Article III consists of two paragraphs. This Article sets forth the principal counting rule in the Treaty. Counting rules in arms control agreements provide formal and legally binding recognition by the States Parties that specified items will be counted in a certain way. Such rules are important because they provide a mechanism for implementing an agreement as well as for verifying compliance with its provisions.

Paragraph 1 of Article III provides that all battle tanks, armored combat vehicles, artillery, combat aircraft, and attack helicopters within the area of application are subject to the numerical limitations and other provisions set forth in Articles IV, V, VI, and XII of the Treaty, unless they meet one or more of the seven exceptions listed below:

Paragraph 1 also provides that in order to meet one or more of the seven listed exceptions a conventional armament must be exempted in a manner that is consistent with that State Party's normal practices. For example, consider a situation in which a State Party for years prior to the signing of the Treaty held approximately 50 battle tanks exclusively for the purpose of research and development. If that State Party then declared that it held 500 battles tanks for such a purpose and wished to exempt them in accordance with subparagraph (B) of paragraph 1 of Article 111, such a position could be considered inconsistent with that State Party's normal practices and thus would be prohibited by Article 111.

Such an eventuality is specifically anticipated in paragraph 2 of Article III. Paragraph 2 provides that if a State Party notifies an unusually high number of exempted items in more than two successive annual information exchanges, it shall explain the reasons in the Joint Consultative Group, if so requested.

Thus, Article III establishes, in effect, a two-part test that must be met before conventional armaments and equipment that otherwise would be limited by the Treaty are not counted. First, the items in question must fall under one of the seven exceptions listed in paragraph 1. (Note, however, that in addition to these seven exceptions in Article 111, there are several other provisions in, or associated with, the Treaty that affect the way certain Treaty-limited armaments and equipment are counted. These additional exceptions are discussed below.) Second, paragraph 2 requires that the numbers of such items notified as falling under a specific exception must be consistent with that State Party's normal practices before the Treaty was signed (i.e., prior to November 19, 1990).

With regard to the seven exceptions listed in paragraph 1 of Article III, subparagraph (F) of paragraph I of Article III relates specifically to organizations designed and structured to perform in peacetime internal security functions (e.g., paramilitary units) and exempts only armored personnel carriers, armored infantry fighting vehicles, heavy armament combat vehicles, and multipurpose attack helicopters held by such organizations. As a result, battle tanks, artillery, combat aircraft, and specialized attack helicopters are counted and thus subject to the numerical limitations under Articles IV, V, and VI, even if they are held by internal security organizations. Furthermore, subparagraph (F) must be read in con- junction with paragraph I of Article XII of the Treaty. Article XII(T) places a cap of 1,000 on the number of armored infantry fighting vehicles held by internal security organizations that may be deemed not subject to Articles IV, V, and VI. Thus, Articles III(l)(F) and XII(L) together provide that all of a State Party's armored infantry fighting vehicles in internal security organizations in excess of 1,000 must be counted and thus subject to the numerical limitations set forth in Articles IV, V, and VI of the Treaty.

Article III sets forth a counting rule that is broad and inclusive in scope. It applies to all battle tanks, armored combat vehicles, artillery, combat aircraft, and attack helicopters within the area of application, unless they meet one of the exceptions.

In particular, the counting rule in Article III is not restricted to only those amendments and equipment held in what a State Party may deem to be conventional armed forces or subordinated to certain types of organizations. Those armaments and equipment of a type limited by the Treaty located within the area of application not held in army, air force, or air defense units are, unless explicitly excepted, also counted as being subject to the Treaty's numerical limitations. In turn, this means that, for example, a State Party's conventional armaments and equipment subordinated to naval infantry, coastal defense forces, or civil defense organizations would be counted. Put another way, Article III establishes a clear rule that armaments and equipment of a type limited by the Treaty within the area of application that do not meet one of the exceptions are to be counted. If a State Party contends otherwise, the burden of proof is thus on it to provide evidence sufficient to prove that the armaments in question are explicitly excepted.

