Comparison
4 jurisdictions · 2 regions.
Dependent territories: compared across the record
These jurisdictions are not parties to the conventions in their own right. The metropolitan state ratifies and extends the instrument to the territory, which is the accurate legal position and is routinely misreported as non-ratification — a territory recorded as having ratified nothing usually has the full set applying to it by extension. The dates shown are the metropolitan state's dates.
What the set looks like
4 jurisdictions fall into this set. 3 of 4 are party to all four instruments tracked here and 1 of 4 are outside the Firearms Protocol. 3 of 4 carry at least one national instrument confirmed against an official register, 3 of 4 name an enforcement authority confirmed on their own government domain, and 1 of 4 are currently under FATF increased monitoring.
The practical question for a territory is not whether the obligations reach it but who legislates to implement them. Implementing law may sit in the metropolitan statute book, in locally enacted ordinances, or in both, and the division is rarely documented in one place. That is why the statute column here is thinner than the treaty column, and the gap is a sourcing gap rather than a legal one.
The comparison
| Jurisdiction | Region | Conventions | Instruments | FATF | Tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Anguilla by extension from United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland | Latin America and the Caribbean | 4 of 4 | 3 confirmed | Not listed | C |
| British Virgin Islands by extension from United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland | Latin America and the Caribbean | 4 of 4 | 2 confirmed | Increased monitoring | C |
| Kosovo | Balkans and eastern Europe | 0 of 4 | none confirmed | Not listed | C |
| Montserrat by extension from United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland | Latin America and the Caribbean | 4 of 4 | 4 confirmed | Not listed | C |
Where the set diverges
A comparison earns its place by showing where members of a set differ, not where they agree. Across these 4 jurisdictions the ratifications recorded here span 15 years, from 1991 to 2006 — a range wide enough that the earliest and the latest were responding to different problems.
Treaty coverage. Kosovo is party to fewer than all four instruments, against 3 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. Kosovo carries no national instrument confirmed against an official register, while 3 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. Kosovo names 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 treaty coverage work where a territory is not a state party?
These jurisdictions are not parties to the conventions in their own right. The metropolitan state ratifies and extends the instrument to the territory, which is the accurate legal position and is routinely misreported as non-ratification — a territory recorded as having ratified nothing usually has the full set applying to it by extension. The dates shown are the metropolitan state's dates. 4 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 4 jurisdictions across 2 regions.
How does this set compare with the dataset as a whole?
The full index holds 106 jurisdictions, so this set is 4% of it. Within the set, 3 are party to all four instruments against 81 across the whole index, and 3 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?
The practical question for a territory is not whether the obligations reach it but who legislates to implement them. Implementing law may sit in the metropolitan statute book, in locally enacted ordinances, or in both, and the division is rarely documented in one place. That is why the statute column here is thinner than the treaty column, and the gap is a sourcing gap rather than a legal one.