JavaScript Menu, DHTML Menu Powered By Milonic

25th Anniversary

Nuclear Proliferation

Middle East: Israel, Iran

South Asia: India, Pakistan

NE Asia: DPRK, ROC, Japan

Nuclear Forces

USA Russia UK France China

Nuclear Treaties

Non-Proliferation Treaty NPT

Fissile Material Limits

Comprehensive Test Ban CTBT


Strategic Offensive Reduction Treaty SORT

Global Nuclear Disarmament


Preventing Weapons in Space

Space Weapon Systems


Missile Proliferation

Missile Tech Control Regime MTCR

Missile Defense Programs

Missile Defense Systems

Other WMD

Chemical Weapon Ban

Biological Weapon Ban

Radiological Weapons

Conventional Armaments

Arms Production & Trade

Arms Holdings & Forces

Ban on Landmines

Small Arms & Light Weapons

Security Institutions

UN Disarmament Bodies

OSCE, Forum on Security

NATO, European Union EU


Peace-Building Tools

Cultures of Peace

Confidence-Building Defense

Global Action to Prevent War

International Negotiations

Nonviolent Action, Defense, Intervention, Conflict Resolution

Transparency, Confidence-Building Measures CBMs



Public Education




About IDDS



Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe CFE


CFE: Treaty On Conventional Armed Forces In Europe
Negotiations: Began 6 March 1989.
Signed: 19 November 1990.
Provisionally entered into force: 17 July 1992.
Legally entered into force: 9 November 1992.

CFE 1A: The Concluding Act Of The Negotiation On Personnel Strength Of Conventional Armed Forces In Europe
Negotiations: Began 26 November 1990. Signed: 10 July 1992. Entered into force: 17 July 1992.

CFE Adaptation Agreement
Final Negotiations: 17–18 November 1999.
Signed: 19 November 1999.
Entered into force: Pending

At the CFE Review Conference of May 1996, France and Russia proposed adapting the treaty to the post-Cold War security environment, with individual national ceilings replacing the bloc limits imposed by the original CFE Treaty. Some countries also wanted to add more parties, add new equipment categories, and lower TLE ceilings. {15-31.5}

In the autumn of 1996, the CFE Treaty’s Joint Consultative Group (JCG) reviewed suggestions from NATO and Russia for possible modifications to the CFE Treaty {8.10}. In December 1996, the JCG completed a document on the Scope and Parameters of CFE adaptation that called for “specific adaptations for specific purposes” {1.12}. While preserving the existing TLE, area of application, and types of verification, negotiations were to redefine the provisions relating to group and zonal structures, stationing of troops, weapon coverage, and membership expansion.

The JCG began negotiations on CFE adaptation on 20 January 1997 and reached agreement upon “certain basic elements for treaty adaptation” on 23 July 1997 {ACR 407dCFE97 23.7}. Under the agreed framework for adaptation, the JCG would negotiate new individual national and territorial ceilings to replace the old group and zonal ceilings. The JCG began these negotiations on 18 September 1997. The JCG made little progress in 1998 {ACR 407bCFE98 30.6} and some observers thought the talks might fail {ACR 407bCFE98 1.9}. But they continued successfully in 1999. {ACR 407bCFE99 2.5}

