Article XXII consists of four paragraphs concerning ratification and entry into force of the Treaty, the functions of the Depositary, and registration of the Treaty with the United Nations.

Paragraph 1 of Article XXII provides that the Treaty shall be subject to ratification by each State Party in accordance with its constitutional procedures. Paragraph 1 further provides that instruments of ratification shall be deposited with the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, designated to be the Depositary.

Paragraph 2 of Article XXII provides that the Treaty shall enter into force 10 days after instruments of ratification have been deposited by all State Parties listed in the Preamble. Paragraph 2 makes clear that the Treaty may not enter into force until all 22 signatories ratify it.

Paragraph 3 of Article XXII sets forth the duties of the Depositary. The Netherlands is responsible for informing all other State Parties of:

Paragraph 4 of Article XXII provides that the Treaty will be registered by the Depositary pursuant to Article 102 of the Charter of the United Nations.

Return to Table of Contents

Article XXIII provides that the original of the Treaty, of which the English, French, German, Italian, Russian, and Spanish texts are equally authentic, shall be deposited in the archives of the Depositary. Article XXIII further provides that duly certified copies of the Treaty shall be transmitted by the Depositary to all the State Parties.

While all six languages listed in Article XXIII are equally authentic, the working language of the negotiation was English. Consequently, the other five language texts were deemed to be authentic during the negotiation only to the extent that they were conformed during the negotiation to the English version of the original Treaty text.

Return to Table of Contents

The Protocol on Existing Types (the Protocol) consists of a Preamble, four sections, and an Annex with two sections.

The principal purpose of the Protocol is to list, in an agreed format, all of those types of conventional armaments and equipment that are subject to the provisions of the Treaty, and, in particular, specify which types of such armaments are limited by the Treaty (i.e., subject to the numerical limitations set forth in Articles IV, V, VI, and XII of the Treaty). Put another way, the Protocol "fleshes out" the definitions set forth in Article II by clarifying which particular armaments and equipment within the area of application are captured by those definitions and thus are subject to the Treaty.

Section I of the Protocol lists, by category and sub-category, those types of conventional armaments and equipment that are limited by the Treaty, as of November 19, 1990, when the Treaty was signed. Section II lists those types of conventional armaments and equipment that, as of November 19, 1990, are subject to, but not limited by, the Treaty. Section III sets forth the procedures regarding the photographs and technical data that are to be provided for each type of conventional armaments and equipment listed in the Protocol. Section IV sets forth the procedures for updating the lists of existing types in Sections I and II of the Protocol, and the procedures for notifying such updates to all State Parties. The Annex to the Protocol sets forth the agreed categories of technical data and the specifications for photographs that are to be provided pursuant to Section III of the Protocol.

Pursuant to paragraph 3 of Article I of the Treaty, the Protocol is deemed to be an integral part of the Treaty.

The Preamble provides that the State Parties have agreed upon lists, valid as of the date of Treaty signature (i.e., November 19, 1990), of existing types of conventional armaments and equipment that are subject to measures of limitation, reduction, information exchange, and verification specified in other parts of the Treaty. The Preamble also provides that the States Parties have agreed to the procedures for the provision of technical data and photographs relevant to such existing types of conventional armaments and equipment. Finally, the Preamble provides that the States Parties have agreed to procedures for updating the lists of such existing types of conventional armaments and equipment in accordance with (paragraph 2 of) Article II of the Treaty.

Section I of the Protocol lists, by category and sub-category, those types of conventional armaments and equipment that are limited by the Treaty. The categories and sub-categories of such armaments are: (1) battle tanks; (2) armored combat vehicles, including: (a) armored personnel carriers, (b) armored infantry fighting vehicles, and (c) heavy armament combat vehicles; (3) artillery, including: (a) guns, howitzers and artillery pieces combining the characteristics of guns and howitzers, (b) mortars, and (c) multiple launch rocket systems; (4) combat aircraft; and (5) attack helicopters, including: (a) specialized attack helicopters and (b) multipurpose attack helicopters.

Paragraph 1 of Section I lists those types of battle tanks that, as of November 19, 1990, are deemed to be limited by the Treaty. This list is keyed directly to the battle tank definition set forth in subparagraph l(C) of Article II of the Treaty. Thus, the types of battle tanks on the list in paragraph 1 meet the technical criteria set forth in the definition of the term "battle tank" in Article 11.

