Comparison
23 jurisdictions · 4 regions.
Outside the Firearms Protocol: compared across the record
The Firearms Protocol is the one instrument in this dataset with a substantial ratification gap, which makes this the comparison where treaty data actually discriminates. A state outside it has no treaty obligation to mark weapons at manufacture or import, to keep transfer records, or to license every transfer.
What the set looks like
23 jurisdictions fall into this set. 0 of 23 are party to all four instruments tracked here and 23 of 23 are outside the Firearms Protocol. 20 of 23 carry at least one national instrument confirmed against an official register, 16 of 23 name an enforcement authority confirmed on their own government domain, and 1 of 23 are currently under FATF increased monitoring.
The consequence is felt by everyone else. A weapon that passes through a non-party can lose its documented history without any rule being broken, so the gap degrades tracing along the whole of any route that crosses it — which is why this set is worth reading against the corridor profiles rather than on its own.
The comparison
| Jurisdiction | Region | Conventions | Instruments | FATF | Tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Afghanistan | Central Asia | 3 of 4 | 1 confirmed | Not listed | A |
| Belize | Latin America and the Caribbean | 3 of 4 | 1 confirmed | Not listed | A |
| Botswana | Africa | 3 of 4 | 1 confirmed | Not listed | A |
| Cameroon | Africa | 3 of 4 | 3 confirmed | Increased monitoring | A |
| Chad | Africa | 3 of 4 | 1 confirmed | Not listed | A |
| Colombia | Latin America and the Caribbean | 3 of 4 | 3 confirmed | Not listed | A |
| Djibouti | Africa | 3 of 4 | 3 confirmed | Not listed | A |
| Egypt | Africa | 3 of 4 | 3 confirmed | Not listed | A |
| Equatorial Guinea | Africa | 2 of 4 | 1 confirmed | Not listed | A |
| Eritrea | Africa | 2 of 4 | 1 confirmed | Not listed | A |
| Gambia | Africa | 3 of 4 | 2 confirmed | Not listed | A |
| Georgia | Central Asia | 3 of 4 | 3 confirmed | Not listed | A |
| Guinea | Africa | 3 of 4 | 1 confirmed | Not listed | A |
| Kosovo | Balkans and eastern Europe | 0 of 4 | none confirmed | Not listed | C |
| Kyrgyzstan | Central Asia | 3 of 4 | none confirmed | Not listed | B |
| Namibia | Africa | 3 of 4 | 1 confirmed | Not listed | A |
| Niger | Africa | 3 of 4 | 1 confirmed | Not listed | A |
| Pakistan | Central Asia | 3 of 4 | 3 confirmed | Not listed | A |
| Saint Lucia | Latin America and the Caribbean | 3 of 4 | 2 confirmed | Not listed | A |
| Suriname | Latin America and the Caribbean | 3 of 4 | none confirmed | Not listed | B |
| Tajikistan | Central Asia | 3 of 4 | 3 confirmed | Not listed | A |
| Uzbekistan | Central Asia | 3 of 4 | 1 confirmed | Not listed | A |
| Zimbabwe | Africa | 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 23 jurisdictions the ratifications recorded here span 31 years, from 1990 to 2021 — a range wide enough that the earliest and the latest were responding to different problems.
Treaty coverage. Afghanistan, Belize, Botswana, Cameroon, Chad, Colombia, Djibouti, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Gambia, Georgia, Guinea, Kosovo, Kyrgyzstan, Namibia, Niger, Pakistan, Saint Lucia, Suriname, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Zimbabwe are party to fewer than all four instruments, against 0 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, Kyrgyzstan, Suriname carry no national instrument confirmed against an official register, while 20 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. Chad, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Kosovo, 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
Which jurisdictions have no treaty obligation to mark and trace weapons?
The Firearms Protocol is the one instrument in this dataset with a substantial ratification gap, which makes this the comparison where treaty data actually discriminates. A state outside it has no treaty obligation to mark weapons at manufacture or import, to keep transfer records, or to license every transfer. 23 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 23 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 22% of it. Within the set, 0 are party to all four instruments against 81 across the whole index, and 20 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 consequence is felt by everyone else. A weapon that passes through a non-party can lose its documented history without any rule being broken, so the gap degrades tracing along the whole of any route that crosses it — which is why this set is worth reading against the corridor profiles rather than on its own.