On 11 November 1999, the parties to the CFE Treaty met in Istanbul to finalize the Adaptation Agreement. The adopted the Agreement on Adaptation of the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe on 19 November. The changes replaced the limits previously defined with respect to blocs (NATO and WTO) and zones with ceilings for each member country. It eliminated the “flank” zones; and it provided means for accession to the Treaty by opening membership to all OSCE members. On 19 July 2004, Russian President Vladimir Putin signed legislation ratifying the Adapted CFE Treaty, which sets out limits on the number of troops and armaments deployed across Europe, and the foreign ministry called on other CFE signatories to the pact to ratify it immediately. Out of the 30 signatory states, including Russia, Belarus, Ukraine, and Kazakhstan, only a handful have ratified the amended CFE Treaty as of 2005.
Linked OSCE-NATO-CFE Adaptation issues. Ratification of the Adaptation Agreement has been delayed due in part to independence-minded Russian-speaking citizens in Georgia and Moldova, whose activities have delayed the withdrawal of Russian bases and military equipment from those countries as promised by Russia at the 1999 Istanbul summit. Though Russian military withdrawal is not legally required under the terms of any existing treaty, it has been repeatedly demanded by Georgia and Moldova and most CFE countries have made it a pre-condition for their ratification the Adaptation Agreement. The delay in ratification, in turn, poses a problem for Russia in connection with the NATO expansion. On 2 April 2004, NATO formally added seven new European members: Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia {ACR 402bEUR04 17.3, 2.4}. The new members are expected to accede to the CFE Treaty, which would prohibit a large build-up of foreign NATO armed forces on their territory. But since the original CFE Treaty is not open for accession, their joining the CFE awaits ratification of the Adapted Agreement, which does have provisions for accession. Russia has repeatedly expressed great concern about the window that has been created for a substantial NATO military build-up on its borders in the three Baltic states (Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia).


(XI, on armored vehicle launch bridges, deleted altogether):

IV.1. ATTU-wide: subceiling shall be equal to national ceiling unless otherwise specified.
IV.2. State parties control and account for all armaments limited by the Treaty.
IV.3. Each state may change its national ceiling and subceiling as follows:
a). The increase of one subceiling must be accompanied by a decrease of
b) Each state may decrease its ceiling or subceilings unilaterally.
IV.4. Within a five year period, a state may increase its ceilings as follows:
a) No more than 40 tanks, 60 ACVs, 20 artillery or 20 percent of established national ceiling.
b) No more than 30 combat aircraft and 25 attack helicopters.
IV.5. A state must give 90 days notice if intending to change national ceilings.
IV.6. An increase in subceiling must be accompanied by a decrease in alternate subceiling.

V.1. Flank limits: numbers must not exceed Treaty established limits
V.2. Forces for UN Security Council and OSCE operations are exempt.
V.3. Forces in transit are exempt.

VII.1. Each state may temporarily exceed its limits for military exercises and temporary deployments.
VII.2. If a military exercise and temporary deployment should cause a territorial ceiling to be exceeded by more than 153 tanks, 241 ACVs or 140 artillery, any state may call a conference.

VIII.1. Reductions by means of destruction, recategorisation, or reclassification.
VIII.4. Each State may designate as many reduction sites as it wishes with a maximum of 20.
VIII.5. All subject to on-site inspection without limit or right of refusal.

After rendering incapable of combat, not counted against ceilings. Decommissioned conventional armaments shall not exceed one percent of its national conventional holdings


Any member of the OSCE may request to accede and must include its existing types of armament and its proposed national ceilings.

Introduction. On 19 November 1990 the 16 members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the 6 members of the Warsaw Treaty Organization (WTO, also called the Warsaw Pact) signed the CFE Treaty. The treaty limited the total holdings of each group (NATO and WTO) in Europe west of the Urals in five categories of weapons: tanks, armored combat vehicles (ACVs), artillery, combat aircraft, and attack helicopters. The treaty also divided the areas of application (see below) into 5 zones and set sub-limits, known as the flank limits, for the amount of treaty-limited equipment (TLE) which could be placed within each zone.

Each group (NATO and WTO) agreed on national allocations to meet the overall reductions for its respective group of states (see below for allocations). Both groups reduced below their ceilings within the deadline, but by December 1998, Azerbaijan had not reduced to its national allocation ceilings {1.1.99}.

In November of 1999, the Treaty Parties met in Istanbul and signed the Agreement on Adaptation of the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe. The agreement instituted new reductions in armament and troop levels and eliminated zone ceilings in favor of national ceilings. In June 2001, another Review Conference was held in Vienna. However, no progress could be made in regard to the Agreement on Adaptation. Many state parties have declared that “ratification will be possible only in the context of compliance with agreed levels of armaments and equipment.”