Paragraph 1 of Section I further provides that all models and versions of an existing type of battle tank listed are deemed battle tanks of that type. This point is important because the lists in Sections I and II indicate, whenever possible, only basic "types" of conventional armaments and equipment in order to avoid lengthy lists of multiple "models and versions" of each basic type. For example, for the type of battle tank known as the M-60 series, paragraph I lists only "M-60," rather than M-6OAl, M-60A1 Rise/Passive and M-6OA3, all of which are slightly modified-but externally similar-models or versions of the basic M-60 series type battle tank. This principle, referred to as a "type rule," was followed to the maximum extent possible throughout the Protocol. This standard type rule ensures that, unless otherwise provided for in the Protocol, each and every version or model of a listed type is deemed to be included within that type and thus counted against the numerical limitations set forth in the Treaty.

It should be noted that each list of existing types set forth in the Protocol consists of two columns. For example, paragraph I lists the existing types of battle tanks in two side-by-side columns. Although never stated in the Protocol, these two lists generally correspond to those various types of battle tanks belonging to each group of States Parties. Although not formally agreed among the 22 States Parties, the list on the right represents those battle tanks in service with the armed forces of the Group of 6, while the list on the left represents the Group of 16. This format is used throughout Sections I and II of the Protocol. In this regard, Soviet-produced equipment (e.g., T-72 on the battle tank list) often appears on the lists for the Group of 16. This represents armaments and equipment of the former German Democratic Republic acquired by Germany as a result of unification on October 3, 1990.

Paragraph 2 of Section I provides the lists of those types of armored combat vehicles that, as of November 19, 1990, are deemed to be limited by the Treaty. These lists are keyed directly to the definition of the term "armored combat vehicle," which is set forth in subparagraph l(D) of Article 11 of the Treaty. Paragraph 2 is separated into the three lists consisting of the three sub-categories of armored combat vehicles. Existing types of armored personnel carriers are set forth in subparagraph (A) of paragraph 2; armored infantry fighting vehicles are set forth in subparagraph (B); and heavy armament combat vehicles are set forth in subparagraph (C).

A modified "type rule" following the armored personnel carrier and armored infantry fighting vehicle lists provides an exception to the standard type rule, referred to in paragraph 1 above, for models and versions of a listed type. The modified type rule for armored personnel carriers provides that all models and versions of an existing type of armored personnel carrier that appears on the list in subparagraph (A) of paragraph 2 shall be deemed to be armored personnel carriers of that type, unless such models and versions are included in the armored personnel carrier look-alike list in paragraph 1 of Section II of the Protocol. This modified type rule establishes that all variants of an existing type of an armored personnel carrier are subject to the Treaty's numerical limitations, except for those variants that are specifically delineated in paragraph 1 of Section II as being look-alikes.

For example, the column on the right in subparagraph 2(A) of Section I lists the BTR-40 as an existing type of armored personnel carrier. As a result, unless models or versions of the BTR-40 are also listed as BTR-40 look-alikes on the list in paragraph 1 of Section II, all variants of the BTR-40 within the area of application will be counted (in accordance with the Treaty's counting rules set forth in Article III of the Treaty). In fact, however, reference to paragraph 1 of Section II shows that one variant of the BTR-40, designated the "BTR-40 CP," is listed as a look-alike. This means that none of the BTR-40 CP vehicles located within the area of application counts toward the Treaty's numerical limitations. Significantly, this also means that all other variants of the BTR-40 are Treaty-limited, even if such variants "appear" to be BTR-40 look-alikes or are otherwise incapable of performing the military functions of the standard BTR-40 type armored personnel carrier.

The modified type rule in subparagraph (B) of paragraph 2 of Section I provides that all models and versions of an existing type of armored infantry fighting vehicle that appears on the list shall be deemed to be armored infantry fighting vehicles of that type, unless such models and versions are included in the armored infantry fighting vehicle look-alike list in paragraph 2 of Section II of the Protocol. The modified type rule for armored infantry fighting vehicle look-alikes operates in the same way as the one for armored personnel carrier look-alikes described above in subparagraph 2(A).

Subparagraph (C) of paragraph 2 of Section I sets forth a standard type rule for heavy armament combat vehicles. It provides that all models and versions of an existing type of heavy armament combat vehicle that appears on a list shall be deemed to be heavy armament combat vehicles of that type. In the case of heavy armament combat vehicles, there are no look-alike vehicles. Therefore, there is no comparable look-alike list in Section II of the Protocol to those for armored personnel carriers and armored infantry fighting vehicles.