However, it should be noted that the Soviet Union, in contrast to the other 21 Signatories to the Treaty, does not subscribe to the analysis of the scope of the Article III counting rule described above. The Soviet Union has maintained, since the Treaty was signed, that battle tanks, armored combat vehicles, and artillery of a type limited by the Treaty held by its naval infantry, coastal defense forces, Strategic Rocket Forces, and civil defense organizations within the area of application should not be counted pursuant to Article III or be subject to the numerical limitations set forth in the Treaty. This dispute over the scope of Article III prevented the State Parties from proceeding toward ratification of the Treaty for several months until a practical compromise arrangement could be achieved. The compromise is embodied in two legally binding statements that are associated with the Treaty. The legally binding statements ensue that the Soviet Union is obligated to maintain holdings of conventional armaments and equipment of a type limited by the Treaty within the area of application, including those in naval infantry, coastal defense forces and civil defense organizations, so that not one of the numerical limitations set forth in the Treaty is exceeded. In addition, separate limitations were placed on conventional armaments and equipment of a type limited by the Treaty held by Strategic Rocket Forces. Most importantly, the Soviet Union agreed to adhere in the future to the broad application of the counting rules. Further details concerning this issue are provided in the article-by-article analyses of the legally binding statements.

In addition to the seven exceptions listed in paragraph 1 of Article III, there are several other provisions in, or associated with, the Treaty that affect the way in which conventional armaments and equipment of a type limited by the Treaty are counted.

First, paragraph 3 of Section I of the Protocol on Helicopter Recategorization provides a special counting rule exemption for Soviet Mi-24R and Mi-24K specialized attack helicopters. Section I(3) provides that a combined total of 100 such helicopters, if equipped for reconnaissance, spotting or chemical/biological/radiological sampling, will not be counted against the numerical limitations on attack helicopters set forth in paragraph 1 of Article IV and in Article VI of the Treaty. Any Soviet Mi-24R or Mi-24K helicopters in excess of 100 will be counted against the numerical limitations in Articles IV(I) and VI regardless of how they are equipped. Section I(3) of the Protocol on Helicopter Recategorization is, in effect, an exception to the general counting rule set forth in paragraph 1 of Article III.

Second, the political declaration on land-based naval aircraft, which was negotiated simultaneously with the Treaty, creates an exception for land-based naval aircraft outside of the Treaty framework. The declaration is meant to express the intent of the negotiators that such aircraft are not counted under the Treaty. Thus, there is an exception to the counting rule in paragraph 1 of Article III for land-based naval aircraft.

Third, Section II of the Protocol on Existing Types makes clear that armored personnel carrier look-alikes and armored infantry fighting vehicle look-alikes, as well as primary trainer aircraft, combat support helicopters and unarmed transport helicopters, are not counted under the Treaty.

Fourth, paragraph 4 of Article X of the Treaty provides a counting rule that distinguishes between conventional armaments and equipment limited by the Treaty that are counted as in active units and those that are in designated permanent storage sites.

Fifth, paragraph 4 of Section X of the Protocol on Reduction provides that conventional armaments and equipment placed on static display or placed in museums prior to the signature of the Treaty shall not be subject to any numerical limitations set forth in the Treaty.

Sixth, paragraph 3 of Section XI of the Protocol on Reduction provides that conventional armaments and equipment in use as ground targets prior to the signature of the Treaty shall not be subject to any numerical limitations set forth in Article IV, V or VI of the Treaty.

Seventh, paragraph 3 of Section XII of the Protocol on Reduction provides that combat aircraft and attack helicopters of a type limited by the Treaty in use for ground instructional purposes prior to the signature of the Treaty shall not be subject to any numerical limitations set forth in Article IV, V or VI of the Treaty.

Return to Table of Contents

Article IV consists of six paragraphs. This Article sets forth, in the first four paragraphs, the principal numerical limitations in the Treaty. These limitations come into effect 40 months after entry into force of the Treaty and apply to the five categories of conventional armaments and equipment limited by the Treaty: battle tanks, armored combat vehicles, artillery, combat aircraft, and attack helicopters. The Article provides for group limitations in each such category of conventional armaments and equipment and does so on the basis of four nested zones of areas. Article IV, along with Articles V, VI and VII, constitutes the substantive heart of the Treaty.

The system of zones established by Article IV can best be envisioned as four different sized zones nested within one another so that the smallest zone is subsumed and overlapped by the next largest zone and so on until the smaller three zones are subsumed and overlapped by the largest zone (see Figure One for a schematic diagram of the area of application). This largest zone, referred to in paragraph 1 of Article IV, is the entire area of application. The three smaller zones, described in descending order based on size, are set forth in paragraphs 2, 3, and 4 of the Article, respectively. This system of nested zones means that each large zone is different from the smaller zones nested within it only to the extent that its territory overlaps and extends beyond the zone or zones it contains. For example, the area of application is different from the next largest zone, which is described in paragraph 2 of Article IV, only to the extent that it includes territory not contained in that next largest zone. In this regard, the territory in the area of application not contained within the zone described in paragraph 2 was informally referred to during the negotiations as the "flank" area. A description of, and the special numerical limitations for, the flank area are set forth in Article V of the Treaty. The purpose of the nested system of zones is to prevent destabilizing force concentrations within the area of application.

