Contents
Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe
Article I
1. Each State Party shall carry out the obligations set forth in this Treaty
in accordance with its provisions, including those obligations relating to the
following five categories of conventional armed forces: battle tanks, armoured
combat vehicles, artillery, combat aircraft and combat helicopters.
2. Each State Party also shall carry out the other measures set forth in this
Treaty designed to ensure security and stability both during the period of
reduction of conventional armed forces and after the completion of reductions.
3. This Treaty incorporates the Protocol on Existing Types of Conventional
Armaments and Equipment, hereinafter referred to as the Protocol on Existing
Types, with an Annex thereto; the Protocol on Procedures Governing the
Reclassification of Specific Models or Versions of Combat-Capable Trainer
Aircraft Into Unarmed Trainer Aircraft, hereinafter referred to as the Protocol
on Aircraft Reclassification; the Protocol on Procedures Governing the Reduction
of Conventional Armaments and Equipment Limited by the Treaty on Conventional
Armed Forces in Europe, hereinafter referred to as the Protocol on Reduction;
the Protocol on Procedures Governing the Categorisation of Combat Helicopters
and the Recategorisation of Multi-Purpose Attack Helicopters, hereinafter
referred to as the Protocol on Helicopter Recategorisation; the Protocol on
Notification and Exchange of Information, hereinafter referred to as the
Protocol on Information Exchange, with an Annex on the Format for the Exchange
of Information, hereinafter referred to as the Annex on Format; the Protocol on
Inspection; the Protocol on the Joint Consultative Group; and the Protocol on
the Provisional Application of Certain Provisions of the Treaty on
Conventional Armed Forces in Europe, hereinafter referred to as the Protocol on
Provisional Application. Each of these documents constitutes an integral part
of this Treaty.
Article II
1. For the purposes of this Treaty: 1.
(A) The term “group of States Parties”means the group of States Parties
that signed the Treaty of Warsaw * of 1955 consisting of the Republic of
Bulgaria, the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic, the Republic of Hungary, the
Republic of Poland, Romania and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, or the
group of States Parties that signed or acceded to the Treaty of Brussels ** of
1948 or the Treaty of Washington *** of 1949 consisting of the Kingdom of
Belgium, Canada, the Kingdom of Denmark, the French Republic, the Federal
Republic of Germany, the Hellenic Republic, the Republic of Iceland, the Italian
Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the
Kingdom of Norway, the Portuguese Republic, the Kingdom of Spain, the Republic
of Turkey, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the
United States of America.
* The Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Mutual Assistance signed in
Warsaw, 14 May 1955
** The Treaty of Economic, Social and Cultural Collaboration and Collective
Self-Defence signed in Brussels, 17 March 1948
*** The North Atlantic Treaty signed in Washington, 4 April 1949
(B) The term “area of application”means the entire land territory of the
States Parties in Europe from the Atlantic Ocean to the Ural Mountains, which
includes all the European island territories of the States Parties, including
the Faroe Islands of the Kingdom of Denmark, Svalbard including Bear Island of
the Kingdom of Norway, the islands of Azores and Madeira of the Portuguese
Republic, the Canary Islands of the Kingdom of Spain and Franz Josef Land and
Novaya Zemlya of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. In the case of the
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the area of application includes all
territory lying west of the Ural River and the Caspian Sea. In the case of the
Republic of Turkey, the area of application includes the territory of
the Republic of Turkey north and west of a line extending from the point of
intersection of the Turkish border with the 39th parallel to Muradiye, Patnos,
Karayazi, Tekman, Kemaliye, Feke, Ceyhan, Dogankent, Gozne and thence to the
sea.
(C) The term “battle tank”means a self-propelled armoured fighting vehicle,
capable of heavy firepower, primarily of a high muzzle velocity direct fire main
gun necessary to engage armoured and other targets, with high cross- country
mobility, with a high level of self-protection, and which is not designed and
equipped primarily to transport combat troops. Such armoured vehicles serve as
the principal weapon system of ground-force tank and other armoured formations.