It also should be noted that there is a footnote to subparagraph (A) of paragraph 2 of Section I concerning a type of armored personnel carrier designated as the "MT-LB." The MT-LB is a multipurpose armored vehicle that East European States Parties use as an armored personnel carrier. However, aside from northern regions where the MT-LB also is used as a armored personnel carrier by virtue of its better mobility in snow and ice, the Soviet Union uses the majority of its MT-LBs as tractors to tow direct-fire, antitank artillery not limited by the Treaty. The Soviet Union insisted during the negotiations that the MT-LB not be listed in. the Protocol or be subject in any way to the Treaty. In the end, the Group of 16 accepted a Soviet proposal to modify those MT-LBs used as artillery tractors so as to eliminate their troop-carrying capacity. In return, the Soviet Union agreed to count MT-LBS, not modified in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Footnote described below, against numerical limitations on armored combat vehicles.

The Footnote in subparagraph 2(A) provides that MT-LB armored personnel carrier vehicles may be modified, within 40 months after entry into force of the Treaty, into one of the MT-LB armored personnel carrier look-alikes listed in paragraph 1 of Section II of the Protocol. Such modification requires altering the interior of the vehicle by removing the left-side combat infantry squad seating and by then welding ammunition racks to the side and floor of the vehicle at a minimum of six points. The Footnote also provides that such modifications may be accomplished at locations other than reductions sites. Finally, the Footnote provides that MT-LB armored personnel carriers that have not been so modified shall be reported, in accordance with the Protocol on Information Exchange, as armored personnel carriers.

It should be noted that the Soviet Union reported, pursuant to Section VII(l)(A) of the Protocol on Information Exchange, that only 1,300 of its 10,200 MT-LBs were not so modified into look-alikes as of Treaty signature (i.e., November 19, 1990). Therefore, only these 1,300 MT-LBs are subject to the numerical limitations set forth in the Treaty and apply toward calculation of the Soviet Union's reduction liability in accordance with Article VIII of the Treaty.

In effect, the Footnote in subparagraph 2(A) of Section I constitutes a reduction procedure. This fact is specifically acknowledged in paragraph 1 of Article VIII of the Treaty. The modification procedure provided for in the Footnote removes the troop-carrying capacity of the MT-LB armored personnel carrier as effectively as modifications made on many Group of 16 look-alike vehicles. Paragraph 3 of Section I provides the lists for those types of artillery that, as of November 19, 1990, are deemed to be limited by the Treaty. These lists are keyed directly to the definition of the term "artillery" set forth in subparagraph l(F) of Article II of the Treaty. Paragraph 3 is separated into three lists of the following sub-categories: existing types of guns, howitzers and artillery pieces combining the characteristics of guns and howitzers are set forth in subparagraph (A) of paragraph 3; mortars are set forth in subparagraph (B); and multiple launch rocket systems are set forth in subparagraph (C). Paragraph 3 also sets forth a standard type rule for artillery; all models and versions of an existing type of artillery that appears on a list shall be deemed to be artillery of that type.

Paragraph 4 of Section I provides the lists for those types of combat aircraft that, as of November 19, 1990, are deemed to be limited by the Treaty. These lists are keyed directly to the definition of the term "combat aircraft" set forth in subparagraph l(K) of Article II of the Treaty. Paragraph 4 also set forth a standard type rule for combat aircraft: all models or versions of an existing type of combat aircraft that appears on a list shall be deemed to be combat aircraft of that type.

Paragraph 5 of Section I provides the lists of those types of attack helicopters that, as of November 19, 1990, are deemed to be limited by the Treaty. Paragraph 5 is separated into two lists for the following sub-categories; the existing types of specialized attack helicopters are set forth in subparagraph (A) of paragraph 5; and multipurpose attack helicopters are set forth in subparagraph (B). These lists are keyed directly to the definition of the terms "attack helicopter," "specialized attack helicopter," and "multipurpose attack helicopter" set forth in subparagraphs l(M), l(N), and l(O) of Article II of the Treaty, respectively.

Modified type rules for attack helicopters also are set forth in paragraph 5 of section I. The modified type rule in subparagraph (A) of paragraph 5 provides that, subject to the provisions in paragraph 3 of Section I of the Protocol on Helicopter Recategorization, all models or versions of an existing type of specialized attack helicopter that appears on a list shall be deemed to be specialized attack helicopters of that type. In this regard, Section 1(3) of the Protocol on Helicopter Recategorization provides that no more than 100 Soviet Mi-24 R or K specialized attack helicopters equipped for reconnaissance, spotting, or chemical/biological/radiological sampling shall not be subject to the numerical limitations on attack helicopters set forth in Articles IV(l) and VI of the Treaty. Thus, Section I(3), which is in effect a counting rule, makes clear that not all models or versions of the Mi-24 helicopter shall be counted as specialized attack helicopters of that type.

