United States Export Controls

Author(s):  
Gene K Landy ◽  
Amy J. Mastrobattista
1967 ◽  
Vol 67 (5) ◽  
pp. 791 ◽  
Author(s):  
Harold J. Berman ◽  
John R. Garson

1991 ◽  
Vol 30 (2) ◽  
pp. 576-576

Commissioned by a provision of the 1988 Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act see 28 I.L.M. 429 (1989), this comprehensive report, entitled Finding Common Ground; United States Export Controls in a Changed Global Environment examines all aspects of the U.S. national security export regime, and provides a policy outline and specific guidelines for an “urgently needed” revamping of U.S. and multilateral export controls in a post-Cold War world.


2021 ◽  
pp. 187-217
Author(s):  
Joop Voetelink

AbstractThe sovereignty of states is reflected in the notion of jurisdiction, empowering them to enact and enforce laws and regulations, and to adjudicate disputes in court. The jurisdiction of states and the exercise thereof is primarily territorial, limiting the exercise of state authority to their respective national territories except in specific situations. However, in an increasingly globalized and interconnected world, it would be hard to maintain that a state should be denied the right to exercise its sovereign powers beyond national borders when there are reasonable grounds for doing so. Consequently, the exercise of extraterritorial legislative jurisdiction has become more accepted, although it is limited to particular situations and circumstances. These have to do with the exercise of jurisdiction over nationals, vessels and aircraft registered in or pertaining to the legislating state, as well as certain activities aimed at undermining the state’s security or solvency or which constitute crimes under international law. However, in principle it is not allowed to regulate activities of foreign nationals or entities operating wholly outside the legislating state’s territory. One area where this has become increasingly prevalent is through the exercise of export controls over foreign nationals and legal persons. The United States (US) has long been engaged in the exercise of this type of extraterritorial jurisdiction and is, without doubt, the state that is most proactive in doing so. This chapter considers US extraterritorial claims with respect to its export control and sanctions legislation and explores the limits of this practice under public international law.


Significance Follow-on action from Washington and responses from foreign actors will shape the US government’s adversarial policy towards China in semiconductors and other strategic technologies. Impacts The Biden administration will likely conclude that broad-based diversion of the semiconductor supply chain away from China is not feasible. The United States will rely on export controls and political pressure to prevent diffusion to China of cutting-edge chip technologies. The United States will focus on persuading foreign semiconductor leaders to help develop US capabilities, thereby staying ahead of China. Washington will focus on less direct approaches to strategic technology competition with China, notably technical standards-setting. Industry leaders in the semiconductor supply chain worldwide will continue expanding business in China in less politically sensitive areas.


Headline UNITED STATES: Export-Import Bank may be reauthorised


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document