The flank amendments. Soon after the treaty entered into force, Russia found itself handicapped by the flank limits for its North Caucasus military district. At that time Russia faced a secessionist movement in its Chechen republic as well as civil and ethnic wars in neighboring Georgia, Azerbaijan, and Armenia. In September 1993, Russia proposed that the flank limits be bypassed by suspending the sublimits under Article V. {28.9}

Supported by Ukraine, which was also burdened by the flank limits, Russia pursued the issue and declined to abide by the flank limits, although it met its overall ceilings. On 17 November 1995, the Joint Consultative Group (JCG), the body set up to oversee the treaty, agreed to seek a solution through a new definition of the flank, new TLE limits, and a new timetable for reduction.

At the May 1996 Review Conference, the parties adopted the Flank Document, in which they agreed to shrink the flank areas, raise the limits, and give Russia until 1999 to meet the new limits. The parties also shrank Ukraine’s flank district {15-31.5}. After surmounting difficulties in Congress, the United States ratified the flank agreement just in time for it to go into effect on 15 May 1997 {25.3, 14.5, 15.5}.

In 1998, NATO made a proposal in the JCG for reconciling the flank regime with an adapted treaty {31.3.98}. Russia sought the right to temporarily store TLE in its flank areas for repair work, arguing that it was impractical to transport the equipment to distant Siberian facilities. {20.1; 6.5}

CFE 1A. On 10 July 1992, the states-parties to the CFE Treaty signed a second agreement, limiting troop levels. However, they could only agree to make the second treaty, CFE 1A, politically binding. Each nation declared its own national ceiling on all land-based military personnel within the area of application, and had 40 months to reduce to that level. By 1 January 1998, all states had met their targets. Greece and Armenia had personnel levels equal to their ceilings; all other parties had personnel levels below their ceilings. {1.1}

Titles. CFE and CFE 1A have the full titles given above.

Signatories, entry into force. All 30 parties ratified the CFE Treaty {9.11.92}, signed CFE 1A {10.7.92} and the 1999 Adaptation Agreement. CFE 1A is politically but not legally binding and therefore needs no ratification {section VIII, CFE 1A text}. CFE 1A entered into force with the CFE Treaty on 17 July 1992. The Flank Document went into effect on 15 May 1997 {15.5.97}. As noted above, the CFE Adaptation Agreement has not been ratified.

Area of application and group totals. The treaty applies to the area “from the Atlantic to the Urals” (ATTU), including (Article II[1][B]) the Faeroe Islands of Denmark, Svalbard (Spitsbergen) of Norway, the Azores and Madeira of Portugal, the Canaries of Spain, and Franz Jozef Land and Novaya Zemlya of the USSR (now Russia). The “Urals line” is drawn along the Ural River and the Caspian Sea, and through Turkey to near Mersin {14.12.89, 1.11.90}.

In the original CFE Treaty, within the ATTU region, each group (NATO and WTO) was limited to 20,000 tanks, 30,000 ACVs, 20,000 artillery pieces, 6,800 combat aircraft, and 2,000 attack helicopters, in all 78,800 each or a combined total of 157,600 pieces of treaty-limited equipment (TLE). In the Adapted Agreement, group totals are replace with individual country totals.

Weapons, maximum levels, and data exchanges. The CFE Treaty limits artillery, main battle tanks, armored personnel carriers, combat aircraft, and attack helicopters. Each party was required to provide at signature its maximum levels in each category, which the original 22 parties did {18.11.90}. The eight successor states to the Soviet Union agreed on their respective maximum levels (within the mandated total for the former USSR) in 1992 {15.5}. The Treaty required signatories to supply data in these categories at signature (with corrections within 90 days thereafter), 30 days after entry into force, and on 15 December of every year thereafter, to apply on 1 January of the next year.