The modified type rule in subparagraph (B) of paragraph 5 of Section I provides that, subject to the provisions in paragraphs 4 and 5 of Section I of the Protocol on Helicopter Recategorization, all models or versions of an existing type of multipurpose attack helicopter that appears on a list shall be deemed to be multipurpose attack helicopters of that type. In this regard, paragraphs 4 and 5 of Section I of the Protocol on Helicopter Recategorization provide that certain types of helicopters may appear on type lists for both multipurpose attack helicopters and combat support helicopters. In such cases, States Parties have the right to categorize individual models or versions of those types of helicopters as being either a multipurpose attack helicopter or a combat support helicopter, depending upon each individual helicopter's weapons capability and the provisions set forth in Section III of the Protocol on Helicopter Recategorization.

Section II of the Protocol provides the lists of those types of conventional armaments and equipment that, as of November 19, 1990, are subject to, but not limited by, the Treaty. Thus, equipment on these lists is not subject to the numerical limitations set forth in Articles IV, V, VI, and XII of the Treaty. Such equipment is, however, subject to notifications set forth in the Protocol on Information Exchange and inspections set forth in the Protocol on Inspection. The categories of equipment listed in Section II are: (1) armored personnel carrier look-alikes; (2) armored infantry fighting vehicle look-alikes; (3) primary trainer aircraft; (4) combat support helicopters; (5) unarmed transport helicopters; and (6) armored vehicle launched bridges.

Paragraph 1 of Section II provides the lists of existing types of armored personnel carrier look-alikes, as of November 19, 1990. These lists are keyed directly to the definition of the term "armored personnel carrier look-alike" set forth in subparagraph l(S) of Article II of the Treaty.

Paragraph 2 of Section II provides the lists of existing types of armored infantry fighting vehicle look-alikes, as of November 19, 1990. These lists are keyed directly to the definition of the term 11 armored infantry fighting vehicle look-alike" set forth in subparagraph l(S) of Article II of the Treaty.

Paragraph 3 of Section II provides the lists of existing types of primary trainer aircraft, as of November 19, 1990. Significantly, the chapeau to paragraph 3 provides that primary trainer aircraft are aircraft that are designed and constructed for primary flying training and may possess only limited armament capability necessary for basic training in weapon delivery techniques. In effect, the chapeau provides a "working definition" of the term "primary trainer aircraft," which is not formally defined in Article II of the Treaty.

Paragraph 4 of Section II provides the lists of existing types of combat support helicopters, as of November 19, 1990. These lists of existing types of combat support helicopters are keyed directly to the definition of the term "combat support helicopter" set forth in subparagraph l(P) of Article II of the Treaty.

Some of the helicopter types on the lists in paragraph 4 of Section II are also included on the multipurpose attack helicopter list in subparagraph (B) of paragraph 5 of Section I of the Protocol. In accordance with paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Protocol on Helicopter Recategorization, States Parties holding helicopter types that are on the combat support and multipurpose attack lists have the right to categorize, through declarations in their information exchanges, such helicopters either as combat support helicopters or multipurpose attack helicopters according to the presence or absence of features listed in Section III of the Protocol on Helicopter Recategorization. Furthermore, in accordance with paragraph 30 of Section VI and paragraphs 4 through 6 of Section IX of the Protocol on Inspection, all helicopters of a type that is or has been on the multipurpose attack helicopter list and that are declared by an escort team to be combat support helicopters are subject to internal inspection to verify that they are not multipurpose attack helicopters.

Paragraph 5 of Section II provides the lists of existing types of unarmed transport helicopters, as of November 19, 1990. The chapeau to paragraph 5 provides that unarmed transport helicopters are helicopters that are not equipped for the employment of weapons. In effect, the chapeau provides a "working definition" of the term "unarmed transport helicopter," which is not defined in Article II of the Treaty.

Paragraph 6 provides the lists of existing types of armored vehicle launched bridges, as of November 19, 1990. While Article XI of the Treaty limits the number of armored vehicle launched bridges that each group of States Parties may hold in aggregate in active units, the Treaty does not limit the number a group of States Parties or an individual State Party may hold in designated permanent storage sites. For this reason, armored vehicle launched bridges are included in Section II of the Protocol as conventional armaments and equipment not limited by the Treaty. These lists for existing types of armored vehicle launched bridge are keyed directly to the definition of that term as set forth in subparagraph i(I) of Article II of the Treaty.

