Comparison
15 jurisdictions · 4 regions.
No confirmed national instrument: compared across the record
This set is a statement about sourcing rather than about legislation. For almost all of these jurisdictions the treaty position and the listing status are both confirmed; what could not be established is a national instrument citable to an official register. Legislation very probably exists in most cases and is simply not published where it can be pointed at. One record, Kosovo, sits here for a second reason as well: no depositary record exists for it at all, so neither layer of the treaty position can be stated.
What the set looks like
15 jurisdictions fall into this set. 11 of 15 are party to all four instruments tracked here and 3 of 15 are outside the Firearms Protocol. 0 of 15 carry at least one national instrument confirmed against an official register, 11 of 15 name an enforcement authority confirmed on their own government domain, and 2 of 15 are currently under FATF increased monitoring.
The set is worth publishing precisely because the alternative was to print statute names from an uncitable index and let them pass as sourced. Naming the gap keeps the distinction visible between what this dataset knows and what it merely inherited, and it marks where further sourcing would add the most.
The comparison
| Jurisdiction | Region | Conventions | Instruments | FATF | Tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Burkina Faso | Africa | 4 of 4 | none confirmed | Not listed | B |
| Comoros | Africa | 4 of 4 | none confirmed | Not listed | B |
| Democratic Republic of the Congo | Africa | 4 of 4 | none confirmed | Increased monitoring | B |
| Kosovo | Balkans and eastern Europe | 0 of 4 | none confirmed | Not listed | C |
| Kyrgyzstan | Central Asia | 3 of 4 | none confirmed | Not listed | B |
| Liberia | Africa | 4 of 4 | none confirmed | Not listed | B |
| Libya | Africa | 4 of 4 | none confirmed | Not listed | B |
| Malawi | Africa | 4 of 4 | none confirmed | Not listed | B |
| Mozambique | Africa | 4 of 4 | none confirmed | Not listed | B |
| Saint Kitts and Nevis | Latin America and the Caribbean | 4 of 4 | none confirmed | Not listed | B |
| Sao Tome and Principe | Africa | 4 of 4 | none confirmed | Not listed | B |
| Somalia | Africa | 3 of 4 | none confirmed | Not listed | B |
| South Sudan | Africa | 4 of 4 | none confirmed | Increased monitoring | B |
| Suriname | Latin America and the Caribbean | 3 of 4 | none confirmed | Not listed | B |
| Turkmenistan | Central Asia | 4 of 4 | none confirmed | Not listed | B |
Where the set diverges
A comparison earns its place by showing where members of a set differ, not where they agree. Across these 15 jurisdictions the ratifications recorded here span 33 years, from 1992 to 2025 — a range wide enough that the earliest and the latest were responding to different problems.
Treaty coverage. Kosovo, Kyrgyzstan, Somalia, Suriname are party to fewer than all four instruments, against 11 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. Burkina Faso, Comoros, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Kosovo, Kyrgyzstan, Liberia, Libya, Malawi, Mozambique, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Somalia, South Sudan, Suriname, Turkmenistan carry no national instrument confirmed against an official register, while 0 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. Democratic Republic of the Congo, Kosovo, Kyrgyzstan, Sao Tome and Principe 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
Where could no national statute be confirmed against an official register?
This set is a statement about sourcing rather than about legislation. For almost all of these jurisdictions the treaty position and the listing status are both confirmed; what could not be established is a national instrument citable to an official register. Legislation very probably exists in most cases and is simply not published where it can be pointed at. One record, Kosovo, sits here for a second reason as well: no depositary record exists for it at all, so neither layer of the treaty position can be stated. 15 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 15 jurisdictions across 4 regions.
How does this set compare with the dataset as a whole?
The full index holds 106 jurisdictions, so this set is 14% of it. Within the set, 11 are party to all four instruments against 81 across the whole index, and 0 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 set is worth publishing precisely because the alternative was to print statute names from an uncitable index and let them pass as sourced. Naming the gap keeps the distinction visible between what this dataset knows and what it merely inherited, and it marks where further sourcing would add the most.