Procedures and Joint Consultative Group (JCG). The treaty created a Joint Consultative Group to resolve questions and disputes. Though only mandated to meet twice a year, the JCG’s workload required more frequent meetings throughout 1992-1995 {5.7.91, 23.9.92, 17.12.93}. In 1997, the JCG formed negotiating groups (the Operation and Implementation Group and the Treaty Adaptation Group) while it considered the “basic elements” of treaty adaptation {20.1}. When it began work on the new treaty text and new ceilings, the JCG formed three negotiating groups (the Negotiating Group, the Limitation Group, and the Verification Group) to deal with different aspects of its work. {18.9.97}

Verification. The Protocol on Inspections permits inspections to verify compliance with the treaty’s numerical limits and reduction of the specified categories of weapons. Inspections are permitted during the “baseline validation period” (the first 120 days following the treaty’s entry into force), the “reduction period” (the three years following the baseline validation period), the “residual level validation period” (the 120 days following the reduction period), and the “residual period” (the period following the residual level validation period.

Under the original CFE Treaty, each party must accept a number of inspections equal to 15 percent of its objects of verification (OOVs). The term OOV refers to units or organizations holding TLE. Inspections are conducted on OOVs at declared sites—military installations or facilities that could house more than one OOV. Under the CFE Adaptation, the number of inspections is equal to 20 percent of the OOV. Each party has the right to conduct inspections (the “active inspection quota,”) including five per year on a member of its own group. Each group of states allocates its quota of inspections among its member states. Each party is also obliged to receive inspections (the “passive inspection quota”). Up to 23 percent of the active quota may be used to conduct “challenge inspections” of sites where the presence of TLE is suspected. Inspections have not revealed any serious compliance problems.

History. The Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE) talks opened on 6 March 1989, with a mandate to discuss artillery, combat aircraft, attack helicopters, tanks, ACVs, and personnel. In July 1990, CFE negotiators agreed to postpone discussion of personnel limits to follow-on talks to begin immediately after CFE was signed so that the initial treaty could be concluded before the 1992 Helsinki meeting of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe meeting (see ACR 402aEUR). Until the follow-on agreement was in place, all parties agreed not to increase troop deployments {16.7.90}. The CFE Treaty was finalized in November 1990 and signed by heads of state in Paris on 19 November 1990 (see ACR 407aEUR97 for additional early history).

The CFE IA talks. On 26 November 1990, talks opened on the follow-on agreement, CFE 1A. The 22 parties (down from 23 with the creation of a united Germany) used the CFE mandate for the new talks. The agreement was signed on 10 July 1992.

CFE 1A called for each party to declare a troop ceiling incorporating all land-based military personnel in the area of application, with some exceptions {10.7.92}. Negotiators agreed that CFE 1A would be politically binding.

The dissolution of the USSR and the Warsaw Pact. The dissolution of the USSR in December 1991 and the Warsaw Pact in July 1991 raised a question about how to distribute the required USSR reductions among the successor states of the former Soviet Union (FSU). At a JCG meeting in 1991, the parties agreed that the three Baltic states (Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania) would not be among the successor states to the USSR {18.10} and therefore not CFE parties. At a 15 May 1992 summit in Tashkent, Uzbekistan, the other FSU states in the CFE’s area of application agreed on terms for the re-allocation of TLE under the CFE Treaty, removing an obstacle that had prevented other states from ratifying.

Beginning in 1991, signatories considered holding an “extraordinary conference,” as permitted by Article XXI (2), to take account of the new situation. On 10 March 1992, CFE signatories agreed to hold such a meeting on 5 June 1992 in Oslo, Norway. At that point they adopted wording changes to accommodate the dissolution of the USSR {5.6}.

On 17 July 1992, the heads of state of the signatories agreed to bring the CFE Treaty provisionally into force until a few remaining states ratified. Baseline inspections began soon after.

Entry into force, verification, and destruction of TLE. On 9 November 1992, 10 days after the final two states (Belarus and Kazakhstan) deposited their instruments of ratification, the CFE Treaty entered fully into force.

