Author Topic: USA has ITAR, what does ESA/JAXA/RKA have?  (Read 1815 times)

Offline mgfitter

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 105
  • Liked: 18
  • Likes Given: 0
USA has ITAR, what does ESA/JAXA/RKA have?
« on: 11/04/2009 05:27 AM »
Do any of the other space agencies around the world have similar restrictions to ITAR?

ITAR handicaps a lot of US trade in this industry. Surely Europe and Japan also have some restrictions in Arms trafficking too, yet they seem to still be able to do trade at reasonable levels.

Does anyone know what the basic rules are for Russia, Europe and Japan? Anyone know anything about India, China or any of the other smaller space agencies too?

« Last Edit: 11/04/2009 05:28 AM by mgfitter »

Offline neilh

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2365
  • Pasadena, CA
  • Liked: 43
  • Likes Given: 148
Re: USA has ITAR, what does ESA/JAXA/RKA have?
« Reply #1 on: 06/29/2010 07:31 PM »
GAO just released a report comparing US ITAR to systems in Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Japan, and the United Kingdom:

May 2010
Observations on Selected Countries' Systems and
Proposed Treaties 
Highlights of GAO-10-557, a report to the
Committee on Foreign Affairs, House of
The U.S. government annually
controls billions of dollars worth of
U.S. arms and dual-use items
exported to its allies and partners
through a system of laws,
regulations, and processes. 
Weaknesses in this system led GAO
in 2007 to include export controls
as part of a high-risk area and
called for a reexamination,
including evaluating alternative
approaches. Increasing
international collaboration on
defense programs also makes it
important to understand how other
countries control exports.
Proposed treaties would change the
process for the export or transfer
of certain U.S. arms to the United
Kingdom and Australia.
Based on a request to review allies’
export control systems and the
proposed treaties, this report 
(1) identifies how selected allies’
systems differ from the U.S.
system, and (2) assesses how the
proposed treaties will change
controls on arms exports.
To conduct its work, GAO selected
six countries—Australia, Canada,
France, Germany, Japan, and the
United Kingdom—based on factors
such as whether they were major
destinations for U.S. goods or
significant arms exporters;
conducted site visits in four
countries; analyzed agency
documentation on the foreign and
U.S. systems and treaty related
documents; and interviewed

Just as in the United States, selected allies’ export control systems have
changed over time to address security interests and to satisfy international
commitments.  Significant structural and other differences exist between
selected allies’ export control systems and the U.S. system. Five of the six
countries have a single agency in charge of administering export control
regulations for arms and dual-use items. In the United States, the Department
of State administers controls for arms and the Department of Commerce does
so for dual-use items. This difference and others are evident in several major
areas of the export control process—jurisdiction, licensing, enforcement,
outreach, and performance assessments. For example, in licensing, France
and the United Kingdom use a risk-based approach, allowing a company with
a satisfactory compliance record and an established business case to export
multiple shipments of less sensitive defense items to particular destinations or
identified recipients under a single license. The U.S. export control system for
arms is transaction based, generally requiring a license for each proposed
arms export unless an exemption applies. Under this approach, exporters
submit a separate license application to State for each destination when
exporting arms to multiple parties. In another example of how the systems
differ, four of the six countries have one agency in charge of enforcing export
controls.  In the U.S. system, multiple agencies have concurrent authority to
enforce arms and dual-use export controls. Four countries have conducted
performance assessments of their export control systems that resulted in
significant changes. The United States has made several changes to improve
certain aspects of its control system and, in April 2010, the Administration
announced proposed reforms following an interagency review.  While GAO
did not assess the effectiveness of other countries’ systems, the practices
highlighted in this report may inform U.S. reform efforts to increase the
efficiency while maintaining or improving the effectiveness of the U.S. system.
Two proposed Defense Trade Cooperation Treaties, one with the United
Kingdom and the other with Australia, will establish significant changes in
U.S. controls of certain arms exports and transfers. Case-by-case reviews
prior to export or transfer of arms under the treaties will not be required.
Instead, treaty parties will establish approved communities of entities,
facilities, and personnel eligible to export, transfer, or receive certain arms
without licenses.  State officials told GAO the treaties represent a move from
transactional licensing and towards a more risk-based approach.  To ensure
security, the treaties will utilize existing safeguards and implement new ones.
For example, record keeping requirements and the requirement to obtain U.S.
government approval to export or transfer its arms outside of the approved
community will remain in use under the treaties. A new safeguard under the
treaties will require community members in the United Kingdom and Australia
to handle unclassified U.S. arms at an increased security level. Several
implementation issues, however, have yet to be resolved regarding
enforcement, congressional oversight, and participation by small- and
medium-sized businesses in the United Kingdom and Australia.
Someone is wrong on the Internet.