Arms Trade Treaty

From Infogalactic: the planetary knowledge core
Jump to: navigation, search
Arms Trade Treaty
  • معاهدة تجارة الأسلحة  (Arabic)
    武器贸易条约  (Chinese)
    Traité sur le commerce des armes  (French)
    договор о торговле оружием  (Russian)
    Tratado sobre el comercio de armas  (Spanish)
{{{image_alt}}}
Map showing which states have signed or ratified the Treaty.     Signed      Ratified     Acceded
Signed Open for signature from 3 June 2013
Location New York City, USA
Sealed 2 April 2013 (2013-04-02)
Effective 24 December 2014 (2014-12-24)[1]
Condition 90 days after ratification by 50 states (Article 22)
Signatories 130[2]
Parties 85[2]
Depositary UN Secretary-General
Languages Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian, Spanish
Arms Trade Treaty at Wikisource

The Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) is a multilateral treaty that regulates the international trade in conventional weapons. It entered into force on 24 December 2014.[1] Eighty-five states have ratified the treaty, and a further 47 states have signed but not ratified it.[2]

The ATT is an attempt to regulate the international trade of conventional weapons for the purpose of contributing to international and regional peace, reducing human suffering, and promoting co-operation, transparency and responsible action by and among states.[3][4]

The treaty was negotiated at a global conference under the auspices of the United Nations from July 2–27, 2012, in New York.[5] As it was not possible to reach an agreement on a final text at that time, a new meeting for the conference was scheduled for March 18–28, 2013.[6] On 2 April 2013, the UN General Assembly adopted the ATT.[7][8]

International weapons commerce has been estimated to reach US$70 billion a year.[9]

Origins

The roots of what is known today as the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) can be traced back to the late 1990s, when civil society actors and Nobel Peace Prize Laureates voiced their concerns about the unregulated nature of the global arms trade and its impact on human security.[10]

The ATT is part of a larger global effort begun in 1997 by Costa Rican President and 1987 Nobel Peace Prize laureate Óscar Arias. In that year, Arias led a group of Nobel Peace Prize laureates in a meeting in New York to offer the world a code of conduct for the trade in arms. This group included Elie Wiesel, Betty Williams, the Dalai Lama, José Ramos-Horta, representatives of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, Amnesty International, and the American Friends Service Committee. The original idea was to establish ethical standards for the arms trade that would eventually be adopted by the international community. Over the following 16 years, the Arias Foundation for Peace & Human Progress has played an instrumental role in achieving approval of the treaty.

In 2001, the process continued with the adoption of a non-legally binding program of action at the United Nations Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms. This program was formally called the "Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects" (PoA).[11]

Later put forward in 2003 by a group of Nobel Peace Laureates, the ATT was first addressed in the UN in December 2006 when the UN General Assembly adopted resolution 61/89 "Towards an Arms Trade Treaty: establishing common international standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional arms".

The arms trade treaty, like the PoA, is predicated upon a hypothesis that the illicit trade in small arms is a large and serious problem requiring global action through the UN. According to a well regarded 2012 Routledge Studies in Peace and Conflict Resolution publication, "the relative importance of diversion or misuse of officially authorised transfers, compared to international entirely illegal black market trafficking has been thoroughly confirmed."[12]:90 The authors go on to elaborate that "For most developing or fragile states, a combination of weak domestic regulation of authorised firearms possession with theft, loss or corrupt sale from official holdings tends to be a bigger source of weapons concern than illicit trafficking across borders."[12]:90

Development of the treaty

Resolution 61/89 requested the UN Secretary-General to seek the views of Member States on the feasibility, scope and draft parameters for a "comprehensive, legally binding instrument establishing common international standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional arms", and to submit a report on the subject to the General Assembly at its sixty-second session. 94 States submitted their views, which are contained in the 2007 report A/62/278.[13]