The baseline inspection phase ended 14 November 1992 and inspections to verify TLE destruction began. On 17 November 1995, the TLE destruction period ended and the residual verification period began.

By 17 November 1993, every party except Armenia and Azerbaijan had successfully met the requirement to destroy 25 percent of their TLE surplus {17.11}. By 17 November 1994, all but Armenia and Azerbaijan had met the requirement to destroy 60 percent of their TLE surplus {17.11}. By late 1995, an estimated 50,000 pieces of TLE had been destroyed. Russia accounted for one-fifth of this total. Although some former Soviet republics, such as Armenia and Azerbaijan, had failed to meet their reduction liabilities {17.11}, the parties pledged to seek full implementation of the treaty’s requirements and to continue meetings to work on compliance issues.

Review conferences. The treaty mandated a review conference 46 months after entry into force, and at five-year intervals thereafter. Meeting in Vienna in May 1996, the First Review Conference resolved the flank issue and decided to adapt the treaty after the December 1996 OSCE Lisbon summit {15(31.5.96}. In May 2001 the Second Review Conference was held in Vienna (ACR  HYPERLINK "407bCFE01.html" 407bCFE01). Since the adaptation was already completed, the conference limited its work to a “brief set of formal conclusions, noting the steps still needed to bring the adapted Treaty into force.”

Completion of destruction. By 17 November 1995, all signatory nations were to have equipment levels below their national limits. At that time, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, and Georgia had failed to meet their national requirements. Russia and Ukraine had met the national ceilings, but not the requirements for the outermost flank zone. Armenia and Georgia had reduced their holdings below their ceilings by the end of 1996 {13.12} and Belarus did so by the end of 1998 {1.1.99}. At the beginning of 1999 Azerbaijan still remained above ceilings in tanks, artillery, and ACVs {1.1}, but by the beginning of 2001, it was within the limits { HYPERLINK "407cCFE02.html" 407cCFE02}.

JCG history/flank issue. The JCG, set up provisionally (Protocol on Provisional Application), spent the first part of 1991 resolving the Article III dispute {14.6}. Later in the year it worked on the reporting formats for challenge inspections and accident reports {20.12}, as well as apportioning the costs of inspections {2.9}. In 1992, the JCG considered problems such as CIS allocation difficulties {27.4}, entry into force {9.11}, and revised inspection procedures {15.12}. In 1993, the JCG revised some equipment destruction procedures {19.4} and considered a Russian request to suspend CFE Article V’s flank limits {28.9}. The flank issue remained a major point of contention throughout 1994 and 1995, several draft compromises were tabled {15.9; 31.10}, and no agreement was reached until the 1996 Review Conference {15-31.5}. In 1997, the JCG discussed the scope and parameters of CFE adaptation and later began negotiation of new national and territorial ceilings {20.1, 31.3, 23.7, 18.9}. In 1998, the JCG considered proposals on new ceilings, but made little progress {20.1, 31.3, 23.6, 30.6, 1.9}. However, it resolved the outstanding issues during the course of 1999, permitting the signing of the Adaptation Agreement on 19 November that year.



