Expert Group Meeting on ‘information gathering and analysis of firearm regulations’ report
United Nations
Vienna International Centre, Vienna, Austria
10-14 February 1997
Table of Contents
ANNEX I - List of participantsANNEX IV - List of responding countries
ANNEX V - Conclusions drawn from the Survey
ANNEX VII - Observations on the revisions of the questionnaire
Date and Venue
1. The Expert Group Meeting on "Information Gathering and Analysis of Firearm
Regulations" was convened at the Vienna International Centre, from 10 to 14
February 1997, in pursuance of ECOSOC resolutions 1995/27, section IV. A.
and 1996/28.
Attendance and Agenda
2. The list of participants
and Agenda are contained in Annex I and II.
Documentation
3. The list of documents
is attached as Annex III.
Opening of the Meeting
4. The Meeting was opened by Mr Eduardo Vetere, Officer-in-Charge, Crime Prevention
and Criminal Justice Division, United Nations Office at Vienna, who welcomed
the participants and reviewed the legislative and substantive background which
led to the initiation of the firearm regulation project and to the present
meeting. In highlighting the importance of the question of firearm regulation,
he referred to the 1995 Report on "Agenda for Peace", stating that the world
was "awash with [small arms], and the traffic in them is very difficult
to monitor, let alone intercept. The causes are many: the earlier supply of
weapons to client States by the parties of the cold war, internal conflicts,
competition for commercial markets, criminal activity and the collapse of
governmental law and order functions". He further referred to resolution 9
of the Ninth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment
of Offenders (Cairo, Egypt, 29 April-8 May 1995) on the subject of "Firearms
regulation for purposes of crime prevention and public safety", Economic and
Social Council (ECOSOC) resolution 1995/27, section IV. A, and ECOSOC resolution
1996/28 adopted on the recommendation of the Commission on Crime Prevention
and Criminal Justice at its fourth meeting (Vienna, 30 May-8June 1995) and
fifth (Vienna, 21-31 May 1996). In the context of these resolutions, he outlined
the objectives and methodology of the project as well as the progress with
respect to its implementation. In this context, the Officer-in-Charge underlined
that the report of the Secretary-General to the Commission would contain the
officially edited text of the recommendations of the Expert Group Meeting.
5. He noted that a number of intergovernmental organizations were interested in the question of firearms regulation and related United Nations work, including for example, the P-8 Law Enforcement Conference on Illicit Traffic in Firearms (Tokyo, Japan, 12-14 November 1996) which adopted a Joint Statement, expressing support for the united Nations Study on Firearm Regulation, and Interpol's 4th International Symposium on Firearms and Explosives (Lyon, France, 20-22 November 1996). Further, the Inter-American Drug Abuse Control Commission (CICAD) of the Organization of American States (OAS), especially the Meeting of the Group of Experts on the Control of Arms and Explosives Related to Drug Trafficking (21-24 May 1996, Caracas, Venezuela), discussed a number of important initiatives in this area. In the context of the Latin America, the Officer-in-Charge referred to the "Draft of regional agreement for mutual legal assistance with respect to illegal trafficking in weapons" of the Central American Security Commission. Various non-governmental organizations active in the field of firearms regulation have contacted the Division for cooperation and exchange of information on the issue of firearm regulation. It was reported that the United Nations Centre for Disarmament Affairs (UNCDA) and United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR) had kept the Division informed on the progress made in disarmament affairs, especially on the progress of the "Panel of Governmental Experts on Small Arms" (General Assembly resolution 50/70 B). Finally, the Officer-in-Charge emphasized the valuable contributions of the Government of Japan which provided extra-budgetary funds to implement the project, to the Government of Canada for providing the services of the Project Coordinator and a research expert, to the Government of Australia, which recently announced a financial contribution to the project, and all those Governments and experts who had so far contributed to the study.
Election of Officers
6. The Meeting elected by acclamation Mr James Hayes (Canada) as its Chairman,
Mr Goro Aoki (Japan), Mr Jos‚ Moacir Favetti (Brazil) and Mr Boris V
Martazin (Russian Federation) as its Vice-Chairman, and Mr Solomon Samuel
Jerz (Zambia) as its Rapporteur.
7. In thanking the participants for his appointment, the Chairman, who also acts
as the Project Coordinator, noted that the expert group meeting would aim
to obtain four results:
(a) Providing guidance
on the finalization of the report on the United Nations International Study
on Firearm Regulation, to be published in 1997;
(b) Providing guidance
on the finalization of the Executive Summary of the Report on the United Nations
International Study on Firearm Regulation, which would be included in the
Report of the Secretary-General on "Measures to regulate firearms", to the
sixth session of the Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice (E/CN.15/1997/4);
(c) Agree on policy recommendations
which should be a part of the report (E/CN.15/1997/4); and
(d) Provide comments for
the revisions of the survey questionnaire of the Study.
