DOCSLIB.ORG

Sanctions Against Venezuela

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Sanctions Against Venezuela WorldECR India joins the Wassenaar Arrangement 2 US declares North Korea a state sponsor 4 of terrorism A ‘Catch 22’ for Canadian corporations 8 trading with Cuba: FEMA EU introduces legislation imposing targeted 9 sanctions against Venezuela US export controls and economic sanctions 13 enforcement – seven trends to watch in 2018 Export control legislation and enforcement in 17 Scandinavia The Arms Trade Treaty: is it making a difference? 26 SPECIAL REPORT: THE GLOBAL AGENDA ISSUE 65. DECEMBER 2017 www.WorldECR.com News and alerts News and alerts Wassenaar Arrangement finally admits India as a member Multilateral export control technologies that India regime, the Wassenaar undertook earlier this year. Arrangement has agreed to Writing in WorldECR this admit a new member, India, summer, Sanjay Notani, bringing the total number of export control expert at members to 42. The Indian law firm Economic decision to admit India was Laws Practice (‘ELP’), noted: made at the Arrangement’s ‘Export control laws in India plenary session held in have been significantly Vienna on 6 and 7 overhauled by the December. Directorate General of The Wassenaar Foreign Trade (‘DGFT’) with Arrangement was establish - effect from 1 May 2017. The ed in 1996 to promote amendments, among other transparency and respons - things, seek to revise the ibility in the transfer of The overhaul of the SCOMET list and an improvement in relations with Special Chemical, Italy are the background for India’s admission to the Arrangement. conventional arms and Organisms, Materials, dual-use goods and grounds for the realignment countries having suffered a Equipment and Technologies technologies. Particip ating of India in the export control dispute over the alleged category (‘SCOMET) relating states seek to ensure that policy framework’, including shooting of Indian fisher men to dual-use goods and such transfers do not eligibility for certain by Italian marines and the technologies. These changes contribute to the licensing exemptions. subsequent arrest of the have been brought about as development or enhance - ‘India's entry into the latter. However, Italian part of India’s continuing ment of military capabilities Arrangement would be Prme Minister Paolo obligations as a member of that undermine regional mutually beneficial and Gentiloni’s visit to India in the Missile Technology and international security. further contribute to October led to a thaw. Control Regime and as an ‘India's membership international security and Admission to the adherent to the Nuclear [of the Wassenaar non-proliferation object ives,’ Wassenaar Arrangement is Suppliers Group Guidelines. Arrangement] is expected to Kumar added. also being seen as reward for It also seeks to align with the facilitate high technology India joined the Missile a major overhaul of the guidelines and control lists of tie-ups with Indian industry Technology Control Regime SCOMET (Special Chemical, the Wassenaar Arrangement and ease of access to high- in June 2016, but is not Organisms, Materials, and the Australia Group, two tech items for our defence currently a member of the Equipment and multilateral export control and space programs,’ said Nuclear Suppliers Group or Technologies) List relating to regimes that India wishes to Raveesh Kumar, a the Australia Group. In dual-use goods and join.’ spokesperson for the Indian recent years, India’s efforts Ministry of External Affairs. to join the Wassenaar For details of India’s SCOMET overhaul, see: India anticipates that Arangement had been https://www.worldecr.com/archives/indias-dgft-overhauls-scomet/ membership will ‘create the blocked by Italy, the two Free with this issue: The Global Agenda We are delighted to include with this issue uncertainty and against a background of a unique special report on the current more and increasingly varied sanctions, state of play of all things international export control reforms and Brexit, readers sanctions and export controls. will find The Global Agenda a useful The Global Agenda brings together the resource in preparing for tomorrow’s insight and experience of senior challenges. export/trade compliance professionals We hope that you enjoy the report. If and leading sanctions and export control you would like any friends and contacts to lawyers and advisers from both sides of receive a copy, please ask them to email the Atlantic, to create a valuable review of [email protected] and we’ll be the issues likely to drive trade compliance happy to send one through. in 2018 and the lessons to be learned We hope that you’ve enjoyed our from the headline-grabbing developments coverage in 2017 and we wish you all a of 2017. At a time of considerable safe and prosperous 2018. 