II.1(a). “groups of states.”
II.1(b). “area of application.” ATTU including islands.
II.1(c). “battle tank.” Self-propelled armored combat vehicle capable of heavy firepower, primarily via a high-muzzle-velocity, direct-fire main gun necessary to engage armored and other targets, with high cross-country mobility and providing a high degree of self-protection.
II.1(d). “armored combat vehicle.” Includes APC, AIFV, HACV.
II.1(e). “unladen weight.”
II.1(f). “Artillery.” Indirect fire over 100 mm.
II.1(g). “stationed conventional armed forces.”
II.1(h). “designated permanent storage site.”
II.1(i). “armored vehicle launched bridge.”
II.1(j). “conventional armaments and equipment limited by the treaty.” Those items subject to the limits of Articles IV, V, VI.
II.1(k). “combat aircraft.” Does not include primary trainers.
II.1(l). “combat helicopter”
II.1(m). “attack helicopter.” Equipped to employ anti-armor or air-to-air guided weapons, with fire control and aiming system.
II.1(n). “specialized attack helicopter.”
II.1(o). “multipurpose attack helicopter.”
II.1(p). “combat support helicopter.” Does not fit definition of attack helicopter, armed with self-defense and area suppression weapons.
II.1(q). “conventional armaments and equipment subject to the Treaty.” Those items subject to information exchange under the Protocol.
II.1(r). “in service.”
II.1(s). “armored personnel carrier look-alike and armored infantry fighting vehicle look-alike.”
II.1(t). “reduction site.”
II.1(u). “reduction liability.”
II.2. Lists of existing types in Protocol on Existing Types.
II.3. Recategorization in accordance with Protocol on Helicopter Recategorization

III.1. Seven “not counted” categories: items in manufacture, R&D, historical collections, awaiting disposal, awaiting export, held by internal security functions, or in transit.
III.2. If an unusually high number of these is specified in information exchange, the possessing state shall explain in the JCG.

IV.1. ATTU-wide: {see weapon subsection E-0 18.11.90}
IV.2. Super-extended Central Zone: {those in draft outline 407.D 6.90, V.2 less Kiev}
IV.3. Extended Central Zone: {those in draft outline 407.D 6.90, V.3 plus Kiev}
IV.4. Central Zone: Benelux, Germany, Hungary, Poland, Czechoslovakia. {See numbers at 5 October 1990}
IV.5. TLEs may be located on the territory of another state in the same group.
IV.6. One state may make up low numbers of another state in the same group.

V.1 A. Flank limits {see 5 October 1990}.
V.1.B,C. Temporarily exceeding limits {box 19.11.90}.
V.2. Notice

Battle tanks 13,300
Artillery pieces 13,750
ACVs 20,000
Combat aircraft 5150
Attack helicopters 1500

VII.1. Each state to reach its individual ceiling, agreed within its group, within 40 months.
VII.2. Notice of allocation.
VII.3. Notice of change; corresponding reduction, if needed, by another state.
VII.5. Notice to included notice of maximum regional levels.
VII.6. No compensation for decrease in items under information exchange.
VII.7. Sole responsibility of each party.

VIII.1. Reductions by means of destruction, recategorisation, or reclassification.
VIII.4. Three phases: (a) first 12 months after entry into force, 25 percent; (b) second 12 months, total of 60 percent; (c) by the end of 40 months, completion.
VIII.6. Each party to announce reduction liability 30 days after entry into force.
VIII.13. All subject to on-site inspection without limit or right of refusal.

After rendering incapable of combat, not counted against ceilings.

Equipment within counted. Sites to contain only facilities relevant to storage of any armaments and equipment. Some equipment can be removed and returned in 42 days for exercises.

740 each in active units; remainder must be placed in storage (none actually reduced) {see box 19.11.1990}.

XII.1. No more than 1000 AIFVs in paramilitary formations.
XII.2. Reassignment of TLE to “any organization not part of its conventional armed forces.”

Done in accordance with Protocol on Information Exchange.

XIV.1. Inspections under Protocol.
XIV.2. Inspections to monitor holdings; destruction; recategorisation of helicopters; reduction of personnel; designated storage sites; stabilizing measures and movements of TLE into ATTU.
XIV.3. “No State Party shall exercise the rights set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article in respect of States Parties which belong to the group of States Parties to which it belongs in order to elude the objectives of the verification regime.”
XIV.6. Aerial overflights. To be worked out in CFE IA.

XV.1. NTM permitted.
XV.2. No interference with treaty inspections or NTM.
XV.3. No concealment.

XVI.2. Coverage.
XVI.3. Each party may raise issues.
XVI.4. Operation by consensus.
XVI.5. May propose amendments.
XVI.7. Follows procedures of Protocol on the Joint Consultative Group (see below for frequency of meetings).