Battle tanks are tracked armoured fighting vehicles which weigh at least 16.5
metric tonnes unladen weight and which are armed with a 360-degree traverse gun
of at least 75 millimetres calibre. In addition, any wheeled armoured fighting
vehicles entering into service which meet all the other criteria stated above
shall also be deemed battle tanks.
(D) The term “armoured combat vehicle”means a self-propelled vehicle with
armoured protection and cross- country capability. Armoured combat vehicles
include armoured personnel carriers, armoured infantry fighting vehicles and
heavy armament combat vehicles.
The term “armoured personnel carrier”means an armoured combat vehicle which
is designed and equipped to transport a combat infantry squad and which, as a
rule, is armed with an integral or organic weapon of less than 20 millimetres
calibre.
The term “armoured infantry fighting vehicle”means an armoured combat
vehicle which is designed and equipped primarily to transport a combat infantry
squad, which normally provides the capability for the troops to deliver fire
from inside the vehicle under armoured protection, and which is armed with an
integral or organic cannon of at least 20 millimetres calibre and sometimes an
antitank missile launcher. Armoured infantry fighting vehicles serve as the
principal weapon system of armoured infantry or mechanised infantry or motorised
infantry formations and units of ground forces.
The term “heavy armament combat vehicle”means an armoured combat vehicle
with an integral or organic direct fire gun of at least 75 millimetres calibre,
weighing at least 6.0 metric tonnes unladen weight, which does not fall within
the definitions of an armoured personnel carrier, or an armoured infantry
fighting vehicle or a battle tank.
(E) The term “unladen weight”means the weight of a vehicle excluding the
weight of ammunition; fuel, oil and lubricants; removable reactive armour; spare
parts, tools and accessories; removable snorkelling equipment; and crew and
their personal kit.
(F) The term “artillery” means large calibre systems capable of engaging
ground targets by delivering primarily indirect fire. Such artillery systems
provide the essential indirect fire support to combined arms formations.
Large calibre artillery systems are guns, howitzers, artillery pieces
combining the characteristics of guns and howitzers, mortars and multiple launch
rocket systems with a calibre of 100 millimetres and above. In addition, any
future large calibre direct fire system which has a secondary effective indirect
fire capability shall be counted against the artillery ceilings.
(G) The term “stationed conventional armed forces”means conventional armed
forces of a State Party that are stationed within the area of application on the
territory of another State Party.
(H) The term “designated permanent storage site”means a place with a
clearly defined physical boundary containing conventional armaments and
equipment limited by the Treaty, which are counted within overall ceilings but
which are not subject to limitations on conventional armaments and equipment
limited by the Treaty in active units.
(I) The term “armoured vehicle launched bridge”means a self-propelled
armoured transporter-launcher vehicle capable of carrying and, through built-in
mechanisms, of emplacing and retrieving a bridge structure. Such a vehicle with
a bridge structure operates as an integrated system.
(J) The term “conventional armaments and equipment limited by the Treaty”
means battle tanks, armoured combat vehicles, artillery, combat aircraft and
attack helicopters subject to the numerical limitations set forth in Articles
IV, V and VI.
(K) The term “combat aircraft”means a fixed-wing or variable-geometry wing
aircraft armed and equipped to engage targets by employing guided missiles,
unguided rockets, bombs, guns, cannons, or other weapons of destruction, as well
as any model or version of such an aircraft which performs other military
functions such as reconnaissance or electronic warfare. The term “combat
aircraft”does not include primary trainer aircraft.
(L) The term “combat helicopter”means a rotary wing aircraft armed and
equipped to engage targets or equipped to perform other military functions. The
term “combat helicopter”comprises attack helicopters and combat support
helicopters. The term “combat helicopter”does not include unarmed transport
helicopters.
