World Library  
Flag as Inappropriate
Email this Article
 

Arms Export Control Act

Arms Export Control Act
Great Seal of the United States
Other short titles Arms Export Control Act of 1976
Long title An Act to amend the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 and the Foreign Military Sales Act, and for other purposes.
Nicknames International Security Assistance and Arms Exports Control Act
Enacted by the 94th United States Congress
Effective June 30, 1976
Citations
Public law 94-329
Statutes at Large 90 Stat. 729
Codification
Titles amended 22 U.S.C.: Foreign Relations and Intercourse
U.S.C. sections created 22 U.S.C. ch. 39 § 2751
Legislative history
  • Introduced in the House as H.R. 13680 by D–PA) on May 11, 1976
  • Committee consideration by House International Relations
  • Passed the House on June 2, 1976 (255–140)
  • Passed the Senate on June 14, 1976 (62–18, in lieu of S. 3439)
  • Reported by the joint conference committee on June 16, 1976; agreed to by the House on June 22, 1976 (258–146) and by the Senate on June 25, 1976 (agreed)
  • Signed into law by President Gerald Ford on June 30, 1976

The Arms Export Control Act of 1976 (Title II of Pub.L. 94–329, 90 Stat. 729, enacted June 30, 1976, codified at 22 U.S.C. ch. 39) gives the President of the United States the authority to control the import and export of defense articles and defense services. The H.R. 13680 legislation was passed by the 94th Congressional session and enacted into law by the 38th President of the United States Gerald R. Ford on June 30, 1976.[1]

The Act of Congress requires international governments receiving weapons from the United States to use the armaments for legitimate self-defense. Consideration is given as to whether the exports "would contribute to an arms race, aid in the development of weapons of mass destruction, support international terrorism, increase the possibility of outbreak or escalation of conflict, or prejudice the development of bilateral or multilateral arms control or nonproliferation agreements or other arrangements." [2] The Act also places certain restrictions on American arms traders and manufacturers, prohibiting them from the sale of certain sensitive technologies to certain parties and requiring thorough documentation of such trades to trusted parties.

When the President is aware of the possibility of violations of the AECA, the law requires a report to Congress on the potential violations.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) conducts an industry outreach program called the Project Shield America to prevent foreign adversaries, terrorists, and criminal networks from obtaining U.S. munitions and strategic technology.[3]

Contents

  • Application 1
  • See also 2
  • References 3
  • External links 4

Application

In the 1990s, after a report from RSA Data Security, Inc., who were in a licensing dispute with regard to use of the RSA algorithm in PGP, the Customs Service started a criminal investigation of Phil Zimmermann, for allegedly violating the Arms Export Control Act.[4] The US Government had long regarded cryptographic software as a munition, and thus subject to arms trafficking export controls. At that time, the boundary between permitted ("low-strength") cryptography and impermissible ("high-strength") cryptography placed PGP well on the too-strong-to-export side (this boundary has since been relaxed). The investigation lasted three years, but was finally dropped without filing charges.

From FY 2004 to FY 2006 there had been 283 arrests, 198 indictments, and 166 convictions based on AECA violations.[5]

In 2005 the Government Accounting Office (GAO) did a study on arms exports since 9/11. The study noted that the system itself had not been changed since 9/11 since the system was already designed to counter such threats. The study did report that the processing time for arms cases increased starting in 2003.[6]

In 2006 Boeing was fined for $15 million for unlicensed foreign sales involving a gyroscopic microchip or gyrochip with military applications.[7]

In March 2007, ITT Corporation was fined for criminal violation of the act. The fines resulted from ITT's outsourcing program, in which they transferred night vision goggles and classified information about countermeasures against laser weapons, including light interference filters to engineers in Singapore, the People's Republic of China, and the United Kingdom.[8] They were fined $100 million US dollars, although they were also given the option of spending half of that sum on research and development of new night vision technology. The United States government will assume rights to the resulting created intellectual property.[9]

In January 2009, Congressman Dennis Kucinich sent a notice to Secretary of State, Dr. Condoleezza Rice, that Israel’s actions in Gaza since December 27, 2008 may constitute a violation of the requirements of the AECA. The AECA requires that each nation that receives a shipment of arms from the United States must certify that the weapons are used for internal security and legitimate self-defense, and that their use does not lead to an escalation of conflict. However, the AECA does not define "internal security" or "legitimate self-defense." Kucinich said that Israel's actions in Gaza killed nearly 600 and injured over 2,500, including innocent civilians and children in residential areas and civilian institutions like schools. Kucinich said that this may have violated the AECA because they didn't further Israel's internal security or legitimate self-defense, but increased the possibility of an outbreak or escalation of conflict.[10] The charges were denied by the IDF and no action has been taken under the act.

In July 2009 John Reece Roth, a former University of Tennessee professor, was convicted of violating the AECA and sentenced to 48 months in prison. Roth had a United States Air Force (USAF) contract to develop plasma technology to reduce drag on airplane wings. One application was for unmanned air vehicles (drones). Roth was accused of violating the law by sharing technical (not classified) data with Chinese and Iranian graduate students, and of having technical data on his laptop during a trip to China. Roth and others said that the AECA, as applied in his case, would violate academic freedom and force professors to discriminate against students on the basis of nationality.[11][12][13][14]

See also

References

  1. ^
  2. ^ 22 U.S.C. § 2778(a)(2).
  3. ^
  4. ^ http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/950403/archive_010975.htm
  5. ^
  6. ^
  7. ^
  8. ^ http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/070327/itt_fine.html?.v=3 "ITT Fined $100M for Illegal Tech Exports" Tuesday March 2.; Sue Lindsey, Associated Press Writer
  9. ^ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/03/27/itt_fined_for_illegal_exports/ "ITT Fined for Illegal Exports" Tuesday March 27, The Register; Drew Cullen
  10. ^ http://kucinich.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=108151 "Israel May Be in Violation of Arms Export Control Act" Tuesday January 6, Press Release; Dennis Kucinich
  11. ^
  12. ^
  13. ^ Why the Professor Went to Prison by Daniel Golden, BusinessWeek, November 01, 2012
  14. ^ From Ivory Tower to Iron Bars: Scientists Risk Jail Time for Violating Export Laws, by Sharon Weinberger, Wired, 17 September 2009

External links

This article was sourced from Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. World Heritage Encyclopedia content is assembled from numerous content providers, Open Access Publishing, and in compliance with The Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act (FASTR), Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., Public Library of Science, The Encyclopedia of Life, Open Book Publishers (OBP), PubMed, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health (NIH), U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, and USA.gov, which sources content from all federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial government publication portals (.gov, .mil, .edu). Funding for USA.gov and content contributors is made possible from the U.S. Congress, E-Government Act of 2002.
 
Crowd sourced content that is contributed to World Heritage Encyclopedia is peer reviewed and edited by our editorial staff to ensure quality scholarly research articles.
 
By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. World Heritage Encyclopedia™ is a registered trademark of the World Public Library Association, a non-profit organization.
 


Copyright © World Library Foundation. All rights reserved. eBooks from Project Gutenberg are sponsored by the World Library Foundation,
a 501c(4) Member's Support Non-Profit Organization, and is NOT affiliated with any governmental agency or department.