Export Controls:
Observations on Selected Countries' Systems and Proposed Treaties
GAO-10-557: Published: May 27, 2010. Publicly Released: Jun 28, 2010.
Additional Materials:
- Highlights Page:
- Full Report:
- Accessible Text:
Contact:
(202) 512-4285
contact@gao.gov
Office of Public Affairs
(202) 512-4800
youngc1@gao.gov
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 officials.
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. GAO is not making recommendations in this report.
Nov 21, 2019
-
Iraq:
Characteristics of the Office of Security Cooperation-Iraq and How It Compares to Other DOD Security Cooperation OrganizationsGAO-20-196R: Published: Nov 21, 2019. Publicly Released: Nov 21, 2019.
Nov 7, 2019
-
Antidumping and Countervailing Duties:
Information on Actions by Commerce and CBP to Address Reported Weaknesses in Duty Collection ProcessesGAO-20-50R: Published: Nov 7, 2019. Publicly Released: Nov 7, 2019.
Oct 28, 2019
-
Asistencia de Los EE. UU. Para América Central:
El Departamento de Estado debería establecer un plan abarcador para evaluar el progreso hacia la prosperidad, la gobernanza y la seguridadGAO-19-709: Published: Sep 26, 2019. Publicly Released: Oct 28, 2019. -
U.S. Assistance to Central America:
Department of State Should Establish a Comprehensive Plan to Assess Progress toward Prosperity, Governance, and SecurityGAO-19-590: Published: Sep 26, 2019. Publicly Released: Oct 28, 2019.
Oct 3, 2019
-
North Macedonia:
U.S. Government Has Provided Funding to Support Democracy ActivitiesGAO-20-158: Published: Oct 3, 2019. Publicly Released: Oct 3, 2019.
Oct 2, 2019
-
Economic Sanctions:
Agencies Assess Impacts on Targets, and Studies Suggest Several Factors Contribute to Sanctions' EffectivenessGAO-20-145: Published: Oct 2, 2019. Publicly Released: Oct 2, 2019.
Sep 26, 2019
-
Compacts of Free Association:
Trust Funds for Micronesia and the Marshall Islands Are Not Likely to Fully Replace Expiring U.S. Annual Grant AssistanceGAO-19-722T: Published: Sep 26, 2019. Publicly Released: Sep 26, 2019.
Sep 24, 2019
-
Foreign Military Sales:
DOD Should Strengthen Oversight of Its Growing Transportation Account BalancesGAO-19-678: Published: Sep 24, 2019. Publicly Released: Sep 24, 2019.
Sep 10, 2019
-
U.S. Assistance to Mexico:
State and USAID Allocated over $700 Million to Support Criminal Justice, Border Security, and Related Efforts from Fiscal Year 2014 through 2018GAO-19-647: Published: Sep 10, 2019. Publicly Released: Sep 10, 2019.
Sep 9, 2019
-
Conflict Minerals:
2018 Company Reports on Mineral Sources Were Similar in Number and Content to Those Filed in the Prior 2 YearsGAO-19-607: Published: Sep 9, 2019. Publicly Released: Sep 9, 2019.
Looking for more? Browse all our products here