The U.S. Approach to Comsat Export Controls and the Challenge of U.S-E.U. Regulatory Divergence

Mineiro, Michael C.

doi:10.1007/978-94-007-2567-6_4

The U.S. Approach to Comsat Export Controls and the Challenge of U.S-E.U. Regulatory Divergence

Michael C. Mineiro^2,3

Chapter
First Online: 01 January 2011

974 Accesses

Part of the book series: Space Regulations Library Series ((SPRL,volume 6))

Abstract

The narrative of this chapter explores the U.S. and European approach to Comsat control within the context of regulatory divergence. Unveiled to the reader are the policy rationales associated with U.S. Comsat export control, in particular as they relate to China. At the same time, a study of U.S. and E.U. controls reveals a tension as the U.S. attempts achieve regulatory harmonization with Europe. As will be explored in subsequent chapters, the difficulty in achieving regulatory harmonization with Europe is a crucial factor in the effectiveness of U.S. Comsat controls. The chapter begins with a jurisprudential study of U.S. export control law and policy, focusing on the implementation of Congressional policy in U.S. export license authorization system (Section 4.1: An Overview of the U.S. Munitions and Dual-Use Export Control System). Thereafter, the specifics of U.S. Comsat policy rationale, legislation, and regulation are examined (Section 4.2: U.S. Comsat Export Controls). Finally, the European approach to Comsat export controls are explained (Section 4.3: European Comsat Export Controls) and U.S-E.U. law is compared using a qualitative metric of regulatory divergence (Section 4.4: Comparative Analysis of U.S-E.U. Comsat Control).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter: USD 29.95; Price excludes VAT (USA)

eBook: USD 84.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Softcover Book: USD 109.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Hardcover Book: USD 109.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