2 WorldECR www.worldecr.com News and alerts News and alerts Charities face compliance struggle despite OFSI sanctions guidance In October in the UK, HM sanctions law, or provide Treasury’s Office of transaction-specific practical Financial Sanctions advice. Implementation (‘OFSI’) ‘Charities still have to use issued simplified guidance their own judgement and it for charities and NGOs on is tricky for them, for complying with financial example, to know when they sanctions, after receiving have done enough due many requests for diligence (in OFSI’s eyes) clarification from smaller before proceeding to deal charities. with the entity in a ‘The production of NGO- sanctioned target country’, specific guidance is likely to The bank accounts of more than 200 charities in the UK are thought says Matthews. be in response to NGOs to have been closed as a result of economic sanctions. The consequences of experiencing problems in serious financial sanctions delivering money or aid to closed, according to the OFSI licence and how to breaches can be significant. target countries as a result London-based Charity apply. Since April 2017, OFSI has of third parties, especially Finance Group, as well as ‘The guidance is very the power under the Policing banks, acting on their own long delays or the rejection largely a re-statement of the and Crime Act 2017 to concerns about sanctions of money transfers. law, focused on charities,’ impose penalties of up to compliance,’ says Roger The OFSI guidance says Matthews. ‘Although it £1 million or 50% of the Matthews from the London provides an overview of is useful to have the breach, whichever is higher. office of law firm Dechert. financial sanctions and clarification – for example, ‘We realise that charities Banks have focused on explains how to use the of when certain types of often operate in challenging ‘de-risking’ since US OFSI lists; how financial payment model are environments,’ says Rena regulators levied hefty fines sanctions restrictions such considered lawful or Lalgie, head of OFSI. ‘This on Standard Chartered, as asset freezes work; unlawful – it does not go practical guidance is an HSBC Holdings and BNP ownership and control; as much further in term of important step in our efforts Paribas for non-compliance well as covering reporting clarifying uncertainties.’ to raise awareness of with sanctions. This has requirements and compli - It is not OFSI’s policy to financial sanctions and help resulted in the bank ance and enforce ment. It give advance clearance on charities and NGOs better accounts of between 200 also outlines what activity whether a proposed understand their and 300 charities being may be permitted under an operation will breach responsibilities.’ House of Representatives calls for Burma sanctions The US House of together with Democrat Joe Representatives has passed a Crowley of New York. resolution (423-3) A bipartisan sanctions condemning the ‘ethnic bill, spearheaded by the cleansing of the Rohingya’ Republican Senate Armed and calling for an end to Services Committee attacks against the Muslim chairman John McCain and minority in Myanmar. Ben Cardin, lead Democrat The vote on 6 December on the Senate Foreign Affairs More than 600,000 Rohingya are estimated to have fled Rakhine paves the way for possible state into Bangladesh in recent months. Committee, has already been sanctions against Myanmar. introduced into the Senate, ‘This is a moral issue and Rohingya have fled Rakhine with the international on 2 November. a national security issue,’ state into Bangladesh in community to resolve the The proposed sanctions said House Foreign Affairs recent months, following crisis while also calling on would withdraw US financial Chairman Ed Royce in the aggression from the Secretary Tillerson to impose assistance from the debate. ‘No one is secure Myanmar military, which sanctions on those Myanmar military, impose when extremism and has created a humanitarian responsible for human rights travel bans on Myanmar instability is growing in this crisis. abuses,’ said Republican military officials and re- part of the world.’ ‘This resolution calls on Steve Chabot of Ohio, who is impose a ban on jade and More than 600,000 Burmese authorities to work co-sponsor of the resolution, rubies from Myanmar. 3 WorldECR www.worldecr.com News and alerts News and alerts US declares North Korea a state sponsor of terrorism The US has upped the pressure to isolate it from pressure on North Korea outside sources of trade and (‘DPRK’) by officially revenue while exposing its designating it as a state evasive tactics,’ said sponsor of terrorism, and Treasury Secretary Steven imposing further third- Mnuchin. ‘These designat - country sanctions. ions include companies that President
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Nordic Countries and the European Security and Defence Policy
