Comparison
10 jurisdictions · Central Asia.
Central Asia and its approaches: compared across the record
These jurisdictions form most of the northern opiate corridor, and they share a legal history that no other group in this dataset does: their drug legislation frequently predates independence, and borders that are now international were internal administrative lines within living memory. The comparison is therefore as much about statutory inheritance as about drafting.
What the set looks like
10 jurisdictions fall into this set. 4 of 10 are party to all four instruments tracked here and 6 of 10 are outside the Firearms Protocol. 8 of 10 carry at least one national instrument confirmed against an official register, 8 of 10 name an enforcement authority confirmed on their own government domain, and 0 of 10 are currently under FATF increased monitoring.
Where a statute is inherited rather than written, the question is not whether it exists but whether it has been amended to reach conduct the original drafters did not contemplate — precursors, synthetic substances, and the laundering of proceeds. A confirmed instrument with an early date is not evidence of an early answer to a modern problem.
The comparison
| Jurisdiction | Region | Conventions | Instruments | FATF | Tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Afghanistan | Central Asia | 3 of 4 | 1 confirmed | Not listed | A |
| Armenia | Central Asia | 4 of 4 | 3 confirmed | Not listed | A |
| Azerbaijan | Central Asia | 4 of 4 | 3 confirmed | Not listed | A |
| Georgia | Central Asia | 3 of 4 | 3 confirmed | Not listed | A |
| Kazakhstan | Central Asia | 4 of 4 | 3 confirmed | Not listed | A |
| Kyrgyzstan | Central Asia | 3 of 4 | none confirmed | Not listed | B |
| Pakistan | Central Asia | 3 of 4 | 3 confirmed | Not listed | A |
| Tajikistan | Central Asia | 3 of 4 | 3 confirmed | Not listed | A |
| Turkmenistan | Central Asia | 4 of 4 | none confirmed | Not listed | B |
| Uzbekistan | Central Asia | 3 of 4 | 1 confirmed | Not listed | A |
Where the set diverges
A comparison earns its place by showing where members of a set differ, not where they agree. Across these 10 jurisdictions the ratifications recorded here span 21 years, from 1991 to 2012 — a range wide enough that the earliest and the latest were responding to different problems.
Treaty coverage. Afghanistan, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, Pakistan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan are party to fewer than all four instruments, against 4 with the full set. On this measure the set is not uniform, and the gap is almost always the Firearms Protocol rather than one of the drug or organised-crime instruments.
Citable legislation. Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan carry no national instrument confirmed against an official register, while 8 do. That is the widest split in most sets on this site, and it is a split in what can be sourced rather than in what exists.
Named authority. Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan name no enforcement body confirmed on their own government domain. Since only a body's own domain is accepted as proof, this tracks how much of a jurisdiction's administration publishes on the open web as much as it tracks the administration itself.
How to read the columns
Conventions counts the four instruments the jurisdiction is party to, taken from the depositary's status tables. For a dependent territory the count reflects extension from the metropolitan state rather than its own accession. Instruments counts national statutes confirmed against an official register — never the number a jurisdiction has, only the number this dataset can cite. FATF is the listing status as of the most recent plenary statement, revised three times a year. Tier records which of those source paths applied.
The distinction that matters most here is between an empty cell and a zero. Nothing in this table asserts that a jurisdiction has no drug legislation; where the instruments column says none confirmed, it means no citable register published one that could be tied to that jurisdiction. The reasoning is set out under sources and methodology.
Questions
How does the northern route compare along its own length?
These jurisdictions form most of the northern opiate corridor, and they share a legal history that no other group in this dataset does: their drug legislation frequently predates independence, and borders that are now international were internal administrative lines within living memory. The comparison is therefore as much about statutory inheritance as about drafting. 10 jurisdictions in this dataset fall into the set.
How is this set selected?
By a property of the record rather than by editorial choice: membership follows from the treaty position, the tier, the listing status or the region as recorded, so the set changes when the underlying data changes. It currently holds 10 jurisdictions across one region.
How does this set compare with the dataset as a whole?
The full index holds 106 jurisdictions, so this set is 9% of it. Within the set, 4 are party to all four instruments against 81 across the whole index, and 8 carry a national instrument confirmed against an official register against 91 overall. A set that diverges from those proportions is where the comparison earns its place; one that matches them is telling you the property it was selected on does not travel with the others.
What can be concluded from a comparison like this?
Where a statute is inherited rather than written, the question is not whether it exists but whether it has been amended to reach conduct the original drafters did not contemplate — precursors, synthetic substances, and the laundering of proceeds. A confirmed instrument with an early date is not evidence of an early answer to a modern problem.