Paragraph 1 of Article IV provides that, within the area of application, as defined in Article II, each State Party shall limit and, as necessary, reduce its battle tanks, armored combat vehicles, artillery, combat aircraft and attack helicopters so that, 40 months after entry into force of the Treaty and thereafter, for the group of States Parties to which it belongs, as defined in Article II, the aggregate numbers do not exceed:

Paragraph 1 of Article IV draws a distinction between the overall aggregate numbers of battle tanks, armored combat vehicles, and artillery permitted within the area of application and the number of such items that can be in active units for each group of States Parties. For example, while each group of States Parties is permitted up to 20,000 battle tanks within the area of application, no more than 16,500 of them may be in active units. The purpose of placing a sublimit on active units is to establish a further check on the capability of a State Party or group of States Parties to mount a large-scale attack.

In addition to the sublimit on battle tanks, armored combat vehicles, and artillery in active units, subparagraph (B) of paragraph I also establishes unique sublimits for the category of armored combat vehicles. It provides that of the 30,000 armored combat vehicles permitted to each group of States parties, no more than 18,000 may be armored infantry fighting vehicles and heavy armament combat- vehicles; and, of the 18,000 combined total of armored infantry fighting vehicles and heavy armament combat vehicles, no more than 1,500 may be heavy armament combat vehicles. This means that if a group of States Parties holds an aggregate number of armored combat vehicles totaling 30,000, no more than 27,300 of them (types unspecified) may be in active units, no more than 1,500 may be heavy armament combat vehicles, no more than 18,000 may be heavy armament combat vehicles or armored infantry fighting vehicles, and thus at least 12,000 of the 30,000 armament combat vehicles must be armored personnel carriers. The purpose of this set of sublimits is to reduce the offensive potential of mechanized formations by capping the number of armored infantry fighting vehicles and heavy armament combat vehicles they may employ.

The second part of paragraph 1 of Article IV makes clear that battle tanks, armored combat vehicles, and artillery not counted as in active units must be placed, in accordance with Article X of the Treaty, in designated permanent storage sites or they will count as being in active units. In addition, the second part of paragraph 1 places a geographical restriction on where, within the area of application, battle tanks, armored combat vehicles, and artillery stored in designated permanent storage sites may be located. This provision states that such designated permanent storage sites may only be placed in the zone or area described in paragraph 2 of Article IV. This means that, as a general rule, such designated permanent storage sites cannot be located in the flank area (i.e., the area described in paragraph 1 of Article V of the Treaty).

However, the second part of paragraph 1 creates an exception to this general rule. The exception provides that designated permanent storage sites may also be located in the Odessa Military District and the southern part of the Leningrad Military District. Both of these Soviet military districts lie in the flank region. The exception provides that, in the Odessa Military District, no more than 400 battle tanks and no more than 500 pieces of artillery may be stored in such designated permanent storage sites. Armored combat vehicles may not be stored in designated permanent storage sites within the Odessa Military District.

The exception in the second part of paragraph I of Article IV also provides that, in the southern part of the Leningrad Military District, no more than 600 battle tanks, no more than 800 armored combat vehicles, and no more than 400 pieces of artillery may be thus stored. Furthermore, of the 800 armored combat vehicles, the second part of paragraph 1 provides that no more than an aggregate 300 may be armored combat vehicles of types other than armored personnel carriers. Finally, the second part of paragraph 1 defines the southern part of the Leningrad Military District as the territory within that military district south of the East-West 60 degrees 15 minutes northern latitude line.

