Platform
Modules
By sector
By sector
By standard
Blog
News
Events
STANAG 3700
NATO nations and forces committing to implement Allied joint doctrine for air and space operations
STANAG 3700 is the NATO agreement by which member nations commit to implement AJP-3.3, Allied joint doctrine for air and space operations.
STANAG 3700 is not itself a technical specification. It is the NATO standardization agreement by which member nations commit to implement AJP-3.3, Allied joint doctrine for air and space operations - the doctrine itself lives in that Allied Publication, not in the STANAG. This is edition 9 of the agreement, promulgated 11 February 2026, and it replaces edition 8, which dated from 8 April 2016.
The agreement's own stated aim is to give NATO forces a common doctrine for the employment of air and space capabilities, and to improve interoperability and operational planning across the alliance. Beyond naming that aim and the publication it covers, the STANAG's substance is procedural: how a nation ratifies it, how a nation implements it, and how both are tracked.
A nation ratifying STANAG 3700 and a nation implementing it are separate, separately reported events, and the agreement is explicit about the difference. Ratification is a nation's formal position on the agreement, recorded in NATO's Standardization Documents Database (NSDD). Implementation is something more concrete: it happens once a nation has issued the orders and instructions needed to put the doctrine into effect, and has folded it into national education, training and exercise programmes. Both are reported through NATO's electronic reporting tool, and partner nations are invited to report their implementation details the same way.
There is no scheduled NATO Effective Date attached to this STANAG - it is marked "not applicable", which means it takes effect on receipt by participating nations and NATO bodies rather than on a fixed calendar date.
The standard this agreement commits nations to is AJP-3.3, Edition C. Alongside it, the STANAG names five other Allied publications as related documents: AJP-01 (the capstone Allied joint doctrine, via STANAG 2437), AJP-3 on the conduct of operations (via STANAG 2490), AJP-5 on the planning of operations (via STANAG 2526), AJP-3.3.1 on counter-air operations (via STANAG 3880), and AJP-3.3.2 on close air support and air interdiction (via STANAG 3736). It also references several documents outside NATO's public standardization catalogue - a SACEUR area-of-responsibility strategic plan and directive, an AIRCOM handbook, and two Space Domain policy papers - as further context rather than as things this agreement itself requires.
This edition supersedes STANAG 3700, Edition 8, dated 8 April 2016.
The STANAG is reviewed under the AAP-03 procedure, and the outcome of each review is recorded in the NSDD. No fixed review date is stated in this edition.
Nobody is certified against STANAG 3700. The document sets out a reporting mechanism, not an assessment one: nations record their own ratification position and, separately, their implementation status, through NATO's electronic reporting tool into the NSDD. There is no accredited certification body, notified body or third-party audit attached to the agreement itself - it is an inter-governmental commitment, verified through national self-reporting rather than through any commercial certification route.
STANAG 3700 is published by the NATO Standardization Office and is free of charge; NATO does not sell its standardization documents at any stage. It can be retrieved from the NATO Standardization Document Database or through a national standardization authority. We do not host or sell a copy.
There is nothing in STANAG 3700 itself for a supplier to implement, because its requirements live in AJP-3.3, not in the agreement. What reaches a supplier is usually a contract or a customer requirement that points at the doctrine, and what has to be shown is that the commitment behind it has been acted on: implementing orders issued, people trained, and the doctrine built into exercise programmes, rather than a claim on paper.
ComplyTrain gives an organisation a place to hold that evidence as controlled records rather than loose paperwork - the implementing instructions, the training records, the exercise participation logs, and the audit trail a customer review or a national reporting obligation would ask to see - and a place to log a corrective action if a gap turns up. It does not interpret or apply AJP-3.3's operational content, and it does not decide whether or when a NATO STANAG applies to a given contract: that determination sits with the contract and the customer's quality clause, not with a vendor. If you are working out what else in the doctrine hierarchy a contract might be pulling in alongside this one, the standards explorer is the place to look, and we are glad to talk through what that looks like in practice.
Tell us how you need to work with STANAG 3700 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.
There is no general answer. A STANAG binds the nations that ratify it, and a nation implements it through its own orders and training programmes. A supplier meets AJP-3.3, the doctrine it covers, only where a contract or tender says so.
STANAG 3700 is the agreement nations use to commit to a publication. AJP-3.3 is that publication - Allied joint doctrine for air and space operations - and it is where the actual content sits.
Edition 9, promulgated 11 February 2026. It supersedes edition 8, dated 8 April 2016.
Yes. NATO does not charge for its standardization documents at any stage. It is available from the NATO Standardization Document Database or through a national standardization authority.
No. The agreement names no certification scheme. Nations report their own ratification and implementation status into NATO's database; there is no accredited body or third-party certificate involved.
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.