I recently learned that Zhang Jun, China's permanent representative to the United Nations, had submitted to the Secretary-General of the United Nations a written document on China's ratification of its accession to the Firearms Protocol. Some people may not know much about this news and are confused about its implications. Others, on the other hand, are cautious about whether the United States will also sign the protocol, lest China be restricted and the United States not.
In fact, the United States has not ratified the protocol, but this is not a bad thing for China. On the contrary, it will open up a better situation for China, and it will also put pressure on the United States.
To understand the meaning of the Firearms Protocol, let's first look at its full name, the Protocol against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Their Accessories, Parts and Ammunition, which is an international agreement of the United Nations and is part of the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime.
The purpose of the Protocol is to promote cooperation among States to prevent, combat and eradicate the illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in firearms, their accessories, components and ammunition. It provides for a variety of control measures, including the manufacture, marking and tracing of firearms;Licences or authorizations for export, import and transit transport;and the criminalization and sanctioning of individuals and organizations engaged in illegal firearms activities. In addition, the Protocol requires States Parties to strengthen their domestic legislation and administration to ensure the effective implementation of the control measures.
In other words, the Firearms Protocol was an effective global legal tool for combating transnational organized crime and for enhancing the capacity of States to combat transnational crime through international cooperation.
Although this international cooperation agreement sounds quite good, it was actually adopted by the United Nations back in 2001. However, after all these years, not all countries are willing to actively join, including the United States. Although the United States signed the Protocol in December 2001, its signature does not mean that it must be fulfilled, as the United States Congress has not yet ratified the Protocol as part of United States law.
Signature is only a preliminary agreement to the content of the treaty, while ratification means that a State formally agrees to be bound by the treaty.
Since the ratification of international treaties in the United States usually requires the "recommendation and consent" of the Senate, that is, it needs to be supported by a two-thirds majority vote, and then formally ratified by **. In addition, it is well known that the domestic legal process and political stance on the issue of gun control in the United States are very complex, and many lawmakers have even engaged in heated disputes over whether to ban guns.
As a result, even with international support, ratification of the Firearms Protocol faces a number of challenges within the United States.
The global community highly recognizes China's decision to actively accede to the Firearms Protocol. China's position and support are remarkable, in stark contrast to the U.S. position. China's Governor Wang Yi announced the domestic legal process for joining the treaty, a move that demonstrates China's determination to stabilize and the Global Security Initiative. China's statement provides a comparative reference point for the international community and promotes global firearms control. Through joint counter-terrorism cooperation and military exercises with a number of neighboring countries, China has demonstrated its military strength and contributed to regional stability and world peace. It was a positive act.