Paragraph 2 of Article IV describes the largest zone or area nested within the area of application. This paragraph provides that, within the area consisting of the entire land territory in Europe, which includes all the European island territories, of the Kingdom of Belgium, the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic, the Kingdom of Denmark including the Faroe Islands, the French Republic, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Republic of Hungary, the Italian Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Poland, the Portuguese Republic including the islands of the Azores and Madeira, the Kingdom of Spain including the Canary Islands, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and that part of the territory of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics west of the Ural Mountains, comprising the Baltic, Byelorussian, Carpathian, Kiev, Moscow and Volga-Ural Military Districts, each State Party shall limit and, as necessary, reduce its battle tanks, armored combat vehicles, and artillery so that, 40 months after entry into force of the Treaty and thereafter, for the group of States Parties to which it belongs the aggregate numbers do not exceed:

Paragraph 2 provides for numerical limitations, including sublimits on active units, only on battle tanks, armored combat vehicles, and artillery. As a result, the combat aircraft and attack helicopters permitted to each group of States Parties pursuant to paragraph 1 of this Article may be deployed anywhere within the area of application. The reason that there are no geographic sublimits on aircraft and attack helicopters is that their inherent mobility makes such limits extremely difficult to implement and verify. Also, designated permanent storage sites may be placed anywhere within the area described in paragraph 2.

Paragraph 3 of Article IV describes the second largest subzone nested within the area of application. This zone is also the largest zone contained within the area described in paragraph 2. Paragraph 3 provides that, within the area consisting of the entire land territory in Europe, which includes all the European island territories, of the Kingdom of Belgium, the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic, the Kingdom of Denmark including the Faroe Islands, the French Republic, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Republic of Hungary, the Italian Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Poland, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and that part of the territory of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics comprising the Baltic, Byelorussian, Carpathian and Kiev Military Districts, each State Party shall limit and, as necessary, reduce its battle tanks, armored combat vehicles and artillery, so that 40 months after entry into force of this Treaty and thereafter, for the group of States Parties to which it belongs the aggregate numbers in active units do not exceed:

Also, subparagraph (D) of paragraph 3 provides a sublimit on the combined aggregate numbers, in active units and in designated permanent storage sites, of battle tanks, armored combat vehicles, and artillery located within the Kiev Military District. It provides that, in the Kiev Military District, the aggregate numbers in active units and in designated permanent storage sites together shall not exceed:

It should be noted that, unlike paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article IV, subparagraphs (A) through (C) of paragraph 3 provide numerical limitations only with respect to those battle tanks, armored combat vehicles, and artillery that are in active units.

Paragraph 4 of Article IV describes the smallest subzone nested within the area of application. This paragraph provides that, within the area consisting of the entire land territory in Europe, which includes all the Europe island territories, of the Kingdom of Belgium, the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Republic of Hungary, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Republic of Poland, each State Party shall limit and, as necessary, reduce its battle tanks, armored combat vehicles and artillery so that, 40 months after entry into force of the Treaty and thereafter, for the group of States Parties to which it belongs the aggregate numbers in active units do not exceed:

Once again, as in paragraph 3, the numerical limitations set forth in paragraph 4 apply only to battle tanks, armored combat vehicles, and artillery in active units.

There are three additional points that should be borne in mind when analyzing the nested system of zones described by paragraphs 1 through 4 of Article IV. First, the numerical limitations set forth in paragraphs 2 through 4 in each category of conventional armaments and equipment are not cumulative; rather, they constitute sublimits for their particular area within the overall limits described in paragraph I for the entire area of application.

For example, paragraph 4 permits up to 7,500 battle tanks in active units for each group of States Parties in the smallest subzone, paragraph 3 permits up to 10,300 battle tanks in active units in the next largest subzone, and paragraph 2 permits up to 11,800 tanks in active units in the largest subzone. These numbers add up to a total of 29,600 battle tanks in active units. This does not mean that a group is permitted that number of battle tanks. Instead, subparagraph l(A) limits each group of States Parties to 16,500 battle tanks in active units, of which no more than 11,800 may be in the next largest subzone (described in paragraph 2). Of these 11,800 battle tanks, no more than 10,500 may be in the next largest subzone (described in paragraph 3), and of these 10,500 battle tanks, no more than 7,500 may be in the smallest subzone (described in paragraph 4).

Second, paragraphs 2 through 4 refer to military districts located in the Soviet Union. These military districts are not defined or described in the Treaty. However, the Soviet Union, on a unilateral basis, provided a map on the borders of those military districts, current as of November 19, 1990, referred to in Article IV, and deposited that map with the Depositary. The United States has not objected to the accuracy of the borders depicted in that map as they relate to the CFE Treaty.

Third, inclusion of the Baltic Military District within the area of application of the Treaty ensures that the Treaty's provisions apply comprehensively to all soviet forces within the area. This inclusion does not represent any change in the long-standing policy of the United States with respect to the non-recognition of the forcible incorporation of the Baltic States into the Soviet Union.