Section III of the Protocol sets forth the procedures regarding the photographs and technical data that are to be provided for each type of conventional armaments and equipment listed in Sections I and 11 of the Protocol. The photographs and technical data for the existing types listed in the Protocol were exchanged among the States Parties, pursuant to Section III, on November 18, 1990, in Vienna. Section IV of the Protocol also requires that photographs and technical data for new types of conventional armaments and equipment (and for new models or versions of existing types) mast be provided in accordance with Section III.

Paragraph 1 of Section III provides that technical data, in accordance with the agreed categories in the Annex to the Protocol, together with photographs presenting the right or left side, top and front views for each of its existing types of conventional armaments and equipment listed in Sections I and II of the Protocol are to be provided by each State Party to all other States Parties at the signature of the Treaty. Paragraph 1 also provides that the photographs of armored personnel carrier look-alikes and armored infantry fighting vehicle look-alikes are to include a view of such vehicles so as to show clearly their internal configuration, illustrating the specific characteristic that distinguishes that particular vehicle as a look-alike. It should be noted that the purpose of this requirement is to provide assurance that items that are to be considered look-alikes are in fact not items that are to be subject to limitations according to Article IV, V, VI, or XII of the Treaty. Finally, paragraph I provides that photographs in addition to those required by paragraph 1 may be provided at the discretion of each State Party.

Paragraph 2 of Section III provides that a model and version of each existing type of conventional armament and equipment listed in Section I or II of the Protocol shall be designated as an "exemplar" for that type. Paragraph 2 notes that, pursuant to paragraph 1 of Section III, photographs are to be provided for each such designated exemplar. Paragraph 2 makes clear that photographs are not required for models or versions of a type that have no significant externally observable differences from the exemplar of that type. Paragraph 2 also provides that the side view photograph of each exemplar must contain an annotation of the existing type that the photograph represents and an annotation of the technical data for that type in accordance with the agreed categories in the Annex to the Protocol. Paragraph 2 further provides that the side view photograph of the exemplar must also be annotated with a list of models and versions of that exemplar type.

This approach of using exemplars for photographs and technical data is consistent with the "type rule" approach used in Sections I and 11 of the Protocol. This approach reduces the quantity of photographs that must be exchanged. As noted in paragraph 2 above, photographs of models and versions of a basic type are only required if that specific model or version has significant externally observable differences from the basic type displayed in the exemplar photograph.

It should be noted that Section III has been provisionally applied pursuant to subparagraph l(I) of the Protocol on Provisional Application. Section III of the Protocol was provisionally put into effect in order to ensure that all States Parties complied with the procedures for providing photographs and technical data for the existing types listed in Sections I and II at Treaty signature and anytime thereafter prior to entry into force of the Treaty. Without such provisional application, the States Parties would not have been legally obligated to act in accordance with Section III because the Treaty, and the Protocol as a whole, were not yet in force.

Section IV of the Protocol sets forth the procedures for updating the lists of existing types in Sections I and II of the Protocol. Such updating is required by paragraph 2 of Article II of the Treaty. Section IV also sets forth the procedures for notifying all other States Parties of such updates. The principal purpose of Section IV is to ensure that the Protocol remains valid over time by enabling it to evolve to reflect changes in the conventional armaments and equipment held in the armed forces of the States Parties.

Paragraph 1 of Section IV provides that the Protocol constitutes agreement by the States Parties only with respect to existing types of conventional armaments and equipment and with respect to the categories of technical data set forth in Sections I and II of the Annex to the Protocol. The purpose of paragraph I is to make clear that States Parties, by agreeing to the lists of existing types set forth in the Protocol, are not also agreeing to the actual technical data that any other States Parties have provided pursuant to Section III.

Paragraph 2 of Section IV provides that each State Party is responsible only for the accuracy of the technical data for its own conventional armaments and equipment that are provided in accordance with Section III of this Protocol. The purpose of paragraph 2 is to make clear that a State Party is not responsible for any inaccuracy of the technical data provided by anther State Party.

Paragraph 3 of Section IV establishes procedures to ensure that States Parties are notified of new types of conventional armaments and equipment (and of new models or versions of existing types) so that they may be added to the existing types lists pursuant to paragraph 4 of Section IV. Paragraph 3 provides that each State Party must notify all other States Parties, upon the entry into service with the armed forces of that State Party within the area of application, of:

Paragraph 3 further states that, at the same time, each State Party also shall provide all other States Parties with the technical data and photographs required by Section III of the Protocol.

There are several points worth noting concerning paragraph 3 of Section IV. First, new types and new models or versions of existing types must be notified only when they enter into service with a State Party's armed forces. In this regard, the definition of the term "in service," which is set forth in subparagraph l(R) of Article II of the Treaty, makes clear that conventional armaments and equipment are in service when they are within the area of application, unless they are held by organizations designed and structured to perform in peacetime internal security functions (e.g., paramilitary units) or they meet any of the exceptions set forth in the main counting rule in Article III of the Treaty (e.g., battle tanks used exclusively for research and development).