UN Resolution 61/89

On 18 December 2006, UK Ambassador John Duncan formally introduced a resolution requesting the UN Secretary-General to seek the views of Member States on the feasibility, scope and draft parameters for a comprehensive, legally binding instrument establishing common international standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional arms, speaking on behalf of the co-authors (Argentina, Australia, Costa Rica, Finland, France, Japan and Kenya). On behalf of the European Union, Finland highlighted the support for the effort when it said, "everyday, everywhere, people are affected by the side effects of irresponsible arms transfers ... As there is currently no comprehensive internationally binding instrument available to provide an agreed regulatory framework for this activity, the EU welcomes the growing support, in all parts of the world, for an ATT."[14]

In December 2006, 153 Member States voted in favour of the resolution, numbered 61/89. Twenty-four countries abstained: Bahrain, Belarus, China, Egypt, India, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Kuwait, Laos, Libya, Marshall Islands, Nepal, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, UAE, Venezuela, Yemen, and Zimbabwe. The United States voted against the resolution.[15]

Responding to procedural concerns that were not resolved before the final draft of the resolution, the UK said the aim of the initiative was to start a discussion on the feasibility and draft parameters of an Arms Trade Treaty and that "agnostic" states would have a clear opportunity to engage in the process. After the vote, Algeria indicated that the effort must receive broad-based support from states and be based on the principles of the UN Charter.[16]

Group of Governmental Experts

Resolution 61/89 also requested the Secretary-General to establish a group of governmental experts, on the basis of equitable geographical distribution, to examine the feasibility, scope and draft parameters for such a legal instrument, and to transmit the report of the group of experts to the Assembly for consideration at its sixty-third session. On 28 September 2007, the Secretary General appointed a Group of Governmental Experts from the following 28 countries: Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Brazil, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Egypt, Finland, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Romania, Russia, South Africa, Spain, Switzerland, Ukraine, United Kingdom and United States. The group met three times in 2008 and published a final report on the issue[17][18][19]

Preparatory Committee and Conference

<templatestyles src="Module:Hatnote/styles.css"></templatestyles>

Main article: Preparatory Committee for an Arms Trade Treaty

In 2009, Oscar Arias, then in his second term as President of Costa Rica, introduced the Treaty at the United Nations, saying:

I return today, as a Rip Van Winkle of the modern era, to see that everything has changed except this. Peace continues to be a step further away. Nuclear and conventional weapons still exist despite the promises. It is up to us to ensure that in twenty years we do not awaken to the same terrors we suffer today. I am not ignorant of the fact that the biggest arms dealers in the world are represented here. But today I do not speak to the arms manufacturers, but rather to the leaders of humanity, who have the responsibility to put principles before profits, and enable the promise of a future in which, finally, we can sleep peacefully.

In that same year, an Open-ended Working Group—open to all States—held two meetings on an arms trade treaty. A total of six sessions of this Group were planned. However, at the end of 2009 the General Assembly of the United Nations decided by resolution A/RES/64/48[20] to convene a Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty in 2012 "to elaborate a legally binding instrument on the highest possible common international standards for the transfer of conventional arms". The decision was influenced by the change in position of the United States (the largest arms producer[21] and only country voting against resolution 61/89), which took place upon a change in leadership from George W. Bush to Barack Obama, on the condition they were "under the rule of consensus decision-making needed to ensure that all countries can be held to standards that will actually improve the global situation."[22]

Adoption of the Treaty

United Nations General Assembly vote on the Arms Trade Treaty in 2013.
  In favour
  Against
  Abstentions
  Absent
  Non-member

The UN General Assembly of 2 April 2013 (71st Plenary Meeting) adopted the Arms Trade Treaty as a resolution by a 154-to-3 vote with 23 abstentions. North Korea, Iran, and Syria voted in opposition. China and Russia, among the world's leaders in weapon exports, were among the 23 nations that abstained.[23] Cuba, India, Indonesia, Myanmar, Nicaragua, Saudi Arabia, and Sudan also abstained. Armenia, Dominican Republic, Venezuela and Vietnam did not vote.[9]

