State Department Controls on Exports of Defense Articles and Defense Services

2021 ◽  
pp. 125-196
Author(s):  
Eric L. Hirschhorn ◽  
Brian J. Egan ◽  
Edward J. Krauland

Chapter 2 covers U.S. government controls on exports, reexports, and transfers of “U.S.-origin” goods, software, and technology, and the provision of services, that are military in nature. These are governed principally by the Arms Export Control Act of 1976 and the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), which are administered by the State Department’s Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC). The chapter explains: which items are subject to the ITAR; the basis and criteria for the ITAR’s restrictions; the requirement to register with DDTC if you export or manufacture items subject to the ITAR or if you are involved in other activities regulated by the ITAR; how to determine whether your product or technology is covered and, if so, whether you will need a license to export or reexport it; how to get a license if one is required; how to clear and document the actual export; the potential penalties for violating the rules; and reporting requirements related to political contributions, fees, and commissions paid in connection with certain sales, . The chapter also explains how the ITAR relate to the regulatory regimes covered in other parts of the book.

2021 ◽  
Vol 115 (1) ◽  
pp. 146-153

Longstanding tensions between Congress and the executive over U.S. support to the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen have spurred conflict between the branches over arms sales. In May 2019, U.S. Secretary of State Michael Pompeo declared an emergency under the Arms Export Control Act (AECA) to bypass congressional “freezes” on arms sales and complete $8.1 billion in sales to members of the Saudi-led coalition. In response, Congress requested that the State Department inspector general (IG) investigate the matter. In a report released in August 2020, the IG determined that the emergency declaration comported with the AECA's procedural requirements but that the State Department's risk assessments and civilian casualty mitigation measures did not fully address legal concerns about the sales. The Trump administration has continued to move forward with arms sales, including by unilaterally reinterpreting a nonbinding multilateral export control regime to eliminate prohibitions on the export of certain unmanned aerial systems (UAS). A bipartisan group of legislators has introduced a bill to prevent such sales to all countries except select U.S. allies. In September, a UN report criticized U.S. and other countries’ arms sales to the Saudi-led coalition and recommended referral of the situation in Yemen to the International Criminal Court (ICC).


2009 ◽  
Vol 160 (8) ◽  
pp. 232-234
Author(s):  
Patrik Fouvy

The history of the forests in canton Geneva, having led to these being disconnected from productive functions, provides a symptomatic demonstration that the services provided by the forest eco-system are common goods. Having no hope of financial returns in the near future and faced with increasing social demands, the state has invested in the purchase of forest land, financed projects for forest regeneration and improvement of biological diversity and developed infrastructures for visitors. In doing this the state as a public body takes on the provision of services in the public interest. But the further funding for this and for expenses for the private forests, which must be taken into account, are not secured for the future.


1944 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 124-136
Author(s):  
Dexter Perkins
Keyword(s):  

1995 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-42 ◽  
Author(s):  
Piero Gleijeses

AbstractA comprehensive study of the available documents about the Bay of Pigs, including many that have been declassified within the last eighteen months, and extensive interviews with the protagonists in the CIA, the White House and the State Department lead me to conclude that the disastrous operation was launched not simply because Kennedy was poorly served by his young staff and was the captive of his campaign rhetoric, nor simply because of the hubris of the CIA. Rather, the Bay of Pigs was approved because the CIA and the White House assumed they were speaking the same language when, in fact, they were speaking in utterly different tongues.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document