Article IV also includes two additional paragraphs. Paragraph 6 provides that if a group of States Parties' aggregate numbers of battle tanks, armored combat vehicles, and artillery in active units within the area described in paragraph 4 of Article IV are less than the numerical limitations set forth in that paragraph, and provided that no State Party is thereby prevented from reaching its maximum levels for holdings notified in accordance with paragraphs 2, 3, and 5 of Article VII, then amounts equal to the difference between the aggregate numbers in each of the categories of battle tanks, armored combat vehicles, and artillery and the specified numerical limitations for that area may be located by States Parties belonging to that group of States Parties in the area described in paragraph 3 of Article IV, consistent with the numerical limitations specified in paragraph 3 of Article IV.

Paragraph 6 was included at the insistence of the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union wanted to make clear that even if a group of States Parties did not reach the numerical limits specified for the smallest area (i.e., the subzone described in paragraph 4 of Article IV), that group would still have the right to reach the numerical limits specified for the area described in paragraph 3 (i.e., the next larger subzone). The Soviet Union's concern was prompted by its ongoing and planned large-scale troop withdrawals from Czechoslovakia, Hungary, and Germany (i.e., from the area described in paragraph 4 of Article IV). The Soviet Union wanted to ensure that the battle tanks, armored combat vehicles, and artillery withdrawn with their departing troops could be used to help reach the numerical limits specified for the next largest area (i.e., the subzone described in paragraph 3).

Taken by itself, paragraph 6 implies that the right to fill up a next larger zone only applies in the special case of the two sub-zones described in paragraphs 3 and 4 of Article IV, The Group of 16 insisted that a general rule also be provided in order to make clear that this right applies to the entire system of nested zones. This general rule is set forth in paragraph 5. It permits a group of States Parties, in the event that one area is not filled up, to reach the numerical limitations set forth for the other areas described in paragraphs 1 through 4 of Article IV and in paragraph 1 of Article V.

More specifically, paragraph 5 of Article IV provides that States Parties belonging to the same group of States Parties may locate battle tanks, armored combat vehicles, and artillery in active units in each of the areas described in Article IV and subparagraph (A) of paragraph 1 of Article V up to the numerical limitations applying in that area, consistent with the maximum levels for holdings notified pursuant to Article VII and provided that no State Party stations conventional armed forces on the territory of another State Party without the agreement of that State Party.

There is one additional point regarding paragraph 5 concerning the issue of stationing States Parties. Paragraph 5 reiterates a principle of customary international law that, with certain exceptions (e.g., as part of a United Nations Security Council enforcement action carried out in accordance with Chapter VII of the UN Charter), no State Party may station forces on another State Party's territory without the permission of that State Party. Within the context of the CFE Treaty, for example, this means that, as a general rule, the Soviet Union cannot station forces in Hungary without Hungary's permission.

With regard to the numerical limitations on Treaty-limited armaments and equipment set forth in Article IV (and in Articles V and VI), it should be noted that the Treaty does not specifically require a State Party or a group of States Parties to maintain progressively lower intermediate levels of holdings within the area of application during the 40-month reduction period. Rather, States Parties are required to reduce a certain number of Treaty-limited armaments and equipment in order to meet their reduction liability calculated in accordance with paragraphs 7 and 8 of Article VIII of the Treaty.

In this respect, then, the reduction regime under the Treaty is different in concept from the one set forth, for example, in the 1987 Treaty on Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) (i.e., the INF Treaty did specifically require progressively lower intermediate levels to be reached between entry into force and the end of its three-year elimination period). This means that under the Treaty a State Party may, during the reduction period, maintain holdings in excess of its maximum levels for holdings notified in accordance with Article VII, and groups of States Parties may maintain aggregate holdings in excess of the levels specified in Articles IV and V, provided that three conditions are met. First, States Parties must report their holdings in accordance with the Protocol on Information Exchange. Second, States Parties must carry out reductions during the 40-month period in accordance with the phased reduction schedule specified in paragraph 4 of Article VIII in order to meet their reduction liability. Third, at the end of the 40-month reduction period, each State Party must be at or below its notified maximum levels for holdings and the numerical limitations set forth in Article VI, and the members of each group of States Parties must have aggregate holdings at or below the numerical limitations set forth in Articles IV and V.