The treaty was opened for formal signature by all states in New York on 3 June 2013.[2] It entered into force on 24 December 2014, 90 days after the date of the 50th ratification.[1]

Content

The UN Office for Disarmament Affairs claimed the treaty would not: interfere with domestic arms commerce or the right to bear arms in its member states; ban the export of any type of weapon; harm the legitimate right to self-defence; or undermine national arms regulation standards already in place.[24][25]

<templatestyles src="Template:Blockquote/styles.css" />

"The Arms Trade Treaty obligates member states to monitor arms exports and ensure that weapons don't cross existing arms embargoes or end up being used for human-rights abuses, including terrorism. Member states, with the assistance of the U.N., will put into place enforceable, standardized arms import and export regulations (much like those that already exist in the U.S.) and be expected to track the destination of exports to ensure they don't end up in the wrong hands. Ideally, that means limiting the inflow of deadly weapons into places like Syria."[26]

Advocates of the treaty say that it only pertains to international arms trade, and would have no effect on current domestic laws.[27][28][29] These advocates point to the UN General Assembly resolution starting the process on the Arms Trade Treaty. The resolution explicitly states that it is “the exclusive right of States to regulate internal transfers of arms and national ownership, including through constitutional protections on private ownership.”

Criticism

Opposition to the ATT can be broken down into state opposition and civil society opposition. Over thirty states have objected to various parts of the ATT during negotiations, the majority of which held strong concerns about the implications for national sovereignty.[30] From a civil society point of view, groups concerned about national sovereignty or individual rights to armed defense have been negative of the ATT. While not fundamentally opposed to an ATT, these groups are keenly sensitive to ensuring an ATT does not undermine national constitutional protections and individual rights. The most vocal and organized civil society groups opposing objectionable aspects to the ATT originated from the United States. These groups include the National Rifle Association, the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the Second Amendment Foundation[31] and The Heritage Foundation. The NRA and the Gun Owners of America say that the treaty is an attempt to circumvent the Second Amendment and similar guarantees in state constitutions in order to impose domestic gun regulations.[32]

One of the largest sources of civil opposition to the ATT has come from the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA), which is the lobbying arm of the NRA. In July 2012 ILA stated that:

<templatestyles src="Template:Blockquote/styles.css" />

"Anti-gun treaty proponents continue to mislead the public, claiming the treaty would have no impact on American gun owners. That's a bald-faced lie. For example, the most recent draft treaty includes export/import controls that would require officials in an importing country to collect information on the 'end user' of a firearm, keep the information for 20 years, and provide the information to the country from which the gun was exported. In other words, if you bought a Beretta shotgun, you would be an 'end user' and the U.S. government would have to keep a record of you and notify the Italian government about your purchase. That is gun registration. If the U.S. refuses to implement this data collection on law-abiding American gun owners, other nations might be required to ban the export of firearms to the U.S."[33]

On 12 July 2012, the United States issued a statement condemning the selection of Iran to serve as vice president of the conference. The statement called the move "outrageous" and noted that Iran is under Security Council sanctions for weapons proliferation.[34]

Advocated contents

International non-government and human rights organizations including Amnesty International, Oxfam, the Arias Foundation for Peace and Human Progress, Saferworld and the International Action Network on Small Arms (who lead the Control Arms Campaign) have developed analysis on what an effective Arms Trade Treaty would look like.[35]

It would ensure that no transfer is permitted if there is substantial risk that it is likely to:

Loopholes would be minimized. It would include:

  • all weapons—including all military, security and police arms, related equipment and ammunition, components, expertise, and production equipment;
  • all types of transfer—including import, export, re-export, temporary transfer and transshipment, in the state sanctioned and commercial trade, plus transfers of technology, loans, gifts and aid; and
  • all transactions—including those by dealers and brokers, and those providing technical assistance, training, transport, storage, finance and security.

