Platform
Modules
By sector
By sector
By standard
Blog
News
Events
STANAG 3680
National authorities maintaining the NATOTerm database, and the defence organisations that rely on it for agreed terminology
STANAG 3680 is NATO's agreement committing member states to use the terminology marked 'AAP-06' in the NATOTerm database as their agreed reference for NATO terms.
STANAG 3680 is a NATO Standardization Agreement, currently Edition 6, promulgated 5 September 2024. It is not a technical or quality specification of any kind. Its entire content is one commitment: participating NATO member states agree to use the terminology marked 'AAP-06' inside the NATOTerm database as the agreed, common meaning for those terms. There is no equipment, process or acceptance criterion here for a supplier to meet - the document binds nations, and only nations.
The stated aim is to promote mutual understanding and NATO's interoperability, cohesion and effectiveness through the provision, in NATOTerm, of "a common set of terms with a specific, agreed meaning that needs to be widely understood." Under "Agreement," participating member states agree to use the terminology marked 'AAP-06' in the NATOTerm database, and the NATO Terminology Office maintains a filter that extracts that marked subset from the wider database.
A member state is considered to have implemented STANAG 3680 "when the terminology 'AAP-06' marked in NATOTerm has been incorporated into national terminology databases and is used by units that would operate in NATO operations and/or exercises." Beyond that, implementation asks a member state to promote NATOTerm's use inside its own defence organisations, make it accessible, and consistently treat it - rather than any home-grown glossary - as the national reference for NATO terminology. There is no NATO Effective Date; the document states plainly that one is "not applicable." Review runs on the schedule set by AAP-03, with the result recorded in the NATO Standardization Document Database (NSDD), rather than to a fixed date of its own.
STANAG 3680 addresses member states and NATO bodies directly - it is "effective upon receipt for use by the participating member states and NATO bodies," and a state that has not yet reported a ratification position is invited to "advise the NSO of their intention regarding its ratification and implementation." Nothing in the document describes a route by which it reaches a supplier through a contract, because there is no technical content here to invoke: NATOTerm and its 'AAP-06' marking are the actual reference, and this STANAG is only the agreement to use them.
Edition 6 supersedes STANAG 3680, Edition 5, dated 2 December 1998 - a 26-year interval. That says more about how rarely this particular cover agreement changes than about NATOTerm itself, whose entries are updated on their own, separate schedule.
STANAG 3680 defines no term of its own, sets no test or acceptance criterion, and names no certification or audit scheme. Its only stated check is that the STANAG itself is reviewed periodically, per AAP-03, and that a member state reports its own implementation through the electronic reporting tool (e-Reporting) - not that anyone independently verifies it.
STANAG 3680 gives an organisation outside NATO nothing to implement directly: it is an agreement between nations about NATO's own terminology database, and there is no procedure, test or record it asks a supplier to hold. Where it becomes practically relevant is one step removed - when a specification, data item description or another Allied Publication a contract does invoke defines a term and expects it to carry its NATOTerm meaning.
In that situation, what an organisation needs is ordinary document control: a place to hold the specifications and procedures that use that terminology consistently, and a record of which version of a document used which term when a customer or auditor asks. ComplyTrain gives an organisation a controlled home for those documents and the training records behind the people who write and review them - the same evidencing work any standard eventually needs, not a mapping specific to STANAG 3680.
ComplyTrain does not maintain NATOTerm, decide which terms a contract must use, or judge whether a member state has ratified or implemented this STANAG - that stays NATO's and each nation's own responsibility. Which standards and terminology requirements actually apply to a programme is set by the contract and the customer's quality clause. Our explorer shows what sits alongside STANAG 3680 - if you're working out what a tender is actually asking for, we're glad to talk it through.
Tell us how you need to work with STANAG 3680 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.
Only once a member state has ratified and implemented it, and even then it binds the state, not a supplier. It has no route into a contract of its own, because it sets no technical requirement - it only commits a nation to using NATOTerm's 'AAP-06' terminology as its reference.
NATOTerm is NATO's central terminology database. STANAG 3680 does not create it; it commits participating member states to treat the entries marked 'AAP-06' inside it as the agreed, common meaning for those terms.
STANAG 3680 is the agreement to use certain terminology; AAP-06, NATO's glossary of terms and definitions, is the source of the terms themselves. STANAG 3680 points at the 'AAP-06'-marked entries inside NATOTerm rather than defining any term on its own page.
No. The document names no accreditation, notified-body or audit scheme. Implementation is confirmed by a member state's own report through the electronic reporting tool, not by certifying an organisation or a product.
Edition 6, promulgated 5 September 2024. It supersedes Edition 5, dated 2 December 1998.
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.