1.
See R.J. Forbes, More Studies in Early Petroleum History 1860–1880 (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1959) at 82. Emperor Constantine Porphyrogenitus declared: “You must of all things spend your care and your attention on the liquid fire…and if they dare ask you for it…you must deny and reject this demand… .He declared anathema forever, he declared infamous whoever, emperor, patriarch, prince or subject, who would try to violate this law. He also ordered all men who fear and loved God to treat the malefactor as a public enemy, to condemn him and to deliver him to the cruelest torture.” Id. quoting Costantine Porphyrogentius, De Adminisstrando Imperio, Cap. 13. Cf. Elizabeth Jefferys, Byzantine Style, Religion and Civilization (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006) at 290–326.
2.
See Ralph Payne-Gallwey, The Crossbow, Medieval and Modern, Military and Sporting: It’s Construction, History, and Management (London: Holland Press, 1958). See also Jackson Slipek, “U.S. Export Controls: Is there a new sheriff in town,” available online at: SDCExec.Com (2009) <http://www.sdcexec.com/online/article.jsp?siteSection=13&id=11400&pageNum=1> [Last accessed on October 20, 2009]. See also, Bruce Jackson, “An Overview of U.S. Export Controls” (Trade Management and Consulting Group of JP Morgan, August 2008) online: <http://www.buyusa.gov/colorado/overview.pdf> [Last accessed on October 20, 2009].
3.
See Worthington Ford, Journals of the Continental Congress 1774–1779, (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1905) at “The Articles of Association, October 20th, 1774,” available online at the Yale Law School Avalon Project: <http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/contcong_10-20-74.asp> [Last accessed on October 20, 2009]. “The earnest desire we have not to injure our fellow-subjects in Great-Britain, Ireland, or the West-Indies, induces us to suspend a non-exportation, until the tenth day of September, 1775; at which time, if the said acts and parts of acts of the British parliament herein after mentioned, ate not repealed, we will not directly or indirectly, export any merchandise or commodity whatsoever to Great-Britain, Ireland, or the West-Indies, except rice to Europe.”
4.
For an interesting history of U.S. Government export restrictions See Harold Berman and John Garson, “U.S. Exports Controls – Past, Present, and Future” 67(5) Columbia Law Review 791 (1967) at 791, Fn.1.
5.
Neutrality Act, 22 U.S.C. 441, 49 Stat. 1081 (1935).
6.
John Heinz, U.S. Strategic Trade: An Export Control Systems for the 1990s (Oxford: Westword Press, 1991) at 8. See Neutrality Act, 22 U.S.C. 441, 49 Stat. 1081 (1935).
7.
Neutrality Act, 22 U.S.C. 441, 49 Stat. 1081 (1935).
8.
Id.
9.
The Arms Export Controls Act of 1976, 22 U.S.C. §2778 et al. (2009).
10.
22 U.S.C. §2778(a) (2009).
11.
Id.
12.
In the EAA and AECA the President has been delegated the authority to designate those items that are on either the Commerce Control List (CCL) or the United States Munitions List (USML). The Department of Commerce and Department of State are administrative organs that periodically assess and reform these lists. Constitutionally, the President is granted a wide array of discretion of list item determination. See Butterfield v. Stranahan, 192 U.S. 470; 24 S. Ct. 349 (1904). Under the AECA there is no judicial review of designation of items as defense articles or services. See 22 U.S.C. §2778(h) (2009). Under the EAA judicial review of CCL items is proscribed. See 50 U.S.C. 2412(a) (2009).
13.
22 U.S.C. §2778(a) (2009).
14.
Panel on the Impact of National Security Controls on International Technology Transfer, Balancing the National Interest: U.S. National Security Export Control and Global Economic Competition (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1987) at 71. “Under the provisions of the Neutrality Acts of 1935–1939, exports of goods with potential military application such as advanced aircraft and parts did require a license from the State Department. But State could not withhold such licenses until the President invoked the full provisions of the act and embargoed all such exports to both parties in the war in question – an action he consistently resisted. In particular the Roosevelt administration opposed efforts to apply this act to the Sino-Japanese conflict in 1937 because it would have hurt China far more than Japan.” Id. at 71, footnote 4.
15.
Export Control Act, 54 Stat. 714, §6 Public Law 703 (2 July, 1940).
16.
See Export Control Act, 54 Stat. 714, §6 Public Law 703 (2 July, 1940). “Be it enacted…that ir order to expedite the building up of the national defense…” Id. Also See “Key Materials Put under Export Ban” The N.Y. Times (3 July, 1940) Special to the N.Y. Times page 1.
17.