    bailes_hb.qxd 21/3/06 2:14 pm Page 1 Alyson J. K. Bailes (United Kingdom) is A special feature of Europe’s Nordic region the Director of SIPRI. She has served in the is that only one of its states has joined both British Diplomatic Service, most recently as the European Union and NATO. Nordic British Ambassador to Finland. She spent countries also share a certain distrust of several periods on detachment outside the B Recent and forthcoming SIPRI books from Oxford University Press A approaches to security that rely too much service, including two academic sabbaticals, A N on force or that may disrupt the logic and I a two-year period with the British Ministry of D SIPRI Yearbook 2005: L liberties of civil society. Impacting on this Defence, and assignments to the European E Armaments, Disarmament and International Security S environment, the EU’s decision in 1999 to S Union and the Western European Union. U THE NORDIC develop its own military capacities for crisis , She has published extensively in international N Budgeting for the Military Sector in Africa: H management—taken together with other journals on politico-military affairs, European D The Processes and Mechanisms of Control E integration and Central European affairs as E ongoing shifts in Western security agendas Edited by Wuyi Omitoogun and Eboe Hutchful R L and in USA–Europe relations—has created well as on Chinese foreign policy. Her most O I COUNTRIES AND U complex challenges for Nordic policy recent SIPRI publication is The European Europe and Iran: Perspectives on Non-proliferation L S Security Strategy: An Evolutionary History, Edited by Shannon N.
    [Show full text]
  • Preparatory Committee for the 2020 Review Conference of the Parties To
    NPT/CONF.2020/PC.III/7 Preparatory Committee for the 2020 Review Distr.: General Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the 25 April 2019 Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons Original: English Third session New York, 29 April–10 May 2019 National Report Pursuant to Actions 5, 20, and 21 of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) 2010 Review Conference Final Document Report submitted by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland Introduction This is a draft document which we share with a wide audience to gather feedback on what we are doing well and what we could do differently. We will then produce a final version of the report for the Review Conference next year. The report outlines our commitment to achieving our long-term goal of a world without nuclear weapons by highlighting our efforts on disarmament, verification and safeguards. We firmly believe the best way to achieve this is through gradual nuclear disarmament, negotiated using a step-by-step approach within existing international frameworks, taking into account current and future security risks. The NPT has been so successful because it addresses the concerns of the Non-Nuclear Weapon States whilst also taking into account the security climate that provides the context for the Nuclear Weapons States’ possession of nuclear weapons. We have already achieved substantial reductions in our nuclear weapon stockpile. We believe developing effective measures for verifying nuclear disarmament will be vital for enabling the fulfilment of the goals of Article VI of the NPT. The UK believes that a Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement plus an Additional Protocol is the universal verification standard and we support the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) continued efforts to strengthen the international safeguards system across the world.
    [Show full text]
  • Preparatory Committee for the 2020 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the 13 March 2018
    NPT/CONF.2020/PC.II/WP.12 Preparatory Committee for the 2020 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the 13 March 2018 Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons Original: English Second session Geneva, 23 April–4 May 2018 Procedures in relation to exports of nuclear materials and certain categories of equipment and material under article III (2) of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons Working paper submitted by Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belarus, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, China, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and United States of America as the members of the Zangger Committee The co-sponsors propose that the Preparatory Committee submit to the 2020 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons the following language for inclusion in the final document of the Review Conference: That the Review Conference: (a) Note that a number of States parties meet regularly in an informal group known as the Zangger Committee in order to coordinate their implementation of article III (2) of the Treaty related to the supply of nuclear material and equipment. To this end, those States parties have adopted two memorandums, A and B, which include a list of items triggering International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards, for their exports to non-nuclear-weapon States not parties to the Treaty, as set forth in IAEA document INFCIRC/209, as amended.