XVIII. FOLLOW-ON NEGOTIATIONS. Negotiations to continue with the same mandate {see section 410}.

XXIX.1. Unlimited duration.
XXIX.2. Withdrawal - supreme national interests. 150 days' notice.
XXIX.3. Withdrawal if one country increased its holdings outside ATTU “in such proportions as to pose an obvious threat to the balance of forces within the area of application.”

XX.1. Any party may propose.
XX.2. Approved by all parties.

XXI.1. Treaty will be open to accession.
XXI.2. Extraordinary Conferences, in particular to consider withdrawal of a party from its group of States Parties or joining the other group. To open within fifteen days of request by any State Party, and to last not more than three weeks.
XXI.3. Treaty Depositary must inform States Parties of all new Treaty information.
XXI.4. Conference to consider withdrawal of a party from the treaty; depositary to convene no later than 21 days after notice of withdrawal.

XXII.1. Ratification to be deposited with Kingdom of the Netherlands.
XXII.2. Entry into force ten days after all instruments of ratification deposited.

Six languages: English, Russian, French, German, Spanish, and Italian.


With annex on the types of the treaty-limited categories of conventional armaments. Contains lists of equipment covered by the treaty.

Lists combat-capable training aircraft and gives each party the right to remove numerical limitations on these aircraft.

I. General Requirements
II. Standards for Presentation at Reduction Sites
III-VII. Procedures for battle tanks, artillery, ACVs, combat aircraft, attack helicopters {8.2.90}.
VIII. Conversion for Non-Military Purposes.
IX. Loss or accident.
X. Static display.
XI. Ground targets.
XII. Ground instructional purposes.

Discusses the procedure for the recategorization of combat helicopters with special exceptions for Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Moldova, Russia and Ukraine.

Each party to provide the following information on dates specified in section VII of this protocol:
I. Structure All combat, combat support, and combat service support formations down to regiment.
II. Overall holdings TLEs by number and type.
III. Location and numbers. (A) For each formation and unit under I, normal peacetime location; (B) Holdings of TLE; (C) Location and numbers of non-TLEs. Combat support helicopters, unarmed transport helicopters, armored vehicle launched bridges, AIFV look-alikes, APC look-alikes, primary trainer aircraft, reclassified combat-capable trainer aircraft, and Mi-24R and Mi-24K helicopters {see box 19 November 1990}.
IV. Location and numbers of any TLEs not subject to limitation e.g. held by paramilitary personnel or produced but not in service.
VII. Timetable Upon signature, with corrections 90 days thereafter, 30 days after entry into force, 15 December of every year thereafter, and following completion of the reductions period.
IX. Information about entry into service, of new or additional equipment.
X. Information on entry into area of application.


with annex on privileges and immunities
I. Definitions. Object of verification approach.
II. General Obligations; quotas.
II.10(A) Passive quota 20 percent of objects of verification during baseline inspection, first 120 days after entry into force.
II.10(B) Passive quota 10 percent during each year of reduction period.
II.10(C) 20 percent for 120 days to monitor residual levels.
II.10(D) 15 percent each year thereafter.
II.11 Passive quotas on challenge inspection.
III. Pre-inspection requirements.
IV. Notice of intent to inspect.
V. Procedures upon arrival at point of entry.
VI. General rules.
VII. Declared site inspections.
VIII. Challenge inspection within specified areas
IX. Inspection of certification.
X. Inspections during reduction phase.
XI. Cancellation of inspections.
XII. Inspection reports.
XIII. Privileges and immunities.

3. “The Joint Consultative Group shall meet for regular sessions to be held two times per year.”
5. “Sessions of the Joint Consultative Group shall last no longer than four weeks, unless it decides otherwise.”

1. List of provisions (includes JCG, individual allocations, withdrawal in extraordinary circumstances, information exchange, inspections).
2. This protocol entered into force at signature and will remain in force for twelve months. The period of application may be extended “if all the States Parties so decide.”