See John Chider, “Ban Affects Japan: U.S. Supply of Materials to Her War on China Can be Cut Off” N.Y. Times (26 July, 1940) Special to the N.Y. Times page 1. “While no final conclusions as to political implications of the action would be warranted until it is observed how the government intends to exercise its remaining power, the mere act of subjecting exports of products so important to Japan to a control system was regarded as a definitive step in the application of a vigorous economic policy toward Japan.” Id.
18.
See Export Control Act of 1949, 63 Stat. 7, §2 Public Law 11 (26 February, 1949).
19.
See Walter Surrey and Crawford Shaw, “Excerpt from a lawyer’s Guide to International Business Transactions,” (1963) in Stanley Metzger ed., Law of International Trade: Documents and Readings (Washington, DC: Learner Law Book Company, 1966) at 1051.
20.
Export Control Act of 1949, 63 Stat. 7, §2 Public Law 11 (26 February, 1949).
21.
It should be noted that the EAA contains a termination date that is periodically extended. The last extension expired in August 2001. Since this expiration, the export licensing system created under the authority of the EAA has continued by Presidential invocation of the International Emergency Economics Powers Act (IEEPA). See 50 U.S.C. §2419 (2009).
22.
Export Administration Act, 50 U.S.C. §2402 et seq. (2009).
23.
The EAA adopts a policy to minimize uncertainties in export control policy, encourage international trade, and to fully consider the impact of export controls on the impact of the U.S. economy.
24.
50 U.S.C. §2402(a) (2) & §2402(a) (3) (2009).
25.
See Kenneth Abbott, “Linking Trade to Political Goals: Foreign Policy Export Controls in the 1970s and 1980s” 65 Minnesota Law Review 739 at 757 (1981). Also See Harold Berman and John Garson, “U.S. Exports Controls – Past, Present, and Future” 67(5) Columbia Law Review 791 (1967).
26.
See 50 U.S.C. §2402(c) (2009).
27.
²⁷ Created by Michael C. Mineiro. Based on chart in “Introduction to U.S. Export Controls for the Commercial Space Industry,” Department of Commerce Publication (October 2008), available online at: <http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/media/Intro%20to%20US%20Export%20Controls.pdf> (Last Accessed November 17th, 2009).
28.
See generally ITAR 22 C.F.R. §120 et seq. (2009) & EAR 15 C.F.R. §730 et seq. (2009).
29.
See 22 U.S.C. §2776 & §2778 et seq. (2009). See also §1512 of the Thurmond Act, Pub. L. 105–261 (1999).
30.
See 50 U.S.C. §2403(c) (2009).
31.
See EAA 50 U.S.C. 2403(g) (2009): “no fees may be charged in connection with the submission or processing of an export license application.” Compare this to the AECA/ITAR in which the government has exporters self-finance DDTC licensing requirements. See 73 Federal Register 55349 (amending ITAR § 122.2, 122.3, and 129.4).
32.
See Criminal sanctions under the AECA, 22 U.S.C. §2778(c): “fined for each violation not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.” See civil sanctions under the AECA, 22 U.S.C. §2778(e): “Civil penalty for each violation involving controls imposed on the export of defense articles and defense services may not exceed $500,000.” Compare this to the EAA 50 U.S.C. §2410(b) (2009): for willful violations individuals shall be “fined not more than $250,000, or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both” and except in the case of individuals “shall be fined not more than five times the value of the exports involved of $1,000,000, whichever is greater.”
33.
See EAA 50 U.S.C. §2403(d) (2009):“No authority or permission to export may be required under this Act or under regulations issued under this Act, except to carry out the policies set forth in section 3 of this Act.” Also See “Introduction to U.S. Export Controls for the Commercial Space Industry,” Department of Commerce Publication (October 2008), available online at: <http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/media/Intro%20to%20US%20Export%20Controls.pdf> (Last Accessed November 17th, 2009) at pg.3.
34.
EAR99 is a general category of goods and technology that encompasses many widely traded consumer and industrial items.
35.
See 50 U.S.C. §2404(a) (5)(2009). See also EAR 15 C.F.R. §740 et seq. (2009).
36.
EAR 15 C.F.R. §740.2(7) (2009).
37.
See “Introduction to U.S. Export Controls for the Commercial Space Industry,” Department of Commerce Publication (October 2008), available online at: <http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/media/Intro%20to%20US%20Export%20Controls.pdf> (Last Accessed November 17th, 2009) at pg.3.
38.
See “Introduction to U.S. Export Controls for the Commercial Space Industry,” Department of Commerce Publication (October 2008), available online at: <http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/media/Intro%20to%20US%20Export%20Controls.pdf> (Last Accessed November 17th, 2009) at pg. 3.