Second, both paragraph 3 and the definition of the term "in service" make clear that notification need not be provided for new types and new models or versions of existing types if they enter into service with a State Party's armed forces outside of the area of application. Thus, the United States will not be required to provide notification of new types or new models or versions of existing types that are deployed outside of the area of application or that merely transit through the area in accordance with subparagraph l(G) of Article III of the Treaty and Section XI of the Protocol on Information Exchange (i.e., if the transiting item only remains within the area of application for seven days or less).

Third, paragraph 3 of Section IV makes a clear that a State Party is required to provide notification of any new type and any new model or version of an existing type that either is defined in Article II of the Treaty or falls under a category listed in the Protocol. Such a distinction is necessary because not all categories of conventional armaments and equipment listed in the Protocol are defined in Article II of the Treaty. In particular, existing types are listed for the categories of primary trainer aircraft and unarmed transport helicopters in paragraphs 3 and 5, respectively, of Section 11 of the Protocol, even though these categories of conventional armaments and equipment are not defined.

Paragraph 4 of Section IV provides that, as soon as possible, and in any case no later than 60 days following a notification pursuant to paragraph 3 of Section IV, the States Parties shall initiate update actions, in accordance with the provisions set forth in Article XVI of the Treaty and the Protocol on the Joint Consultative Group, for the lists of existing types of conventional armaments and equipment in Sections I and II of the Protocol.

In this regard, subparagraph 2(D) of Article XVI of the Treaty directs the States Parties to update the lists of the Protocol, as required by paragraph 2 of Article II of the Treaty, within the framework of the Joint Consultative Group. Furthermore, paragraph 2 of Article II of the Treaty provides that such updates must be accomplished periodically. Paragraph 2 of Article II also provides that such updates shall not be deemed amendments to the treaty. This latter point is important because it means that, even though the Protocol is an integral part of the Treaty, the lists of existing types in the Protocol may be updated without having to be subject to ratification.

It should be noted that Section IV has been provisionally applied pursuant to subparagraph l(I) of the Protocol on Provisional Application. Section IV of the Protocol was provisionally put into effect in order to ensure that all States Parties complied, between the Treaty's signature and its entry into force, with the procedures in paragraphs 3 and 4 for updating the lists of existing types and providing notification of such updates to all States Parties. Without such provisional application, the States Parties would not have been legally obligated to act in accordance with Section IV because the Treaty, and the Protocol as a whole, were not yet in force.

The Annex to the Protocol sets forth the agreed categories of technical data and specifications for photographs to be provided by each State party pursuant to Section III of the Protocol.

Section I of the Annex contains agreed categories of technical data for each model and version of existing types of conventional armaments and equipment: battle tanks, armored combat vehicles (i.e., armored personnel carriers, armored infantry fighting vehicles, and heavy armament combat vehicles), artillery (i.e., guns, howitzers and artillery pieces combining the characteristics of guns and howitzers, mortars, and multiple launch rocket systems), combat aircraft, attack helicopters, armored personnel carrier look-alikes, armored infantry fighting vehicle look-alikes, primary trainer aircraft, combat support helicopters, unarmed transport helicopters and armored vehicle launched bridges.

Section II further states that a reference gauge is to be included in each photograph together with the object. The gauge shall have alternating half-meter sections in black and white. It shall be long enough to provide accurate scaling and shall be placed on or against the object or in close proximity to it. In addition, Section II provides that each photograph shall be labeled to provide the information required by paragraph 2 of Section III of the Protocol, as well as the, date when the Photograph was taken.

Return to Table of Contents

The Protocol on Aircraft Reclassification (the Protocol) consists of a Preamble and five sections.

Paragraph 1 of Article VIII of the Treaty provides that one of the ways in which the numerical limitations in Articles IV, V, and VI of the Treaty may be achieved is by means of reduction in accordance with the Protocol. The Protocol provides for such reductions through the reclassification of certain models or versions of combat-capable trainer aircraft into unarmed trainer aircraft. As such, the reduction procedures set forth in the Protocol only relate to the category of combat aircraft and, thus, only to the numerical limitations set forth in subparagraph l(D) of Article IV and subparagraph (D) of Article VI of the Treaty. The Protocol specified that each State Party shall have the right to reduce no more than 550 combat-capable trainer aircraft by means of reclassification.

