delegations that spoke on thispoint indicated that language that would support such an interpretation would not be acceptable to them.12At the informal consultations held during the eighth session of the Ad Hoc Committee, China indicated that it wouldhave serious difficulties implementing the protocol without some language in this provision to exclude firearms made solelyfor security or military forces. China marked and kept records of such firearms, but used a separate system from thatused for other firearms. Its delegation was of the view that this would not meet the requirements of article 9 and other provisionsof the draft protocol, if they applied. Other delegations expressed the view that multiple systems would still be incompliance, provided that all met the basic requirements. In view of the problem of diversion of firearms from military orsecurity stockpiles to illicit traffic, some delegations expressed concern that not requiring marking and recording of militaryfirearms would make them untraceable if they later fell into non-military possession as a result of loss in armed conflict,theft or other diversions.