39.
See ITAR 22 C.F.R. §120.10 & 120.11 (2009). But See other ITAR provisions in which there are special exemptions for NATO/Allied countries and other unique circumstances.
40.
See 50 U.S.C. §2403(a) (3) & 2404(d) (2009).
41.
See 22 U.S.C. §2794 (2009).
42.
50 U.S.C. §2415(3) (2009).
43.
50 U.S.C. §2415(4) (2009).
44.
22 U.S.C. §2794(3) (2009).
45.
ITAR 22 C.F.R. §120.6 (2009).
46.
22 U.S.C. §2794(4) (2009).
47.
22 U.S.C. §2403(e) (2009).
48.
Report of the Select Committee on U.S. National Security and Military/Commercial Concerns with the People’s Republic of China [Cox Report], (U.S. Congress, Washington, DC, 1999) Ch. 9 pg. 39.
49.
Id. at 40.
50.
Id.
51.
Id.
52.
See ITAR 22 C.F.R. §120.3 & 120.4 (2009). See also EAR 15 C.F.R. §770.2 (2009).
53.
United States Munitions List, Category 11 (“Military and Space Electronics”) (2009).
54.
15 C.F.R. §734.2(b) (2009).
55.
22 C.F.R. §120.17 (2009).
56.
22 C.F.R. §120 et seq. (2009);15 C.F.R. §734.2(b) (2009).
57.
15 C.F.R. §734.2(b) (2009).
58.
22 C.F.R. §120.17 (2009).
59.
22 C.F.R. §120.19 (2009); 15 C.F.R. §734.2(b) (2009).
60.
22 C.F.R. §120.16 (2009);15 C.F.R. §734.2(b) (2009).
61.
15 C.F.R. §734.4(b) (2009).
62.
15 C.F.R. §734.4 (2009).
63.
Report of the Select Committee on U.S. National Security and Military/Commercial Concerns with the People’s Republic of China [Cox Report], (U.S. Congress, Washington, DC, 1999) Ch. 9 pg. 44.
64.
Report of the Select Committee on U.S. National Security and Military/Commercial Concerns with the People’s Republic of China [Cox Report], (U.S. Congress, Washington, DC, 1999) Ch. 9 pg. 59.
65.
22 C.F.R. §121 (2009).
66.
22 U.S.C. §2404(f) et seq. (2009).
67.
Report of the Select Committee on U.S. National Security and Military/Commercial Concerns with the People’s Republic of China [Cox Report], (U.S. Congress, Washington, DC, 1999) Ch. 9 pg. 41.
68.
See Butterfield v. Stranahan, 192 U.S. 470; 24 S. Ct. 349 (1904).
69.
Article 1, Section 9, of the U.S. Constitution.
70.
See United States v. Spawr Opticial Research, Inc., 864 F.2d 1467 (9th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 809, 107 L Ed. 2d 20, 110 S. Ct. 51 (1989). See Karn v Macnamara, 925 F. Supp. 1 (1996).
71.
See Karn v Macnamara, 925 F. Supp. 1 (1996). See also U.S. v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367, 20 L. Ed. 2d 672, 88 S. Ct. 1673 (1968). In addition to a government regulation being “content neutral”, it must also be (1) within the constitutional power of the government, (2) furthers an important government interests, and (3) is narrowly tailored to the government interest.
72.
See Karn v Macnamara, 925 F. Supp. 1 (1996). See also §2778(h)
73.
See United States v. Spawr Opticial Research, Inc., 864 F.2d 1467 (9th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 809, 107 L Ed. 2d 20, 110 S. Ct. 51 (1989). See also 50 U.S.C. 2412(a) (2009).
74.
See Dart v. U.S., 270 U.S. App. D.C. 160, 848 F.2d 217, 223 (D.C. Cir. 1988).
75.
50 U.S.C. §2409(j) (2009).
76.
Rachel Claus, “Space-Based Fundamental Research and the ITAR: A Study in Vagueness, Overbreadth, and Prior Restraint” 2 Santa Clara Journal of International Law 1 (2003).
77.
See Richard Cupitt and Suzette Grillot, “COCOM is Dead, Long Live COCOM: Persistence and Change in Multilateral Security Institutions” 27 British Journal of Political Science 361 (1997). See also Joan Johnson-Freese, “Alice in Licenseland: U.S. Satellite Export Control Since 1990” 16 Space Policy 195 (2000). See also, Michael Mastanduno, Economic Containment: COCOM and the Politics of East-West Trade (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1992).
78.
See Klaus Iserland, “Ten Years of Arianespace” 6(4) Space Policy 341 (1990).
79.
See Richard Cupitt and Suzette Grillot, “COCOM is Dead, Long Live COCOM: Persistence and Change in Multilateral Security Institutions” 27 British Journal of Political Science 361 (1997). See also Joan Johnson-Freese, “Alice in Licenseland: U.S. Satellite Export Control Since 1990” 16 Space Policy 195 (2000). See also, Michael Mastanduno, Economic Containment: COCOM and the Politics of East-West Trade (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1992).
80.
See 2009 Commercial Space Transportation Forecasts, (Washington, DC: U.S. Federal Aviation Administratio, 2009), available online at: <http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/media/NGSO%20GSO%20Forecast%20June%203%202009%20lowres.pdf>.
81.
See U.S. Presidential Directive on National Space Policy (February 11th 1988), available online at: <http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/policy88.html>.
82.