    [Show full text]
  • Approved 1540 Committee Matrix
    APPROVED 1540 COMMITTEE MATRIX The information in the matrices originates primarily from national reports and is complemented by official government information, including that made available to inter-governmental organizations. The matrices are prepared under the direction of the 1540 Committee. The 1540 Committee intends to use the matrices as a reference tool for facilitating technical assistance and to enable the Committee to continue to enhance its dialogue with States on their implementation of Security Council Resolution 1540. The matrices are not a tool for measuring compliance of States in their non-proliferation obligations but for facilitating the implementation of Security Council Resolutions 1540 (2004), 1673 (2006), 1810 (2008), 1977 (2011), 2055 (2012) and 2325 (2016). They do not reflect or prejudice any ongoing discussions outside of the Committee, in the Security Council or any of its organs, of a State's compliance with its non-proliferation or any other obligations. Information on voluntary commitments is for reporting purpose only and does not constitute in any way a legal obligation arising from resolution 1540 or its successive resolutions. Matrix entries are only indicators of fact and not indicators of the degree of compliance under resolution 1540 (2004) and its successor resolutions. Thus: An “X” in any data field signifies only that the 1540 Committee considers that a State has taken the steps required, and/or has provided specific references to the applicable legal basis or executive behaviour as evidence of such steps. An “X” against any data field does not necessarily signify that a State has met in full its 1540 obligations for that data field.
    [Show full text]
  • Press Statement the Chairman of the Nuclear Non
    Press Statement The Chairman of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Exporter’s Committee is pleased to note that 11 March 2001 marked the 30th anniversary of the first meeting of the group. Known as the Zangger Committee, in honor of its first Chairman Prof. Claude Zangger, the Committee was formed following the coming into force of the NPT, to serve as the "faithful interpreter" of its Article III.2, to harmonize the interpretation of nuclear export control policies for NPT Parties. The Committee has been focussing on what is meant in Article III.2 of the Treaty by "especially designed or prepared equipment or material for the processing, use or production of special fissionable material." The Zangger Committee maintains a Trigger List (triggering safeguards as a condition of supply) of nuclear-related strategic goods to assist NPT Parties in identifying equipment and materials subject to export controls. Today the Zangger Committee has 35 members including all the nuclear weapons states. Its Trigger List includes illustrative examples of equipment and materials judged to be within the understandings of the Committee. The Trigger List and the Zangger Committee’s understandings are published by the IAEA in the INFCIRC/209 series. At this time the current Chairman of the Zangger Committee, Dr. Fritz Schmidt of Austria, would like to recognize the important contributions that all members of the Committee have made to strengthening the Committee’s understandings and the nuclear nonproliferation regime. In particular, the Committee recognizes its previous Chairmen Dr. Claude Zangger of Switzerland and Ilkka Mäkipentti of Finland; and the U.K.
    [Show full text]
  • NUCLEAR LAW BULLETIN No. 46
    NUCLEAR LAW BULLETIN No. 46 Contents Detailed Table of Contents Studies and Articles Case Law and Administrative Decisions National Legrslative and Regulatory Actrvrtres International Regulatory Activitres Agreements Texts Bibliography ThlS BulletIn ulcludeo a supplement December 1990 Nuclear Energy Agency Orgamsakan for Economic Co-operahon and Development Pursuant to article I of the Convention ugncd m Pdns on 14th December 1960 and u hlch came mm force on 30th September 1961. the Organ~satwn for F.conom~c Gopcrat~on and Development (OECD) shall promote pols~cs deagned - to achwe the hlghat sustamahk economw growth and employment and a nrmg standard of lwmg m Member countna whde mamtammg linanaal stablIlt, and thus to mntnhute to the ckvclopment of the world economy - to contnbutc to sound cconom~c cxpansmn m Member as well as non-member countnes tn the prams of ec~norn~c development and - to contnbute to the expansmn of world trade on a mululateral nondwnmmatory basis m accordance wth mtcntatmnal obbgattons The ongmal Member countnes of the OECD are Austna Beigmm Canada Denmark France the Federal Rcpubbc of Germany, Greece Iceland Ireland Italy Luxembourg the Netherlands Norway, Portugal Spam Sweden Swttzerland Turkey the Umted Kmgdom and the Umted Stata Tbe followmg countnes became Members subsequentI) through accewon at the data mdtcated hereafter Japan (28th Apnl 1964) Finland (28th Januan 1969) Autraba (7th June 1971) and New Zealand (29th May 1973) The Soaabst Federal Repubbc of Yugoslavia takes part m some of the work of the
    [Show full text]
  • NPR 1.1: the Nuclear Suppliers Group