The Amnesty International website "loopholes" include shotguns marketed for deer hunting that are virtually the same as military/police shotguns and rifles marketed for long range target shooting that are virtually the same as military/police sniper rifles. AI advocates that the civilian guns must be included in any workable arms trade controls; otherwise, governments could authorize export/import of sporting guns virtually the same as military/police weapons in function.[36]

It must be workable and enforceable. It must:

  • provide guidelines for the treaty's full, clear implementation;
  • ensure transparency—including full annual reports of national arms transfers;
  • have an effective mechanism to monitor compliance;
  • ensure accountability—with provisions for adjudication, dispute settlement and sanctions;
  • include a comprehensive framework for international cooperation and assistance.

NGOs are also advocating that the Arms Trade Treaty must reinforce existing responsibilities to assist survivors of armed violence, as well as identify new avenues to address suffering and trauma.

Signatories and parties

Signature of Slovenia

As of May 2016, 85 states have ratified or acceded to the ATT,[2] including five of the world's top 10 arms producers (the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy and Spain).[37] Twenty-one ratifying states provisionally applied articles 6 and 7 of the treaty, pending its entry into force.[2]

States that have ratified the Arms Trade Treaty
State Signed Ratified or acceded Entry into force
 Albania 3 June 2013 19 March 2014 24 December 2014
 Antigua and Barbuda 3 June 2013 12 August 2013 12 August 2013[38]
 Argentina 3 June 2013 25 September 2014 24 December 2014
 Australia 3 June 2013 3 June 2014 24 December 2014
 Austria 3 June 2013 3 June 2014 3 June 2014[38]
 Bahamas 3 June 2013 25 September 2014 25 September 2014[38]
 Barbados 25 September 2013 20 May 2015 18 August 2015
 Belgium 3 June 2013 3 June 2014 24 December 2014
 Belize 3 June 2013 19 March 2015 17 June 2015
 Bosnia and Herzegovina 25 September 2013 25 September 2014 24 December 2014
 Bulgaria 2 July 2013 2 April 2014 24 December 2014
 Burkina Faso 3 June 2013 3 June 2014 24 December 2014
 Central African Republic 7 October 2015 5 January 2016
 Chad 25 September 2013 25 March 2015 23 June 2015
 Costa Rica 3 June 2013 25 September 2013 25 September 2013[38]
 Côte d'Ivoire 3 June 2013 26 February 2015 27 May 2015
 Croatia 3 June 2013 2 April 2014 24 December 2014
 Cyprus 3 June 2013 10 May 2016 8 August 2016
 Czech Republic 3 June 2013 25 September 2014 24 December 2014
 Denmark 3 June 2013 2 April 2014[39] 2 April 2014[38][39]
 Dominica 1 October 2013 21 May 2015 19 August 2015
 Dominican Republic 3 June 2013 11 August 2014 24 December 2014
 El Salvador 5 June 2013 2 April 2014 24 December 2014
 Estonia 3 June 2013 2 April 2014 2 April 2014[38]
 Finland 3 June 2013 2 April 2014 2 April 2014[38]
 France 3 June 2013 2 April 2014 24 December 2014
 Georgia 25 September 2014 23 May 2016 21 August 2016
 Germany 3 June 2013 2 April 2014 2 April 2014[38]
 Ghana 24 September 2013 22 December 2015 21 March 2016