See Richard Cupitt and Suzette Grillot, “COCOM is Dead, Long Live COCOM: Persistence and Change in Multilateral Security Institutions” 27 British Journal of Political Science 361 (1997). See also Joan Johnson-Freese, “Alice in Licenseland: U.S. Satellite Export Control Since 1990” 16 Space Policy 195 (2000).
83.
See China-U.S. Agreements of Satellite Technology Safeguards (1988, 1993, 1995). See China-U.S. Agreements on International Trade in Commercial Launch Services (1989, 1995). See Russia-U.S. Agreements of Satellite Technology Safeguards (1993, 1999). See Russia-U.S. Agreements on International Trade in Commercial Launch Services (1993).
84.
See CIA World Fact Book: China (2010), available online at: < http://https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ch.html>.
85.
See Ryan Zelnio, “Whose Jurisdiction Over the U.S. Commercial Satellite Industry?” 23(4) Space Policy 221 at 227 (2007). “Typically, 20–30 Comsat contracts are awarded worth $100-$300 million apiece and of these, 15–25 are fiercely competed over in a given year, the remaining are typically captured by sister companies.” See Futron Corporation White Paper, How Many Satellites Are Enough? A Forecast of Demand for Satellites 2004–2012 (Bethesda, MD, 2004), available online at: <http://www.futron.com/pdf/resource_center/white_papers/Satellite_Forecast_2004_-_2012_White_Paper.pdf>. Quantitative data from 2000 to 2004 establishes an average of only 19 commercial communication satellites launched yearly. Assuming a direct correlation to the number of launches to number of units sold than the average number is approximately nineteen.
86.
See Bill Lai, “National Subsidies in the International Commercial Launch Market” 9(1) Space Policy 17 (1993). See also Peter Van Fenema, The International Trade in Launch Services (Leiden Faculty of Law, 1999) at 183–240.
87.
See Peter Van Fenema, The International Trade in Launch Services (Leiden Faculty of Law, 1999) at 183–240.
88.
Id. at 111.
89.
The purpose of the trade limitations was to protect the U.S. domestic launch industry as the Chinese entered the international launch market. See Bill Lai, “National Subsidies in the International Commercial Launch Market” 9(1) Space Policy 17 (1993).
90.
§902 of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1990 and 1991 (P.L. 101–246; 22 U.S.C. 2151 note).
91.
Id.
92.
M. May ed., The Cox Committee Report: An Assessment (Stanford, CA: CISAC, 1999) at 9, available online at: <http://fsi.stanford.edu/publications/cox_committee_report_the_an_assessment/>.
93.
Id.
94.
Id.
95.
See Declassified Report of the Select Committee on U.S. National Security and Military/Commercial Concerns with the People’s Republic of China (Submitted by Rep. Cox, U.S.G.P.O, Washington, DC; January 3rd, 1999 – declassified May 25th, 1999).
96.
M. May, Ed., The Cox Committee Report: An Assessment (Stanford, CA: CISAC, 1999) at 6, available online at: <http://fsi.stanford.edu/publications/cox_committee_report_the_an_assessment/>.
97.
Id. at 18.
98.
Strom Thurmond Defense Act, 22 U.S.C. §2778, P.L. 105–261 (1998) at §1511–1516.
99.
See Declassified Report of the Select Committee on U.S. National Security and Military/Commercial Concerns with the People’s Republic of China (Submitted by Rep. Cox, U.S.G.P.O, Washington, DC; January 3rd, 1999 – declassified May 25th, 1999) at 253–254.
100.
Strom Thurmond Defense Act, 22 U.S.C. §2778, P.L. 105–261 (1998) at §1511–1516.
101.
Id.
102.
Id.
103.
See ITAR 22 C.F.R. §124.15 (2009).
104.
See Daniel Drezner, All Politics is Global (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2007) at 11. “Regulatory coordination is defined as the codified adjustment of standards in order to recognize or accommodate regulatory frameworks from other countries.”
105.
See Richard Cupitt and Suzette Grillot, “COCOM is Dead, Long Live COCOM: Persistence and Change in Multilateral Security Institutions” 27 British Journal of Political Science 361 at 364 (1997). “Decisions on some licences were subject to COCOM review. These licence decisions, and decisions to modify the lists of controlled items or proscribed countries, required unanimous consent. This meant that the country with the most stringent control standards, generally the United States, held a veto over all licences subject to review and over the deletion of items.”
106.
See Antonella Bini, “Export Control of Space Items: Preserving Europe’s Advantage” 23(2) Space Policy 70 (2007). See also Regulations, Council Regulation (EC) No 428/2009, Setting Up a Community Regime for the Control of Exports, Transfer, Brokering, and Transit of Dual-Use Goods (Re-cast), [2009] O.J. L 134.
107.
See Ryan Zelnio, “Whose Jurisdiction over the U.S. Commercial Satellite Industry?” 23(4) Space Policy 221 (2007) at 231. See also M. Garcia-Alonso, “The role of technology security in model trade with horizontal differentiation” 18(5) International Journal of Industrial Organization 747 (2000).