8. The meeting agreed to establish four working groups to consider the items noted above, reporting to the plenary of the meeting.
9. The Chairman further emphasized that the two reports (a) and (b) should be purely descriptive and neutral, while draft policy related observations and recommendations should assist the Secretariat in proposing to the Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice courses of action in further implementing the study, both logistically and substantively. In the interest of maintaining continuity, he also noted that each working group would be assisted by individuals who were in the original project team.
10. The Chairman observed that the project would be further advanced by the convening of regional workshops for the law enforcement community in 1997. Finally, he outlined the difference between the mandates of the Panel of Governmental Experts on "Small Arms" for military-owned small arms and the present Firearm Regulation Project for civilian-owned firearms. He joined the Officer-in-Charge of the Division in his appreciation of Japanese Government for its original initiative and financial support for this project.
11. At the invitation of the Chairman, the meeting was addressed by Mr Tadanori Inomata (Japan), Chairman of the Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice. He emphasized that the Commission was looking forward to receiving the advice of the expert group on the implementation of the firearms regulation project, as presented in the report of the Secretary-General to the Commission. He observed that the project enjoyed the support of Member States of the Commission. Due to the transnational nature of crime, including illicit traffic in firearms, stability and security of communities are threatened. Therefore, he noted that firearms regulation may play a critical role in addressing ensuing issues. Finally, the Chairman of the Commission wished every success to the expert group in its important work.
Summary of the Discussion
12. The meeting felt that the question of firearms regulation has several local,
global and national implications. Among suggestions made, participants noted
that the study should be expanded to address the question
of explosives used by civilians for criminal purposes.
13. The meeting further observed that adequate consideration should be given to the use of military firearms which enter the civilian market and hinder post-conflict reconstruction of society. In some situations, there might be a difficult relationship between the military and the civilian sectors of the government, especially police. Some participants referred to massacres of the civilian population which prompted their governments to legislate more strict firearm regulation. Other participants mentioned that firearms enter the civilian market with the refugee population thus undermining stability and security in the nation.
14. The meeting noted a fading distinction between internal and international conflict. It was observed that both situations helped the proliferation of firearms amongst civilian population. In this context, unemployed youths become amenable to illegal opportunities to earn money. These activities often involve the use of firearms. As long as there is no legitimate role for those youth, the unofficial economy may attract them.
15. The meeting felt the need to consider how the supply and demand for firearms can be more effectively addressed by the governments. Preventative education, legislative initiatives, and the exchange of information among concerned countries were listed for such consideration, among other items to be further discussed at the working groups level.
16. The meeting emphasized that there were, however, many legitimate uses of firearms by civilian population, including their use for hunting and sporting purposes. Its participants, felt that insufficient attention was given to the proper training of the civilians in the use of firearms. It was reported that, in cases where authorities were alarmed by abundance of availability of arms amongst civilians, "buy-back" programmes were initiated and amnesties were offered to those civilians who returned the firearms within certain legally prescribed periods.
A. Presentation of Study
17. It was noted that the study was designed to gather information on a number of topics within the general framework of 'civilian firearms'. The study was neutral in intent. The
study was exploratory in that it attempted to determine the availability of
information and the extent of government's ability to address wide-ranging
issues. It was also indicated that the report had been done in a short time,
that some responses had not yet been received and that every effort would
be made to include additional information in a revised version of the report.
Furthermore, a validation process would be undertaken to improve and clarify
some responses.
18. The report was reviewed section by section, corresponding to a set of overhead images. Responses to questions were presented in clustered form with country names designated in each chart. This allowed the participants to make a comparative assessment of the data provided.
19. Much of the discussion focused on ways and means of improving and clarifying the survey instrument in the event that a second wave of the survey is administered. The distinction between 'prohibition' and 'restriction' was clarified. The meeting agreed, that, semantic issues aside, it seemed apparent that most countries employ some means of restricting the ownership of firearms. One participant suggested the use of the term 'limitation' rather than restriction. The definition of 'long guns' versus 'hand guns' was also discussed. Some speakers suggested the use of millimeter lengths as the determining characteristic.
20. Discussion was also focused on 'domestic violence'. One participant noted that this term is relatively new in his country and so data availability was limited. Others noted that the term might connote 'violence within nations or domestic borders'. Similarly, the term 'private security' could be confusing. Although intended to address employment in a private security firm, it was noted that 'protection of person' could be deduced from the phrase.
21. The Chairman invited the participants to offer suggested changes to the text and indicated that a revised report would incorporate these changes. One speaker agreed that the meeting ought to feel comfortable providing revision to the text. However, he noted the importance of putting aside minor details in presentation of data and, instead, suggested the meeting should focus on the themes, patterns and conclusions to be drawn from the exercise. Particularly, the survey results should be used to advise the Commission on a future course of action. Finally, many speakers noted a desire of their countries to learn from the experiences of others and that the study was a mechanism to that end.