Return to Table of Contents

Article V consists of two paragraphs. This Article sets forth special provisions pertaining specifically to the security of States Parties situated in the "flank" zone. This area is that part of the area of application outside of the zone referred to in paragraph 2 of Article IV. The flank area includes the territory of Bulgaria, Greece, Iceland, Norway, Romania, that part of the Republic of Turkey within the area of application, and that part of the Soviet Union comprising the Leningrad, Odessa, Transcaucasus, and North Caucasus Military Districts.

The purpose of Article V is to help facilitate regional stability by placing limits on the numbers of conventional armaments and equipment that can be located in the flanks of the area of application. Without Article V, a group of States Parties could theoretically have been permitted to concentrate all of its conventional armaments and equipment limited by the Treaty in the flank area.

Subparagraph (A) of paragraph 1 of Article V provides that each State Party shall limit and, as necessary, reduce its battle tanks, armored combat vehicles, and artillery within the flank area so that, 40 months after entry into force of the Treaty and thereafter, for the group of States Parties to which it belongs the aggregate numbers in active units do not exceed:

These numerical limitations are based on the difference between the overall limitations set forth in paragraph 1 of Article IV (i.e., the overall limitations on Treaty-limited armaments and equipment within the area of application) and those set forth in paragraph 2 of Article IV (i.e., the limitations for the largest subzone within the area of application).

Subparagraph (B) of paragraph 1 of Article V provides for a temporary deployment provision that represents an exception to the numerical limitations set forth in subparagraph (A). This exception permits a temporary deployment or "flow" of conventional armaments and equipment limited by the Treaty from the subzone described in paragraph 2 of Article IV to the flank area of the same group of States Parties over and above the aggregate limitations for the flank area set forth in subparagraph (A). These additional temporary deployments are limited to an aggregate total of 459 battle tanks, 723 armored combat vehicles, and 420 pieces of artillery for each group of States Parties. It should be noted that Article V does not specify a time limit for such "temporary" deployments.

It is important to understand that while these temporary deployments may exceed the limits set forth in subparagraph (A), they may never exceed the overall limitation for the area of application set forth in paragraph 1 of Article IV. Thus, if a group has reached the numerical limitations set forth for the area of application, it may only exceed the numerical limits set forth in subparagraph (A) by transferring conventional armaments and equipment from the central subzones to the flank area (or, in the case of the Group of 6, the Soviet Union also can "transfer" Treaty-limited armaments and equipment "into" the flank area by temporarily removing them from its designated permanent storage sites in the Odessa and/or southern Leningrad Military Districts located in the flank zone, provided that such transfers are carried out in accordance with the provisions on permanent designated storage sites set forth in Article X of the Treaty). Of course, this point assumes that the relevant numerical limitations have come into effect. In this regard, it should be noted that the ceilings specified in Articles IV and V come into effect 40 months after the Treaty enters into force.

For example, if the Group of 16 has 20,000 battle tanks within the area of application upon conclusion of the reduction period (i.e., 40 months after entry into force of the Treaty), this means that it has already reached the permitted ceiling for such conventional armaments set forth in paragraph 1 of Article IV. In turn, this means that the Group has also reached the permitted levels set forth in paragraph 2 of Article IV and set forth in subparagraph (A) of paragraph 1 of Article V (i.e., 15,300 plus 4,700 equals 20,000). As a result, battle tanks that are used to exceed the levels set forth in subparagraph (A) may only come by transfer or flow from the zone described in paragraph 2 of Article IV, rather than from outside the area of application. It is for this reason that the temporary exception rule described in subparagraph (B) is sometimes called the "flow" rule.

In addition, subparagraph (C) of paragraph 1 of Article V provides that, for each group of States Parties, no more than one-third of the temporarily deployed conventional armaments and equipment permitted under subparagraph (B) of paragraph 1 may be sent to any State Party within the flank zone. More specifically, subparagraph (C) provides that no State Party may receive more than 153 of the battle tanks, 241 of the armored combat vehicles, and 140 of the pieces of artillery permitted under subparagraph (B). Subparagraph (C) is designed to constrain Soviet forces within the flank zone by imposing a limit that applies to any single State Party.

Paragraph 2 of Article V requires notification to all other States Parties, no later than the commencement of a temporary deployment, by the State Party or States Parties conducting such deployment and by the recipient State Party or States Parties specifying the total number in each category of armaments and equipment deployed pursuant to paragraph 1. Paragraph 2 provides that a comparable notification must be provided within 30 days of the withdrawal of those battle tanks, armored combat vehicles, and artillery that were temporarily deployed.

Return to Top
Return to Table of Contents
Return to CFE Treaty Main Page