ExportLawBlog » Arms Export

Archive for the ‘Arms Export’ Category

Apr

9

Australian Court Sentences Export Defendant to Good Behavior

Posted by Clif Burns at 6:54 pm on April 9, 2013

Ian Chow https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=410491802970&set=p.410491802970&type=1&theater (Fair Use)

ABOVE: Ian Chow

Ian Chow, an Australian expatriate living in New Guinea and who is the managing director of the Lae Biscuit Company in Lae, New Guinea,*Â pleaded guilty to charges in Australia that he illegally exported ammunition components to New Guinea. His sentence may surprise those here in the U.S. used to seeing export defendants walloped with 5 year sentences for export violations. Mr. Chow was ordered to pay $10,000 to a charity and sentenced to a 12-month good behavior bond. (A good behavior bond is an Australian form of probation where the defendant is fined rather than jailed if he misbehaves.)

Apparently the sentence was based on testimony the court heard of the motive for the shipment of the ammunition components to New Guinea:

Chow took a short cut by shipping the items to PNG without permission from authorities, as the shooting club and police officers in Lae were short of ammunition when Chowâ€™s house burnt down in February last year. Chow kept ammunition for the club at his house and it was destroyed in the fire.

You’d think that the Lae police might keep their ammunition somewhere other than the house of the guy who runs the local cookie company, but I have to imagine that many other things are done in an unconventional manner in New Guinea.

*An interesting bit of trivia: the Lae airport was the last place Amelia Earhart was seen alive.

Permalink

Comments (1)

Apr

3

U.N. Approves Arms Trade Treaty

Posted by Clif Burns at 4:58 pm on April 3, 2013

By Stefano Corso http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:UN_building.jpg (Attribution) Yesterday the United Nations, by a lopsided 154-3 vote,Â approved the Arms Trade Treaty. The three “no” votes came from Iran, Syria and North Korea. Joining with those three countries in opposing the treaty will likely be the U.S. Congress, seemingly oblivious to the irony of casting its lot with these three rogue nations.

Much of the opposition centers on fears that the treaty will allow a transnational body to impose restrictions on domestic sales of guns in the United States. However, the preamble dismisses this concern at the outset, noting that the treaty acknowledges

the sovereign right of any State to regulate and control conventional arms exclusively within its territory, pursuant to its own legal or constitutional system. â€¦

Moreover, the treaty only impacts exports and imports of arms and has no application to any member state’s purely domestic or internal regulation (or non-regulation) of weapons and firearms.

Of primary significance here, however, is that the treaty does not require the United States to do anything other than what it is required to do, and already does, under its own Arms Export Control Act (“AECA”), namely to establish a control list, to regulate exports of items on that control list, and to assure that export licenses are not granted to permit exports of arms to be used in violation of international agreements or to commit genocide or crimes against humanity. These are arguably not any different from the factors set forth in section 38(a)(2) of the AECA to be considered by DDTC in granting export licenses.

What this means is that the real impact of the treaty will be to require countries that do not now regulate their arms exports to start doing so. This would create a more level playing field for U.S. exporters who must get licenses for all weapons exports but who compete against suppliers in other countries which do not regulate weapons export. Â It seems hard to argue against that result.

Permalink

Comments (2)

Mar

12

How Many Lawyers Does It Take to Export a Lug Nut?*

Posted by Clif Burns at 6:12 pm on March 12, 2013

Category: Arms Export • Export Reform

U.S. Air Force Photo http://www.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/021105-O-9999G-056.jpg (Public Domain) MichÃ¨le Flournoy, a former undersecretary of defense, writes today in the Wall Street Journal in favor of export law reform in an op-ed piece (subscription required) titled “Want to Export an F-16 Fighter Jet?” Probably a better title would have been “Want to Export F-16 Fighter Jet Parts?” since that’s what her whole piece is about.