The Protocol implements such reductions by establishing procedures: (i) for disarming and certifying specified combat-capable trainer aircraft, and (ii) for simply certifying models or versions of specified combat-capable trainer aircraft that have never been armed. The presence of certain components on these specified aircraft determines whether they may be disarmed and certified, or simply certified. In addition to limiting the numbers and types of combat-capable trainer aircraft that may be removed from the numerical limitations of the Treaty, the Protocol establishes notification requirements and sets up standards for determining when the various processes have been completed.

Pursuant to paragraph 3 of Article I of the Treaty, the Protocol is deemed to be an integral part of the Treaty.

Paragraph 1 of Section I provides that each State Party has the right to remove, in accordance with the procedures of the Protocol, certain combat-capable trainer aircraft, listed in paragraph 1 of Section II, from the numerical limitations on such aircraft set forth in Articles IV and VI of the Treaty.

Subparagraph (A) of paragraph 1 provides that combat-capable trainer aircraft that have any of the components specified in paragraphs 1 and 2 of Section III of the Protocol may be removed from the applicable numerical limitations only by total disarming and certification.

Subparagraph (B) of paragraph 1 provides that combat-capable trainer aircraft that do not have any of the components specified in paragraphs 1 and 2 of Section III of the Protocol may be removed from the applicable numerical limitations by certification alone.

Paragraph 2 of Section I provides that each State Party shall have the right, within 40 months after entry into force of the Treaty, to disarm and certify, or certify alone, the specific combat-capable trainer aircraft models or versions listed in paragraph 1 of Section II of the Protocol. Paragraph 2 makes clear that until such aircraft are certified as unarmed in accordance with the procedures of Section IV of the Protocol, they will count against the applicable numerical limitations. Paragraph 2 also provides that no State Party may remove from the applicable numerical limitations more than 550 aircraft disarmed in accordance with the Protocol, of which no more than 130 may be the Mig-25U model or version.

Paragraph 3 of Section 1 provides that each State Party must notify all other States Parties, no later than entry into force of the Treaty, of:

Paragraph 4 of Section I provides that each State Party has the right to use any technological means it deems necessary to disarm the aircraft in accordance with the Protocol's procedures.

Paragraph 1 of Section II lists the specific combat-capable trainer aircraft that may be removed from the numerical limitations of the Treaty in accordance with the Protocol. They are the following models or versions: SU-15U, SU-17U, Mig-15U, Mig-21U, Mig-23U, Mig-25U, and UIL-28.

Paragraph 2 of Section II provides that the list in paragraph I above is final and not subject to revision.

It should be noted that the list in paragraph 1 was not based on a formal definition of the term "combat-capable trainer aircraft." A definition of that term is not provided in the Treaty. Rather, the list was negotiated on the basis of a general agreement that two-cockpit models and versions of single-cockpit aircraft could be considered as potential candidates for the combat-capable trainer aircraft list.

Also, only aircraft belonging to the Group of 6 are listed in paragraph 1 (although the Federal Republic of Germany may have acquired from the German Democratic Republic some such aircraft when German unification occurred on October 3, 1990). States Parties that are members of the Group of 16 chose not to take advantage of the reclassification procedures. This is because, in general, they conduct transition training with dual-cockpit versions of modern combat aircraft (such as the F-16), that are not only fully combat-capable but also capable of being used for training. As such, while these aircraft could have been listed in paragraph 1 of Section II as combat-capable trainer aircraft, they were considered too valuable to be disarmed and used strictly in a training role. On the other hand, the Group of 6 trainer aircraft listed in paragraph 1 are combat-capable dual-cockpit versions of older types of combat aircraft. As such, they possess only limited combat capability and are more oriented toward training than combat.

Paragraph 1 of Section III deals with models or versions of combat-capable trainer aircraft that are to be disarmed. Paragraph 2 makes clear that the purpose of the disarming procedure is to render such aircraft incapable of:

Paragraph 1 specifies that the following components must be removed as part of the disarming procedure:

Paragraph 2 of Section III provides that, notwithstanding paragraph 1 above, any special hardpoints that are integral to the aircraft being disarmed, as well as any special elements of general purpose hardpoints that are designed for use only with the components described in paragraph 1, must be made incapable of being used with the systems described in paragraph 1. Paragraph 2 also provides that electrical circuits of the weapon, electronic warfare, and reconnaissance systems described in paragraph I are also to be rendered incapable of use, by removal of wiring or, if such is not technically practicable, by the cutting out of accessible sections of wiring.