(M) The term “attack helicopter”means a combat helicopter equipped to
employ anti-armour, air-to-ground, or air-to-air guided weapons and equipped
with an integrated fire control and aiming system for these weapons. The term
“attack helicopter”comprises specialised attack helicopters and multi-purpose
attack helicopters.
(N) The term “specialised attack helicopter”means an attack helicopter that
is designed primarily to employ guided weapons.
(O) The term “multi-purpose attack helicopter”means an attack helicopter
designed to perform multiple military functions and equipped to employ guided
weapons.
(P) The term “combat support helicopter”means a combat helicopter which
does not fulfill the requirements to qualify as an attack helicopter and which
may be equipped with a variety of self-defence and area suppression weapons,
such as guns, cannons and unguided rockets, bombs or cluster bombs, or which may
be equipped to perform other military functions.
(Q) The term “conventional armaments and equipment subject to the Treaty”
means battle tanks, armoured combat vehicles, artillery, combat aircraft,
primary trainer aircraft, unarmed trainer aircraft, combat helicopters, unarmed
transport helicopters, armoured vehicle launched bridges, armoured personnel
carrier look-alikes and armoured infantry fighting vehicle look-alikes subject
to information exchange in accordance with the Protocol on Information Exchange.
(R) The term “in service,”as it applies to conventional armed forces and
conventional armaments and equipment, means battle tanks, armoured combat
vehicles, artillery, combat aircraft, primary trainer aircraft, unarmed trainer
aircraft, combat helicopters, unarmed transport helicopters, armoured vehicle
launched bridges, armoured personnel carrier look-alikes and armoured infantry
fighting vehicle look-alikes that are within the area of application, except for
those that are held by organisations designed and structured to perform in
peacetime internal security functions or that meet any of the exceptions set
forth in Article III.
(S) The terms “armoured personnel carrier look-alike”and “armoured
infantry fighting vehicle look-alike”mean an armoured vehicle based on the same
chassis as, and externally similar to, an armoured personnel carrier or armoured
infantry fighting vehicle, respectively, which does not have a cannon or gun of
20 millimetres calibre or greater and which has been constructed or modified in
such a way as not to permit the transportation of a combat infantry squad.
Taking into account the provisions of the Geneva Convention “For the
Amelioration of the Conditions of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the
Field”of 12 August 1949 that confer a special status on ambulances, armoured
personnel carrier ambulances shall not be deemed armoured combat vehicles or
armoured personnel carrier look-alikes.
(T) The term “reduction site”means a clearly designated location where the
reduction of conventional armaments and equipment limited by the Treaty in
accordance with Article VIII takes place.
(U) The term “reduction liability” means the number in each category of
conventional armaments and equipment limited by the Treaty that a State Party
commits itself to reduce during the period of 40 months following the entry into
force of this Treaty in order to ensure compliance with Article VII.
2. Existing types of conventional armaments and equipment subject to the
Treaty are listed in the Protocol on Existing Types. The lists of existing
types shall be periodically updated in accordance with Article XVI, paragraph 2,
subparagraph (D) and Section IV of the Protocol on Existing Types. Such updates
to the existing types lists shall not be deemed amendments to this Treaty.
3. The existing types of combat helicopters listed in the Protocol on
Existing Types shall be categorised in accordance with Section I of the Protocol
on Helicopter Recategorisation.
Conclusion
Notes
See Also
References and Further Reading
About the Author/s and Reviewer/s
Author: international
Mentioned in these Entries
Conventions: Chronological Index 1971-1990, Disarmament conventions, Rules of Warfare, Arms Control conventions, Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe 2, Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe 3, Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe 4, Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe 5, Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe 6, Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe 7, country.
Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe in 2011
United States views on international law (based on the document “Digest of U.S. Practice in International Law”): In August of 2011, the Department of State submitted its report to Congress on compliance with the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (“CFE”) for the period December 1, 2009 to November 30, 2010. The report is available at (internet link) state.gov/t/avc/rls/rpt/170445.htm. The report identified the following countries for which the President was not able to certify compliance with the CFE and related documents: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine. The report described compliance issues in those countries and U.S. responses and provided an assessment of the significance and security risks of compliance concerns.