    The Nuclear Suppliers Group by Tadeusz Strulak Ambassador Tadeusz Strulak served as Chairman of the Nuclear Suppliers Group meeting in 1992. He has been an ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency, and is currently an Advisor to the Polish Minister of Foreign Affairs. This article is adapted from a paper prepared for a workshop on "The New Role of International Organizations in Nonproliferation" held at the Monterey Institute of International Studies, August 27-29, 1993. Nuclear Export Control: The Early Stages Article III.2 of the NPT) should govern the exports of these items to non-nuclear weapon states not party to the NPT. The question of nuclear export control arose as early as the These requirements obligated nuclear suppliers: exports themselves. Suppliers first sought safeguards and a) to obtain the recipient's assurance excluding uses of the assurances of the peaceful use of exported items in the exported items for a nuclear explosion; 1950s. They sought these assurances through the b) to subject those items, as well as the material on the implementation of bilateral agreements. At that time, the Trigger List produced through their use, to IAEA application of safeguards was entrusted to the International safeguards; Atomic Energy Agency after its creation in 1957, and to c) to ensure that Trigger List items are not re-exported to Euratom, which safeguarded exports to its member states. a third party unless the third party recipient meets the conditions of a) and b). The parties who signed the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation These requirements and the Trigger List were of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) in 1968 agreed "..
    [Show full text]
  • NPR73: NPT Export Controls and the Zangger Committee
    FRITZ SCHMIDT Report NPT Export Controls and the Zangger Committee FRITZ SCHMIDT Fritz Schmidt is the Chairman of the Zangger Committee and Director for Nuclear Nonproliferation in the Austrian Federal Ministry for Economy and Labor. He has dealt with nonproliferation matters since 1971 and has participated in every NPT review conference to date. While the opinions expressed in this viewpoint are not necessarily shared in toto by all members of the Zangger Committee, they do reflect the views of the Austrian Federal Ministry and elements of its policy for future activities in international fora. s required by Art. VIII.3, the Review Conference and coordination of export policies among all interested of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear states parties, and how the Zangger Committee could help AWeapons (NPT) was held from April 24 to May increase cooperation between suppliers and recipients. A 19, 2000, “to review the operation of this Treaty” since new and increasingly important element in these consid- the last conference in 1995 “with a view to assuring that erations is the role the International Atomic Energy Agency the purposes of the Preamble and the provisions of the (IAEA) should play in the framework of NPT export con- Treaty are being realized.”1 At the NPT Review and Ex- trols. In particular, IAEA information-collection activities tension Conference in 1995 (NPTREC), the parties de- could provide a way to reduce the burdens that export cided without a vote to extend the Treaty indefinitely. As controls currently place on individual states. part of the indefinite extension package, they adopted de- cisions on “Strengthening the Review Process for the THE ROLE OF EXPORT CONTROLS IN THE Treaty” and on “Principles and Objectives for Nuclear NPT FRAMEWORK Non-Proliferation and Disarmament.”2 The principal goal of the NPT, specified in Articles I The focus of this viewpoint is on export control require- and II, is to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons.
    [Show full text]
  • 2000 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons
    NPT/CONF.2000/17 2000 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation 18 April 2000 of Nuclear Weapons Original: English New York, 24 April-19 May 2000 Multilateral nuclear supply principles of the Zangger Committee Working paper submitted by Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, China, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, the Republic of Korea, Romania, the Russian Federation, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America as members of the Zangger Committee Introduction proliferation and disarmament” stated that “transparency in nuclear export controls should be 1. Previous Review Conferences of the Parties to the promoted within the framework of dialogue and Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons cooperation among all interested States party to the (NPT), when reviewing the implementation of the Treaty.” Treaty in the area of export controls, have repeatedly 3. Attached to this working paper are the statements noted the role of the Zangger Committee. The of previous NPT Review Conferences referring to the Committee, also known as the “NPT Exporters Zangger Committee. Committee”, essentially contributes to the interpretation of article III, paragraph 2, of the Treaty and thereby offers guidance to all parties to the Treaty. Zangger Committee The Committee and its work were mentioned in final documents or in Committee reports of Review Article III, paragraph 2 Conferences from 1975, 1985, 1990 and 1995. 2. The purpose of the present working paper is to 4.