 Greece 3 June 2013 1 March 2016 30 May 2016
 Grenada 3 June 2013 21 October 2013 24 December 2014
 Guinea 29 July 2013 21 October 2014 24 December 2014
 Guyana 3 June 2013 4 July 2013 24 December 2014
 Hungary 3 June 2013 2 April 2014 2 April 2014[38]
 Iceland 3 June 2013 2 July 2013 2 July 2013[38]
 Ireland 3 June 2013 2 April 2014 24 December 2014
 Italy 3 June 2013 2 April 2014 24 December 2014
 Jamaica 3 June 2013 3 June 2014 24 December 2014
 Japan 3 June 2013 9 May 2014 24 December 2014
 Latvia 3 June 2013 2 April 2014 2 April 2014[38]
 Lesotho 25 September 2013 25 January 2016 24 April 2016
 Liberia 4 June 2013 21 April 2015 20 July 2015
 Liechtenstein 3 June 2013 16 December 2014 24 December 2014
 Lithuania 3 June 2013 18 December 2014 24 December 2014
 Luxembourg 3 June 2013 3 June 2014 24 December 2014
 Macedonia 25 September 2013 7 March 2014 24 December 2014
 Mali 3 June 2013 3 December 2013 3 December 2013[38]
 Malta 3 June 2013 2 April 2014 24 December 2014
 Mauritania 3 June 2013 28 September 2015 27 December 2015
 Mauritius 23 July 2015 21 October 2015
 Moldova 10 September 2013 28 September 2015 27 December 2015
 Mexico 3 June 2013 25 September 2013 25 September 2013[38]
 Montenegro 3 June 2013 18 August 2014 24 December 2014
 Netherlands 3 June 2013 18 December 2014[40] 24 December 2014[40]
 New Zealand 3 June 2013 3 September 2014 3 September 2014[38]
 Niger 24 March 2014 27 July 2015 25 October 2015
 Nigeria 12 August 2013 12 August 2013 24 December 2014
 Norway 3 June 2013 12 February 2014 12 February 2014[38]
 Panama 3 June 2013 11 February 2014 24 December 2014
 Paraguay 19 June 2013 9 April 2015 8 July 2015
 Peru 25 September 2013 16 February 2016 16 May 2016
 Poland 1 July 2013 17 December 2014 24 December 2014
 Portugal 3 June 2013 25 September 2014 24 December 2014
 Romania 3 June 2013 2 April 2014 24 December 2014
 Samoa 25 September 2013 3 June 2014 24 December 2014
 San Marino 19 December 2014 29 July 2015 27 October 2015
 Senegal 3 June 2013 25 September 2014 24 December 2014
 Serbia 12 August 2013 5 December 2014 12 August 2013[41]
 Sierra Leone 25 September 2013 12 August 2014 24 December 2014
 Slovakia 10 June 2013 2 April 2014 2 April 2014[38]
 Slovenia 3 June 2013 2 April 2014 24 December 2014
 South Africa 25 September 2013 22 December 2014 24 December 2014
 Spain 3 June 2013 2 April 2014 2 April 2014[38]
 Saint Kitts and Nevis 5 June 2013 15 December 2014 24 December 2014
 Saint Lucia 3 June 2013 25 September 2014 24 December 2014
 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 3 June 2013 3 June 2014 3 June 2014[38]
 Seychelles 3 June 2013 2 November 2015 31 January 2016
 Sweden 3 June 2013 16 June 2014 16 June 2014[38]
  Switzerland 3 June 2013 30 January 2015 30 January 2015[42]
 Togo 3 June 2013 8 October 2015 6 January 2016
 Trinidad and Tobago 3 June 2013 25 September 2013 25 September 2013[38]
 Tuvalu 3 June 2013 4 September 2015 3 December 2015
 United Kingdom 3 June 2013 2 April 2014 2 April 2014[38]
 Uruguay 3 June 2013 25 September 2014 24 December 2014
 Zambia 25 September 2013 20 May 2016 18 August 2016

A further 47 states have signed but not ratified the treaty:[2]

