Glenn McDonald Small Arms Survey, Geneva International Tracing Instrument: Key Aspects COST A25 Seminar on the Implementation of the International Tracing Instrument Brussels, 19 March 2008 Glenn McDonald Small Arms Survey, Geneva

Global Normative Framework International Tracing Instrument (ITI): applies to all UN Member States since its adoption by the UNGA (December 2005) UN Firearms Protocol (UNFP): applies to States Parties (date of ratification + 30 days) Taken together, these instruments define the global minimum standards in relation to SALW marking, record-keeping, and tracing.

ITI v. UNFP Overall, the ITI consolidates and strengthens UNFP standards in relation to marking and record-keeping. It adds important value in relation to definitions, cooperation in tracing, and implementation. The ITI is politically binding (cf UNFP). Yet, it is universal in scope, applicable to all UN Member States.

ITI: A Brief History The tracing issue moves up the list of international priorities, late 1990s Franco–Swiss initiative, 2000–2001 Civil society inputs 2001 UN Programme of Action calls for a UN study on the feasibility of developing an international tracing instrument.

Group of Governmental Experts Issues its report in July 2003 Concludes that both “desirable” and “feasible” to develop an international tracing instrument Leaves open question of instrument character Formally keeps ammunition & explosives on the table, yet provides no guidance on the technical issues specific to ammunition or explosives

Open-Ended Working Group Instrument character and ammunition quickly divide the Group No support for the creation of a new international mechanism The role of peacekeeping operations in the implementation of the instrument emerges as another bone of contention Agreement reached 17 June 2005

The GA Adopts the Instrument The UNGA adopts the International Tracing Instrument, 8 December 2005 Since that date, the ITI applies to all UN Member States.

ITI: General Aspects Politically binding Does not cover ammunition OEWG recommendation: that the issue of SALW ammunition be addressed in a comprehensive manner as part of a separate UN process Applies to crime and conflict (civilian and military SALW)

Definition of SALW Precise, relatively comprehensive and adaptable (para. 4) Combines language from 1997 UN Panel Report and UN Firearms Protocol Covers almost all SALW mentioned in the 1997 Report (except vehicle-mounted LW such as large recoilless rifles)

Marking If SALW are to be traced, they need to be marked with basic identifying information: - Manufacturer’s marks: mandatory (para. 8a) - Import marks: strongly recommended (para. 8b) ITI also requires the marking of government armed and security force stocks (para. 8d) Other provisions govern the confiscation of illicit SALW (para. 9), also the characteristics and placement of marks (paras. 7, 10)

Marking Marking at time of import: The older the weapon, the more likely that the record-keeping chain will be broken. An import mark significantly increases the chances of a successful trace. Many non-manufacturing countries expressed concerns about the potential costs of import marking during the ITI negotiations.

Marking Marking of government stocks: a key source of arms for war zones and the illicit market generally. If such weapons have not been marked, they cannot be traced after they leave the government stockpile. All SALW in the possession of government armed and security forces for their own use must be “duly marked” (para. 8d).

Record-keeping States agree to establish and maintain the records that are needed to ensure “timely and reliable” tracing (para. 11). Manufacturing records to be kept for at least 30 years (para. 12a) All other records, including records of import and export, for at least 20 years (para. 12b)

Record-keeping Record-keeping systems are inadequate in many countries. Very often, records are not computerized, making record maintenance and retrieval difficult. Yet, without the “accurate and comprehensive” record-keeping mandated by ITI paragraph 11, tracing is impossible.

Cooperation in tracing The ITI sets out detailed modalities for tracing cooperation: its operational core (paras. 14-23) States may restrict or refuse tracing cooperation in certain circumstances (confidentiality, reasons of national security, etc.) … … but must explain any such restriction or refusal (paras. 22–23).

Cooperation in tracing Interpol can help build national capacity to initiate and respond to tracing requests (para. 35c).

Implementation Current priorities include: Key roles for UN & Interpol - bringing national laws, etc. into line with ITI requirements (para. 24) - info. exchange (national points of contact, national marking practices; paras. 31-32) - national capacity-building Key roles for UN & Interpol Longer term: development of ITI’s conflict-tracing functions

Implementation States need to move promptly to fulfil the requirements of ITI, paragraph 24: “In accordance with their constitutional processes, States will put in place, where they do not exist, the laws, regulations and administrative procedures needed to ensure the effective implementation of this instrument.”

Implementation In particular, UN Member States need to determine: a) what changes to national laws, regulations and procedures are needed to meet ITI requirements b) whether and how to strengthen national capacity for ITI implementation (e.g. inter-ministerial coordination; consultation with industry, NGOs and other stakeholders; training programmes)

International Assistance Important to the effective implementation of the ITI (see paras. 27-29) Areas for priority attention include: - import marking (para. 8b) - marking of government stocks (para. 8d) - effective record-keeping systems (paras. 11-13) - functional tracing systems (paras. 14-23)

Instrument Follow-up States have committed to reporting every 2 years on their implementation of the ITI (para. 36). Biennial meetings to be held to consider ITI implementation (para. 37; 2008 BMS) States to “review the implementation and future development” of the ITI (para. 38; as part of future PoA Review Conferences)

Conclusion On paper, the ITI advances international cooperation in almost all of the areas it covers. Yet, it will only have real value if effectively implemented.