Land-based naval aircraft.
1. No one state will have in the area of application of the Treaty more than 400 permanently land-based combat naval aircraft.
2. The number of such combat naval aircraft held by either of the two groups will not exceed 430.
3. No one state will hold in the area any permanently land-based attack helicopters.
Strength Of German Armed Forces {see 30 August 1990}.
[The Federal Republic of Germany] commits itself to reduce the personnel strength of the armed forces of the united Germany to 370,000 within three to four years. . This reduction is to begin with the coming into force of the CFE Treaty.
Within the framework of this overall limit, not more than 345,000 men will belong to the land and air forces, which according to the agreed mandate are the object of the negotiations on conventional armed forces in Europe.
Freeze on personnel {see 30 August and 19 November 1990}.
The States Parties to that Treaty declare that, for the period of these negotiations, they will not increase the total peacetime authorized personnel strength of their conventional armed forces pursuant to the Mandate in the area of application.
The Joint Declaration of the 22 {see 14 November 1990}.
The signatories solemnly declare that, in the new era of European relations which is beginning, they are no longer adversaries, will build new partnerships, and extend to each other the hand of friendship.


I.1. Full-time military personnel.
I.2. Exclusions for internal security forces, personnel in transit, and troops under UN command.
I.3. Newly-formed units will face review by the JCG, if it is asked.

II.1. After 40 months from entry into force, states may not exceed declared limits.

III.1. To revise downward, the state must notify all other participants of the effective date.
III.2. To revise upward, the state must notify all other participants and include an explanation for the increase. Participating states have 42 days to object to the increase.
III.3. If an objection is raised; any participating state may request an extraordinary conference to discuss the increase.

IV.1. States will provide information on aggregate numbers of personnel and the number in each unit down to the brigade/regiment and wing/air regiment level.
IV.6. Data will be exchanged within 30 days following the entry into force of the CFE Treaty and on 15 December of each year after.

V.1. A state will provide 42-day advance notification when it increases the size of any unit by more than 1000 at the brigade/regiment level or more than 500 at the wing/air regiment level.
V.2. A state will provide 42-day notification when it calls up more than 35,000 reservists to full-time duty.
V.3. Forty-two day notification is not required when reservists are called up for emergencies, such as natural disasters. Notification in those cases must be provided no later than the date the threshold is exceeded.
V.4. The notification will include the number of personnel involved, the purpose of the call-up, the planned beginning and ending of the period the threshold will be exceeded, and the location at which large numbers of called-up troops are deployed.
V.5. Resubordination of units subject to limits must be given to all participating states.
V.6. Such notification of resubordination must include the date of resubordination, the designation and location of units undergoing resubordination, the size of each unit undergoing resubordination, and the number of CFE TLE held by those units.
V.7. Resubordinated units remain subject to limitation for one year after the resubordination takes place.
V.8. Forty-two days prior to the end of the one-year period described in V.7, the state with the resubordinated unit will provide notification of the unit's pending exclusion.

VI.2. Inspected states will provide the personnel strength of a site during the pre-inspection briefing.
VI.3. In the case of a challenge inspection, the host state will provide the inspectors with the troop strength declared in the most recent data exchange.
VI.5. Inspectors will include troop strength evaluations in their inspection reports.
VI.6. Evaluation may be improved by CSBMs under negotiation.

VII.1. The agreement will be reviewed in the framework of CSCE.
VII.2. States may use the Joint Consultative Group to clarify questions.
VII.3. A review conference will be held six months after entry into force and at five-year intervals thereafter.
VII.4. Any state may call an extraordinary conference if exceptional circumstances have arisen.

VIII.1. The agreement is politically binding. It will come into force simultaneously with the CFE Treaty.
VIII.2. The agreement will have the same duration as the CFE Treaty.
VIII.3. The Netherlands is the depositary state.

2005 IDDS, 675 Massachusetts Ave, Cambridge MA 02139, USA