Paragraph 3 of Section III provides that each State Party must provide to all other States Parties certain information no less than 42 days before the first aircraft of each model or version of those listed in Section II is to be disarmed. The required information consists of the following:

The purpose of paragraph 3 of Section III is twofold. First, it is intended to allow other States Parties an opportunity to assess in advance the adequacy of the planned disarming process. Second, the provision is designed to facilitate inspection of such disarmed aircraft.

Paragraph 1 of Section IV sets the certification procedures that apply to combat-capable trainer aircraft that are to be disarmed and certified, or, alternatively, only certified. Paragraph 1 provides that each State Party must comply with the following certification procedures in order to ensure that such aircraft do not possess any of the components listed in paragraph 1 and 2 of Section III of the Protocol.

Paragraph 2 of Section IV provides that each State Party must notify all other States Parties of each certification, in accordance with paragraph 3 of section IX of the Protocol on Inspection. Paragraph 2 further provides that the first time an aircraft that does not require total disarming is to be certified, the State Party conducting the information required by subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) of paragraph 3 of Section III for an armed model or version of the type of aircraft being certified.

Paragraph 3 of Section IV provides that each State Party may inspect the certification of combat-capable trainer aircraft in accordance with Section IX of the Protocol on Inspection. In this regard, Section IX of the Protocol on Inspection sets forth the specific procedures pertaining to certification inspections. The purpose of these inspections is to provide States Parties with an opportunity to ensure that combat-capable trainer aircraft have been reclassified into unarmed trainer aircraft in accordance with the Protocol. Although States Parties may not inspect the actual process of disarming, they do have the right under Section IX of the Protocol on Inspection, in particular paragraphs 4 through 6 thereof, to confirm that such processes were carried out properly as certified by the State Party undertaking the reclassification. The inspection procedures are important because, unlike combat-capable trainer aircraft, unarmed trainer aircraft are not subject to the numerical limitations on combat aircraft set forth in paragraph 1 of Article IV and Article VI of the Treaty. Certification inspections conducted pursuant to Section IX of the Protocol on Inspection are without right of refusal by the State Party conducting the certification process and are not subject to inspection quotas.

Paragraph 4 of Section IV provides that total disarming and certification, or, alternatively, certification alone will be deemed completed upon completion of the procedures set forth in Section IV. Paragraph 4 further provides that completion shall be determined without regard to whether any State Party exercises the certification inspection rights described in paragraph 3 of Section IV of the Protocol and Section IX of the Protocol on Inspection. Paragraph 4 makes clear, however, that if within 30 days of receipt of the notification of completion of the certification and reclassification provided pursuant to paragraph 5 of Section IV any State Party notifies the others that it considers that there is an ambiguity relating to the certification and reclassifications process, then the reclassification will not be deemed complete until the ambiguity has been resolved. It should be noted, therefore, and that a State Party could unilaterally delay and even prevent the reclassification (and thus reduction) of such aircraft by raising, but not resolving, an ambiguity. However, this matter could be raised in the Joint Consultative Group for possible resolution.

Paragraph 5 of Section IV requires the State Party conducting certification to notify all other States Parties of the completion of certification in accordance with the Protocol on Inspection. In this regard, paragraph 9 of Section IX of the Protocol on Inspection provides that within seven days after completion of the certification, the State Party responsible for the certification must notify all other States Parties of the completion of the certification, specifying the numbers, types, models or versions, and manufacturer's serial numbers of the certified aircraft, the certification site involved, the actual dates of certification, and the units or locations to which the reclassified aircraft will be assigned.

Paragraph 6 of Section IV provides that certification is to be conducted in the area of application and that States Parties belonging to the same group of States Parties shall have the right to share locations for certifications. In this regard, such certification need not take place at reduction sites, Paragraph 12 of Article VIII of the Treaty permits reduction to be carried out at sites other than reduction sites if so specified in one of the Protocols listed in paragraph 1 of Article VIII (e.g., the Protocol on Inspection). In fact, Section IX of the Protocol on Inspection does provide that certification is to be carried out at "certification sites." The phrase "certification sites" was used expressly in order to avoid having to declare such sites as "reduction sites."

Section V provides that all models or versions of combat-capable trainer aircraft certified as unarmed under the Protocol shall be subject to information exchange, in accordance with the Protocol on Information Exchange, and to verification, including inspection, in accordance with the Protocol on Inspection. In this regard, paragraph 31 of Section VI of the Protocol on Inspection permits inspectors during declared site or challenge inspections to conduct an internal inspection of any combat-capable trainer aircraft listed in paragraph 1 of Section II of the Protocol that the inspected States Party declares as having been certified as unarmed in accordance with the Protocol on Aircraft Reclassification.

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