On November 22, 2011, the United States announced that it would cease carrying out certain of its obligations under the CFE Treaty relating to Russia. A November 22 press statement explained:
This announcement in the CFE Treaty’s implementation group comes after the United States and NATO Allies have tried over the past 4 years to find a diplomatic solution following Russia’s decision in 2007 to cease implementation with respect to all other 29 CFE States. Since then, Russia has refused to accept inspections and ceased to provide information to other CFE Treaty parties on its military forces as required by the Treaty.
November 22, 2011 press statement, available at (internet link) state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2011/11/177630.htm. For background on Russia’s decision to suspend its observance of the CFE Treaty in 2007, see this world legal encyclopedia in relation with the year 2007 at 1001-02. The November 22, 2011 press statement confirmed that the United States remained committed to implementing the CFE Treaty with all parties other than Russia. In addition, the statement reported that the United States would voluntarily inform Russia of any significant changes in its force posture in Europe in order “to increase transparency and consistent with the U.S. longstanding effort to promote stability and build confidence in Europe.”
Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe and Treaty on Open Skies in 2013
United States views on international law [1] in relation to Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe and Treaty on Open Skies: On June 20, 2013, Greg Delawie, Deputy Assistant U.S. Secretary of State in the Bureau of Arms Control, Verification and Compliance, delivered remarks on enhancing security cooperation in Europe in which he discussed both the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe and the Treaty on Open Skies. Mr. Delawie’s remarks are available at (Secretary of State website) state.gov/t/avc/rls/2013/211055.htm and are excerpted below.
Some Aspects of Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe and Treaty on Open Skies
…[L]et’s consider how the existing three-pillared conventional arms control regime contributes to our European security architecture. The Open Skies Treaty, the Vienna Document’s CSBMs, and the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe, provide a foundation for stability in our strategic relationships. Each regime is important and contributes to security and stability in a unique way and, when working in harmony, they result in greater confidence for all of Europe. Unfortunately, they are not currently working in harmony.
Developments
First, I want to touch on the Open Skies Treaty, which provides a historic level of openness and transparency regarding military forces and activities. In the more than ten years since the Treaty’s entry into force, States Parties have flown nearly 1,000 observation flights, enhancing confidence and providing significant insight into the security situation in Europe. These flights also provide valuable opportunities for our governments—in most cases, our military personnel—to regularly and effectively work together.
Details
One of the challenges we face for the continued success of the Treaty is the future availability of resources. The Treaty will only be as good as the States Parties make it, and we cannot ensure its effectiveness with old aircraft and sensors. For its part, the United States has committed to transition from the use of film-based cameras to digital sensors. We urge all parties to redouble their efforts to modernize the Treaty to allow for the use of these new sensors and ensure sufficient assets for future operations.
More
We will need to continue to think creatively in order to advance European security in the current fiscal environment bearing in mind the reality of budgetary constraints in the United States and across Europe. For example, the Open Skies Consultative Commission began discussing the possibility of sharing aircraft, sensors, and media processing, and considered the idea of a working group to focus on this topic. It seems clear to us that the potential to share Open Skies assets among States Parties is underutilized and we would like to see the OSCC reengage on this important topic.
More
We cannot address the importance of modernizing the Open Skies Treaty without also addressing the procedural impasse in its Consultative Commission. Unfortunately, specific national political interests have introduced a significant roadblock to the functioning of the OSCC by preventing timely and effective decision-making. It is not in the interest of any State Party, nor is it in the interest of improving European security, for the work of the OSCC to be held hostage in this way. We should all insist on a higher standard for the Treaty. No State Party should make procedural demands that compromise its international legal commitments and obligations when any correction to the underlying dispute or issue is outside the mandate and control of the Treaty’s mechanisms. The United States will work with our Treaty partners to find a long-term solution that will allow the OSCC to get back to business. This situation must be resolved in order to prevent negative effects in other European security fora.
Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe and Treaty on Open Skies in 2013 (Continuation)
United States views on international law [1] in relation to Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe and Treaty on Open Skies: I now turn to the Vienna Document, which also plays a vital role in European security. It provides insights into military activities and equipment holdings for confidence and security building purposes. This set of politically binding measures has contributed immeasurably to Europe-wide military transparency and reassurance. In addition, the Vienna Document can serve as a useful template for other regions where nations look to build confidence regarding the military intentions of their neighbors.
More about Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe and Treaty on Open Skies
To ensure the continued relevance of the Vienna Document, both to Europe and to other regions, we need to modernize it with two goals in mind: strengthen existing provisions and ensure the Document remains relevant to current security challenges. Looking at existing provisions, we believe there are ways to enhance key components of the Vienna Document – such as enhancing inspection opportunities – so as not to impose unreasonable expenses on participating States. In the face of today’s security challenges, changes such as lowering thresholds for notification of military activities would bring the document into line with today’s smaller military forces. We call on all our OSCE partners to engage seriously on efforts to take these vital steps to modernize and recalibrate the Vienna Document for the 21st Century.
Development
We also have the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe, with its system of equipment limits, information exchange, and verification. Since its entry into force, more than 72,000 pieces of Cold War military equipment – tanks, armored combat vehicles, artillery, combat aircraft, and attack helicopters – have been eliminated. Under CFE, thousands of inspections have taken place at military sites all over Europe, dramatically increasing confidence and military transparency on the continent by providing a means to verify the information provided in data exchanges. It is important to recognize that CFE and the Vienna Document are complementary, not interchangeable. Each was designed with a specific purpose and makes a separate and distinct contribution to overall stability in Europe.
Details
The U.S. Government believes that the security provided by the CFE Treaty is too important to ignore. CFE has been an important pillar for European security as a whole and remains important to the United States. But we are at a difficult crossroads. Russia ceased implementation of its CFE obligations in December 2007 and, in late 2011, the United States, along with 23 other countries, ceased carrying out certain obligations under the CFE Treaty with regard to Russia. We continue to implement the Treaty in full with respect to all the other CFE states, even as we explore how to modernize the conventional regime.
More
Future of Conventional Arms Control
Conventional arms control has contributed substantially to stability and security in Europe. We believe it has a role to play in building trust and confidence for the future as well. NATO’s 2012 Chicago Summit communique confirmed the importance all Allies attach to conventional arms control:
“Allies are determined to preserve, strengthen and modernize the conventional arms control regime in Europe, based on key principles and commitments, and continue to explore ideas to this end.”
Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe
In relation to the international law practice and Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe in this world legal Encyclopedia, please see the following section:
Foreign Relations
About this subject:
Act of State and Political Question Doctrines
. Note: there is detailed information and resources, in relation with these topics during the year 2011, covered by the entry, in this law Encyclopedia, about Transpacific Passenger Air Transportation Antitrust Litigation
Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe
In relation to the international law practice and treaty on conventional armed forces in europe and treaty on open skies in this world legal Encyclopedia, please see the following section:
Arms Control, Disarmament, and Nonproliferation
Note: there is detailed information and resources under these topics during the year 2013, covered by this entry on treaty on conventional armed forces in europe and treaty on open skies in this law Encyclopedia.
Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe
Embracing mainstream international law, this section on treaty on conventional armed forces in europe explores the context, history and effect of the area of the law covered here.
Resources
See Also
- Use Of Force
- Arms Control
- Disarmament
- Nonproliferation
Resources
Further Reading
- The entry “conventional armed forces in europe, treaty on” in the Parry and Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law (currently, the Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law, 2009), Oxford University Press
Resources
Notes
- Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe and Treaty on Open Skies in the Digest of United States Practice in International Law
Resources
Notes
- Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe and Treaty on Open Skies in the Digest of United States Practice in International Law