scholarly journals The Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act: United States Control Over Exports

1996 ◽  
Vol 90 (1) ◽  
pp. 138-149
Author(s):  
Rex J. Zedalis
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
The State ◽  
Export Control ◽  
Chemical Weapons ◽  
Chemical Agent ◽  
Military Application ◽  
Chemical Weapons Convention ◽  
The Military ◽  
Total Sales

During 1994, the total sales value of chemicals exported from the United States exceeded $51 billion, up 15 percent over the previous year and resulting in the chemical sector outpacing all other sectors that finished the year with favorable trade balances. Chemicals leaving the United States were shipped under the control provisions of both the Department of Commerce's Export Administration Regulations (EAR), and the Department of State's International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR). Though this is something of an oversimplification, the EAR basically concerns itself with products that have civilian application, and the ITAR with products of use to the military. Currently, the Commodity Control List of the EAR, overseen by Commerce's Office of Export Licensing within the Bureau of Export Administration, identifies fifty-four chemicals and ten toxins as intermediate agents and precursors to chemical weapons subject to export regulation. The Munitions List of the ITAR, administered by the Office of Defense Trade Controls of the State Department's Bureau of Politico-Military Affairs, identifies twenty-two chemicals as subject to regulation and cautions that this listing is merely illustrative, as any “chemical agent,” defined as “a substance having military application,” is subject to export control.

The United States and the Rise of General Maximiliano Hernández Martínez

1971 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 151-172 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kenneth J. Grieb
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
El Salvador ◽  
Central America ◽  
American Politics ◽  
State Department ◽  
The United States ◽  
The State ◽  
Central American ◽  
Coup D'etat ◽  
The Military

The militarycoup d'étatwhich installed General Maximiliano Hernández Martínez as President of El Salvador during December 1931 created a crisis involving the 1923 Washington Treaties. By the terms of these accords, the Central American nadons had pledged to withhold recognition from governments seizing power through force in any of the isthmian republics. Although not a signatory of the treaty, the United States based its recognition policy on this principle. Through this means the State Department had attempted to impose some stability in Central America, by discouraging revolts. With the co-operation of the isthmian governments, United States diplomats endeavored to bring pressure to bear on the leaders of any uprising, to deny them the fruits of their victory, and thus reduce the constant series ofcoupsandcounter-coupsthat normally characterized Central American politics.

Revolutions and Coups

2019 ◽  
pp. 12-45
Author(s):  
Amy Austin Holmes
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
The State ◽  
Civilian Control ◽  
Business Elite ◽  
The People ◽  
State Apparatus ◽  
The Military ◽  
Regime Support ◽  
New Framework

Because the revolution in Egypt was directed at the state, it is important to properly conceptualize the state apparatus and the regime that ruled it. Thus, chapter 2 provides an overview of the literature on authoritarian regimes and explains why it is important to distinguish between states and regimes. Hosni Mubarak’s powerful presidency did not preclude the development of a diverse and unruly civil society, including tens of thousands of nongovernmental organizations. A new framework is employed in order to understand which parts of the state apparatus are most crucial during a period of revolutionary upheaval. It is important to distinguish between tools of the regime and pillars of support for the regime; the latter have the ability to either prop up or potentially withdraw their support. Mubarak relied on four pillars of regime support: the military, the business elite, the United States, and the acquiescence of the people. The chapter then turns to an overview of the literature on revolutions and military coups, which have usually been studied separately, as well as the literature on how establishing civilian control over the military constitutes the neuralgic point of democratic consolidation.

Part 3 The Post 9/11-Era (2001–), 62 Threats of and Actual Military Strikes Against Syria—2013 and 2017

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lagerwall Anne
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Final Section ◽  
The United States ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Chemical Weapons ◽  
Sovereign State ◽  
Syrian Crisis ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
The Military

This chapter examines the threats of military intervention expressed by the United States, the United Kingdom and France in reaction to the use of chemical weapons during an attack in the Ghouta area of Damascus in 2013 as well as the military strikes launched by the United States following the use of chemical weapons during an attack in the Khan Sheikhun area of Southern Idlib in 2017. After recalling the facts and context of the Syrian crisis, it studies the legal positions of the main protagonists (the United States, the United Kingdom and France) and the reactions of third States and international organisations. The final section analyses the envisaged and actual intervention’s precedential value and its impact on the jus ad bellum. It argues that targeting the military assets of a sovereign State as a reaction to violations of international law that this State has supposedly committed is far from being unanimously accepted from a legal point of view.

scholarly journals To Disclose or Deceive? Sharing Secret Information between Aligned States

2021 ◽  
Vol 45 (3) ◽  
pp. 122-161
Author(s):  
Melinda Haas ◽  
Keren Yarhi-Milo
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Information Sharing ◽  
Nuclear Reactor ◽  
The United States ◽  
The State ◽  
Suez Crisis ◽  
Secret Information ◽  
Military Mission ◽  
The Military ◽  
Partner State

Why do aligned states sometimes disclose secret information about their miitary plans to use force, whereas other times they choose to deceive their partners? The state initiating these plans may choose among four information-sharing strategies: collusion, compartmentalization, concealment, and lying. Three main considerations shape its decision: the state's assessment of whether it needs its partner's capabilities to succeed at the military mission, the state's perception of whether the partner will be willing to support the state in the requested role, and the state's anticipated deception costs for not fully informing its partner state. Several cases illustrate how these strategies are chosen: Israel, Britain, and France's decision to use force against Egypt during the Suez Crisis (collusion between France and Israel, and concealment vis-à-vis the United States); Israel's 2007 bombing of Syria's al Kibar reactor (compartmentalization); and Israel's deliberations whether to attack Iran's nuclear reactor (lying). These strategies have implications for intra-alliance restraint and contribute to understanding deception and secrecy between allies.

scholarly journals The American State and the Obama Presidency: A Preliminary Discussion

2011 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 269-282
Author(s):  
Desmond King
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
State Power ◽  
The United States ◽  
The State ◽  
Sovereign Power ◽  
Weak State ◽  
Preliminary Discussion ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Military ◽  
American State

I characterize American State power as the expression of a “shock and awe” strategy, that is, the style of making dramatic policy pronouncements which centralise efforts and concentrate bureaucratic resources. Shock and awe,’ refers to the capacity of American state leaders to employ its sovereign power and ample resources determinedly to a particular end. This capacity rebuffs the notion of the United States as a weak state. It describes how powerful the centralized exercise of (civilian and military) bureaucratic authority bent on a single purpose has become in the US state. The state is the executive – the bureaucratic departments and agencies including the military controlled under presidential authority. Shock and awe is a strategy which presidents seek to employ definitively to address a crisis at home or abroad. It is distinctly American because of the constraints – including constitutional, political and electoral – under which the executive pursues policy and responds to crises.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document