Platform
Modules
By sector
By sector
By standard
Blog
News
Events
STANAG 2514
National authorities implementing NATO evacuation doctrine, and defence or security suppliers whose contract names AJP-3.25
STANAG 2514 is NATO's agreement committing member nations to implement AJP-3.25, the Allied joint doctrine for non-combatant evacuation operations; it binds nations rather than suppliers.
STANAG 2514 commits NATO nations to implement AJP-3.25, Edition A, the Allied joint doctrine for non-combatant evacuation operations: the military task of moving civilians out of a country in crisis. The agreement states its purpose without hedging, as an interoperability requirement "To establish Alliance doctrine and supporting tactics, techniques, and procedures for conducting non-combatant evacuation operations."
The agreement is not the doctrine. A STANAG is how NATO nations commit to a publication: a nation ratifies it, implements it through its own orders, and a company meets it only where a contract or a tender says so. Ratification and implementation are separate steps, and a nation may ratify with reservations.
The test is the same two-limbed one used across the Allied joint doctrine agreements. The STANAG "is implemented when the necessary orders/instructions have been issued directing the forces concerned to put the content of the covered standard into effect", and when that content has been included in national education, training and exercise programmes. Reporting is explicit: "Allies and NATO bodies shall provide implementation details through the electronic reporting tool (e-Reporting)."
Edition 3 was promulgated on 26 November 2025 and supersedes "STANAG 2514, Edition 2, dated 14 May 2013". That gap is worth noticing. Anyone whose understanding of NATO evacuation doctrine was formed against the previous edition is working from a document that stood unchanged for over a decade, through a period in which several evacuations reshaped practice.
The agreement names STANAG 2490 and AJP-3, the doctrine for the conduct of operations that this one sits beneath, and MC 0327/2, the NATO military policy for non-Article 5 crisis response operations, which is not in our catalogue. It is reviewed under AAP-03 and sets no NATO effective date.
It describes no certification, no notified body, no government quality assurance and no audit of an organisation. There is nothing here anyone is assessed against.
An evacuation is planned and conducted by armed forces and diplomats, not by a compliance platform, and this agreement asks nothing of a company. Where a defence or security supplier meets it, the demand is the ordinary one: trained people, documented procedures, and the evidence that both existed when a customer asks.
ComplyTrain holds that evidence: the controlled procedure, who was trained on it and when, and the record trail that follows. It does not plan operations, move anyone, or stand in for a national authority's decision.
What a given contract requires is set by the contract and the customer's quality clause, never by us. The standards explorer shows what else sits alongside this agreement, and we are glad to talk through what a specific tender asks for.
Tell us how you need to work with STANAG 2514 and what you need from it. We will come back to you about what ComplyTrain can do.
Thank you. Your list is on its way to your inbox, and we will come back to you on what working with these standards in ComplyTrain involves, usually within one business day.
No. It binds the nations that ratify it. A company meets the doctrine only where a contract, tender or tasking names it.
The document uses it for the operations its doctrine covers: conducting the evacuation of non-combatants, with the tactics, techniques and procedures that support it. The detail is in AJP-3.25.
By issuing the necessary orders or instructions to the forces concerned, and by including the content in national education, training and exercise programmes.
No. The agreement names no assessment of any organisation; its only stated check is its own review under AAP-03.
Edition 3, promulgated 26 November 2025, superseding Edition 2 of 14 May 2013.
One system for the whole compliance programme. Start with the module you need most.
Collect information the same way every time, and decide in advance what happens next.
Know whether your controls are operating, not just whether a policy says they exist.
Turn the compliance work you already know about into a plan with owners, dependencies and dates.
Know what you can offer, and hold the evidence behind every configuration you offer it in.
Eight built-in reports across every module, scheduled, delivered, and filed where the evidence lives.
The sector news that matters to your organisation - read and rated by AI, and delivered as a scheduled digest in your own language.
AI reads the tender pack and pulls out the requirements, deadlines and rules - then helps you draft the response from your own approved content, with you reviewing every step.
One current register of the suppliers and partners you depend on - each risk-assessed, re-assessing itself on schedule, and wired straight into your risk register.
See every requirement you face - across every standard, plus your own contracts and policies - traced to the documents, evidence and processes that satisfy it.
Identify, score, treat and review your risks in one place - with AI to help anyone run a proper assessment, and a defensible trail behind every decision.
Assign training, prove it was understood, and hold the competence records an auditor asks for.
Draft compliance documents with AI, keep every version under control, and export them beautifully branded - all in one place.
Audits, corrective actions, processes and approvals in one quality system, organised around ISO 9001.
Medical device manufacturers operate under more regulatory pressure than almost any other sector outside pharmaceuticals. The rules govern how you design a device, how you make it, how you track it after it ships, and how you respond when something goes wrong.
Learn how EU dual-use export controls apply to encryption, sensors, and software, how classification works under Annex I, and why sending source code by email can count as an export.
A practical way to turn in-your-head risk management into a register that survives staff turnover and answers the risk questions now showing up in tenders.