State Signed
 Andorra 18 December 2014
 Angola 24 September 2013
 Bahrain 21 November 2013
 Bangladesh 26 September 2013
 Benin 3 June 2013
 Brazil 3 June 2013
 Burundi 3 June 2013
 Cambodia 18 October 2013
 Cameroon 3 December 2014
 Cape Verde 25 September 2013
 Chile 3 June 2013
 Colombia 24 September 2013
 Comoros 26 September 2013
 Republic of the Congo 25 September 2013
 Djibouti 3 June 2013
 Gabon 25 September 2013
 Guatemala 24 June 2013
 Guinea-Bissau 26 September 2013
 Haiti 21 March 2014
 Honduras 25 September 2013
 Israel 18 December 2014
 Kiribati 25 September 2013
 Lebanon 27 October 2014
 Libya 9 July 2013
 Malawi 9 January 2014
 Malaysia 26 September 2013
 Mongolia 24 September 2013
 Mozambique 3 June 2013
 Namibia 25 September 2014
 Nauru 25 September 2013
 Palau 3 June 2013
 Philippines 24 September 2013
 South Korea 3 June 2013
 Rwanda 5 June 2013
 São Tomé and Príncipe 19 December 2014
 Singapore 5 December 2014
 Suriname 3 June 2013
 Swaziland 4 September 2013
 Tanzania 3 June 2013
 Thailand 25 November 2014
 Turkey 2 July 2013
 Ukraine 23 September 2014
 United Arab Emirates 9 July 2013
 United States 25 September 2013
 Vanuatu 26 July 2013
 Zimbabwe 18 December 2014

See also

References

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  3. ↑ Andrea Delgado, Explainer: What is the arms trade treaty? in: https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-is-the-arms-trade-treaty-37673
  4. ↑ Arms Trade Treaty in English: http://www.un.org/disarmament/ATT/docs/ATT_text_%28As_adopted_by_the_GA%29-E.pdf
  5. ↑ UN Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty
  6. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  7. ↑ UN General Assembly approves global arms trade treaty
  8. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  9. ↑ 9.0 9.1 Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  10. ↑ Dina Mahmoud, A SHORT GUIDE TO THE ARMS TRADE TREATY, (Advocates for International Development, 2012) http://a4id.org/sites/default/files/user/Guide%20to%20Arms%20Trade%20Treaty.pdf
  11. ↑ http://www.un.org/events/smallarms2006/pdf/192.15%20(E).pdf
  12. ↑ 12.0 12.1 Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  13. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  14. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  15. ↑ United Nations General Assembly Session 61 Verbatim Report 67. A/61/PV.67 page 31. 6 December 2006. Retrieved 2012-11-05.
  16. ↑ “The First Committee Monitor, 2006 Final Edition.”, Reaching Critical Will. Retrieved 3 October 2008 Archived 6 September 2008 at the Wayback Machine
  17. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  18. ↑ “Towards an Arms Trade Treaty”, UN Office of Disarmament Affairs, retrieved 4 August 2012
  19. ↑ “Global week of action to support Arms Trade Treaty” Amnesty International retrieved 12 September 2008
  20. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  21. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  22. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  23. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  24. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  25. ↑ Overwhelming Majority of States in General Assembly Say ‘Yes’ to Arms Trade Treaty to Stave off Irresponsible Transfers that Perpetuate Conflict, Human Suffering
  26. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  27. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  28. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  29. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  30. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  31. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  32. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  33. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  34. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  35. ↑ See http://www.controlarms.org/en
  36. ↑ Loopholes "Can you spot the difference?" demonstrating virtual identity between military/police weapons and sporting arms.
  37. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  38. ↑ 38.00 38.01 38.02 38.03 38.04 38.05 38.06 38.07 38.08 38.09 38.10 38.11 38.12 38.13 38.14 38.15 38.16 38.17 38.18 38.19 38.20 This state provisionally applied the treaty as of the date of its ratification or accession; the treaty formally entered into force for the state on 24 December 2014.
  39. ↑ 39.0 39.1 With an exclusion for the Faroe Islands and Greenland.
  40. ↑ 40.0 40.1 For the European part of the kingdom and the Caribbean Netherlands only: [1]
  41. ↑ Serbia provisionally applied the convention on the date of its signature. It did not formally enter into force for Serbia until 24 December 2014.
  42. ↑ Switzerland provisionally applied the treaty on the date of its ratification. The treaty will formally enter into force for Switzerland on 30 April 2015.

External links

Retrieved from "https://infogalactic.com/w/index.php?title=Arms_Trade_Treaty&oldid=721947308"