In her op-ed, she says

Over the past six decades, Washington has developed a system that applies one-size-fits-all bureaucratic requirements to defense exports. The system is plagued by maddeningly lethargic timetables for approving technology transfers. It handles airplane windshield wipers essentially the same way it handles air-to-air missiles. It forces American companies and foreign partner militaries to await separate approvals for every latch, wire and lug nut on an F-16 fighter jetâ€”even though the U.S. government has already approved the export of the whole aircraft.

Although I see what Ms. Flournoy is trying to get at, she hasn’t said it very accurately at all. For starters, not every latch, wire and lug nut on an F-16 requires separate export approvals when shipped separately from an F-16. Parts that are not “specifically designed and modified” for military or civil aircraft don’t require separate export approval. If an item is usable on both civil and military aircraft but is standard and integral equipment covered by a civilian aircraft type certificate it is controlled by Department of Commerce regulations, which means it will not require a license for exports to most destinations. And not to be too picky but Ms. Flournoy’s point also ignores the exemption in section 123.16(b)(2) of the ITAR for exports of low value parts to a previously approved end user.

This is not to say that there is not room for reform in how the U.S. government handles exports of aircraft parts; it’s only to say that not every latch, wire and lug nut requires a license right now.

*One, but the lug nut really has to want to be exported.

Permalink

Comments (3)

Feb

13

L.A. Sheriff’s Department Given Pass on Export Law Violations

Posted by Clif Burns at 9:07 pm on February 13, 2013

Category: Arms Export • Criminal Penalties

LA Sheriff's Car According to this investigative report that appeared in the Los Angeles Times over the weekend, the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department apparently committed criminal export violations over 10 years ago when it shipped body armor without a license to Cambodia.Â Surprisingly (or maybe not), federal investigators gave the department and the individuals involved a pass.

What makes the case particularly interesting are the steps that the Sheriff’s Department took to conceal the export. The bulletproof vests were, at least on paper, allegedly sold to the City of Gardena, California. However, Gardena never received the vests. Instead, they were retrieved by someone in the Sheriff’s Department who, even though not an employee of the City of Gardena, signed on behalf of the city. The vests were then hidden inside patrol cars that were being shipped to Cambodia. The bulletproof vests were neither licensed or declared in export documents.

Federal investigators decided not to press charges on the ground that there was no evidence that anyone involved in the transactions were aware of the relevantÂ export laws. Â Of course, that’s not the standard. The scienter requirement is that the accused knew that the exports were against the law, not that they were aware of the particular export laws in question. Call me cynical, but if someone not in law enforcement went to these extremes to disguise what they were doing, that person would be indicted faster than you can say “ham sandwich.”

Permalink

Comments (4)

Jan

24

Private Navy May Run Aground

Posted by Clif Burns at 9:19 pm on January 24, 2013

Category: Arms Export • Piracy on the High Seas

Jolly Roger The normally perspicacious Spencer Ackerman of the Danger Room at Wired, posted a story on a British start-up that promises a private navy to protect commercial shipping from pirates (for a jolly fee, of course). However, Ackerman ignores the 800 pound parrot on the pirate’s shoulder: namely, laws restricting the import and export of arms.

The company, Typhon, promises its own Â armed flotilla, but Ackerman doesn’t explain how it plans on moving this armed flotilla in and out of ports, unless, of course, the flotilla will be a modern day Flying Dutchman, cursed to roam the seas forever.

I’ve discussed this issue in a blog post some time back. Export and import licenses will be needed for Typhon’s private navy Â to come and go from most ports. And even if a Typhon Â ship leaving the United States gets an export license, as required, it will be forbidden thereafter to dock in countries, such as China, subject to U.S. arms embargos. And each port of call is likely to require import permits, or in the case of countries that have signed the U.N. Firearms Protocol, transit permits.

So, I guess you might say, that the idea of a private navy to fight pirates is an idea that is better in Wired than in practice.

Permalink

Comments (1)