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear Legislation in OECD and NEA Countries © OECD 2016
    N uclear Legislation in OECD and NEA Countries Regulatory and Institutional Framework for Nuclear Activities Greece Nuclear Legislation in OECD and NEA Countries © OECD 2016 Greece I. General Regulatory Regime ................................................................. 2 1. Introduction ............................................................................................... 2 2. Mining regime ............................................................................................. 3 3. Radioactive substances, nuclear fuel and equipment ........................................ 3 4. Nuclear installations .................................................................................... 3 a) Licensing and inspection, including nuclear safety ....................................... 3 b) Emergency response ............................................................................... 4 5. Trade in nuclear materials and equipment ...................................................... 5 6. Radiation protection .................................................................................... 5 7. Radioactive waste management .................................................................... 7 8. Nuclear security .......................................................................................... 7 9. Transport ................................................................................................... 8 10. Nuclear third party liability ..........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Public Statement Plenary Meeting of the Nuclear Suppliers Group Bern, Switzerland, 22–23 June 2017
    PUBLIC STATEMENT PLENARY MEETING OF THE NUCLEAR SUPPLIERS GROUP BERN, SWITZERLAND, 22–23 JUNE 2017 The twenty-seventh Plenary Meeting of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), 1 chaired by Ambassador Benno Laggner of Switzerland, was held in Bern, Switzerland, on 22 and 23 June 2017. The President of the Swiss Confederation, H.E. Ms. Doris Leuthard, welcomed the Participating Governments on behalf of the Swiss Government and reaffirmed Switzerland’s commitment to the work of the Group at a time when the principle of nuclear non-proliferation continued to be at the centre of international stability. The President highlighted the central role of the NSG in international efforts against the spread of nuclear weapons and its contribution to the international nuclear non-proliferation architecture with the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) at its centre. The NSG took stock of developments since the last meeting in Seoul in 2016. Participating Governments reiterated their firm support for the full, complete and effective implementation of the NPT as the cornerstone of the international non-proliferation regime. Within the framework of the NSG’s mandate, the Group exchanged information on and expressed its concerns regarding continued global proliferation activities and reaffirmed its determination to continue to cooperate closely in order to deter, hinder and prevent the transfer of controlled items or technology that could contribute to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices. The Participating Governments reconfirmed their commitment to UNSCRs 1718 (2006), 1874 (2009), 2087 (2013), 2094 (2013), 2270 (2016), 2321 (2016) and 2356 (2017), which strongly condemned the DPRK‘s nuclear tests.
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear Nonproliferation and Arms Control Primer Prepared for the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’S Nuclear Future
    PNNL-20432 Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830 Nuclear Nonproliferation and Arms Control Primer Prepared for the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future LS Williams May 2011 PNNL-20432 Nuclear Nonproliferation and Arms Control Primer Prepared for the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future LS Williams May 2011 Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830 Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Richland, Washington 99352 PNNL-20432 Although the list of U.S. nuclear nonproliferation and arms control is too extensive to be described fully in these pages, the subset of arms control and nonproliferation initiatives that are most relevant to managing the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle includes the following: Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG): The NSG is a group of 46 nuclear supplier states—including the United States—“that have voluntarily agreed to coordinate their export controls governing transfers of civilian nuclear material and nuclear-related equipment and technology to non-nuclear weapon states.”1 These states agree to forego exports of nuclear material and technology to states that fail to join or comply with international nuclear nonproliferation regimes such as the NPT and nuclear weapon free zone agreements (e.g., North Korea, Pakistan). Fissile materials, nuclear reactors, reprocessing and enrichment technology are among the controlled items in the NSG Guidelines. In addition to other nonproliferation commitments, recipient states must commit not to transfer these imports to a third country without the supplier’s permission, and must ensure adequate physical security measures to prevent theft or unauthorized use.
    [Show full text]