B. The Results of the Macro-Analysis
22. The Chairman requested presentation of macro-analysis of the data on firearm
regulation, as collected from various intergovernmental organizations. It
was later proposed that the macro report could be incorporated into the main
research report as an addendum.
23. Data were presented from the International Crime Victims Survey and the World Health Organization. Particular concern was voiced with regard to the results of the Victim's survey in that many of the numbers seemed well above nationally recognized levels. It was explained that many of the victims surveys were conducted in the largest city and/or capital of the participating country and so would be naturally inflated. Furthermore, they included details of incidents which were never reported to police and could not therefore be incorporated into the normal national crime statistics.
24. Before the meeting formed into four working groups, experts of two countries gave presentations of the legal and factual situation concerning the firearm regulation issues in their countries. This was followed by question and answer session.
C. Assignments of the Working Groups
25. Working Group I had the task of reviewing the draft report of the study in
order to provide an updated version that reflects the issues, criticisms and
proposals debated in the plenary. Conclusion and findings were listed - in
cooperation with Working Group II - reflecting the outcome of the survey and
the ensuing discussions in the plenary (see Annex V).
26. Working Group II, which had the task of revising the draft Executive Summary of the United Nations International Study on Firearm Regulation (see Annex VI), proceeded by incorporating the comments made during the meeting, paying particular attention to the conclusions, in close cooperation with Working Group I.
27. Due to comments made during the first days of the meeting, an additional working group, Working Group III, was created to specifically address the issue of survey instrument redesign. Limited time during the general discussion had prevented the provision of comprehensive suggestions on a redesign of the survey instrument. Working Group III accomplished its task by illustrating issues which may be of importance to the Commission, Secretariat and subsequent survey design teams. (See Annex VII).
28. Working Group IV was requested to formulate policy recommendations in the context of the results of the survey, the work of the Ninth United Nations Congress, the report submitted to the fifth session of the Commission based on views and observations received from Governments, and the expert knowledge assembled in the group. The proposed Policy Recommendations are attached as Annex VIII, with the preambular paragraphs containing general statements of fact drawn from the abovementioned components.
D. Closing of the Meeting
29. The conclusions and proposals of the working groups were fully reviewed by
the participants and adopted in the plenary at the last day of the meeting.
30. When considering the outcomes of the working groups, the meeting made some general observations which can be summarized as follows. The time constraints imposed by the workplan and the limited resources made available to conduct the study required that the Project Team make decisions to limit the scope of the data collecting effort. Further, the meeting acknowledged that the study was greatly assisted by the institutes of the Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Programme Network.
31. Referring to the policy recommendations adopted in the plenary, experts from three countries (Brazilia, India and Tanzania) registered provisional interests of their countries to host three regional training workshops on the question of firearm regulation, subject to further consultations with the Division.
32. The Chairman then asked the Rapporteur to present the draft Report of the Meeting, which was adopted by consensus, as orally amended.
33. After adoption of the report, the Officer-in-Charge of the Division expressed appreciation to the participants for their tangible and constructive input which led to the success of the meeting. He also thanked the governmental experts from Brazil, India and Tanzania for their preliminary offers to host the regional workshops on firearm regulation. Thanks were expressed to the Chairman/Project Coordinator for his competent and unfailing expert input to the work of the entire firearm regulation project, including the leadership provided during the meeting.
34. In concluding, the Officer-in-Charge referred to the Secretary-General's recent address to the Conference on Disarmament on 30 January 1997: "The increases in local and regional conflicts since the end of the Cold War have made the issue of conventional weapons an urgent and important one. These are the weapons which are actually killing combatants and civilians in the tens of thousands every year. We know just how helpless the international community can be when massive amounts of conventional arms are allowed to accumulate, legally and illegally within States. Of course, weapons in themselves, do not cause war. But an excess of arms breeds the suspicion and mistrust that can heighten tensions and lead to violent conflict."
35. In closing the meeting, the Chairman thanked the participants for a very concrete and productive discussion which contributed to the adoption of practical conclusions and recommendations for inclusion in the report of the Secretary-General to the sixth session of the Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice. The Chairman reviewed the work progress of the expert group over the previous 14 month period. In reflecting, he expressed the feeling that the contribution that the project team had made in response to the request of Member States was significant. He stated that concern for civility was at the core of the work of this project. The Chairman stated that his country had recently learned much from the experience of other countries in the field of firearm regulation. However, he noted that significant funds spent in the preparation of new legislation in this area would have been more efficiently spent had the Government been aware of the results of the study. Bilateral and multilateral exchanges of information represent viable examples for his and other countries to follow.
Home > Research archive > 1997 > Expert Group Meeting on ‘information gathering and analysis of firearm regulations’ report