108.
This conclusion is based on the proposition that, so long as European Comsats are equivalent to U.S., the benefits of trade for China associated with the Chinese launch and/or operation of Comsats are roughly equivalent for China regardless of the State of origin.
109.
22 C.F.R. §120.17 (2009). See 22 U.S.C. §2778 et seq. (2009).
110.
Id.
111.
See Andreas F. Lowenfeld, “Trade Controls for Political Ends” 4 Chicago Journal of International Law 355 (2003). See also, Kenneth Abbott, “Defining the Extra-territorial Reach of American Export Controls: Congress as Catalyst” 17 Cornell International Law Journal 79 (1984).
112.
See Cedric Ryngaret, “Extraterritorial Export Controls” 7(3) Chinese Journal of International Law 625 (2008). C.F. See Encyclopedia of International Law Vol. III (Amsterdam: Max Plank Institute of Comparative Law, 1992–2001), Rudolph Bernhardt Ed., “Jurisdiction” by Bernard Oxman at 56.
113.
See Cedric Ryngaret, “Extraterritorial Export Controls” 7(3) Chinese Journal of International Law 625 (2008). C.F. See Encyclopedia of International Law Vol. III (Amsterdam: Max Plank Institute of Comparative Law, 1992–2001), Rudolph Bernhardt Ed., “Jurisdiction” by Bernard Oxman at 60.
114.
See Lotus Case (France v Turkey) (Judgment) [1927] PCIJ (ser A) No 10.
115.
See Regulations, Council Regulation (EC) No 428/2009, Article 4(2), Setting Up a Community Regime for the Control of Exports, Transfer, Brokering, and Transit of Dual-Use Goods (re-cast), [2009] O.J. L 134. China is not subject to a Comsat embargo under Article 4(2).
116.
See Benjamin Sutherland, “Why America Is Lost in Space” Newsweek Online (9 February 2009), available online at: <http://www.newsweek.com/id/182544>. See Sandra Erwin, “Export Rules Under Fire for Eroding U.S. Space Industry” National Defense Magazine (June 2009), available online at: <http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2009/June/Pages/ExportRulesUnderFireforErodingUSSpaceIndustry.aspx>. See National Research Council, Beyond Fortress America: National Security Controls on Science and Technology in a Globalized World (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2009). See John Hillery, “U.S. Satellite Export Control Policy” (Center for Security and International Studies: September 20 2006). See Peter Brown, “No Chinese Rockets for U.S. Satellites Yet” Asia Times (19 March 2009), available online at: <http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/KC19Ad01.html>.
117.
See Benjamin Sutherland, “Why America Is Lost in Space” Newsweek Online (9 February 2009), available online at: <http://www.newsweek.com/id/182544>.
118.
See Andy Pasztor, “China to Launch Satellite for France’s Eutelsat” Wall Street Journal Asia (25 February 2009), available online at: <http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123550142763361701.html>. See Peter Selding, “China Launches New Communications Satellite” (10 June 2008), available online at: Space.com <http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/080610-chinasat9-longmarch3b.html>.
119.
Consolidated Version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (April 15th, 2011). Article 346 states:
“1. The provisions of this Treaty shall not preclude the application of the following rules:
1. (a)
  no Member State shall be obliged to supply information the disclosure of which it considers contrary to the essential interests of its security;
2. (b)
  any Member State may take such measures as it considers necessary for the protection of the essential interests of its security which are connected with the production of or trade in arms, munitions and war material; such measures shall not adversely affect the conditions of competition in the common market regarding products which are not intended for specifically military purposes.”
120.
Yann Aubin and Arnaud Idiart, Export Control Law and Regulations Handbook (The Netherlands: Kluwer Law International, 2007) at 111.
121.
Anna Wetter, Enforcing European Union Law on Exports of Dual-Use Goods (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009) at 49. See Treaty Establishing the European Community (TEC), 25 March 1957.
122.
See Article 4(2), Regulations, Council Regulation (EC) No 428/2009, Setting Up a Community Regime for the Control of Exports, Transfer, Brokering, and Transit of Dual-Use Goods (re-cast), [2009] O.J. L 134. See Article 113, Treaty Establishing the European Community (TEC), 25 March 1957.
123.
Anna Wetter, Enforcing European Union Law on Exports of Dual-Use Goods (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009) at 49. See Regulations, Council Regulation (EC) No 428/2009, Article 9, Setting Up a Community Regime for the Control of Exports, Transfer, Brokering, and Transit of Dual-Use Goods (re-cast), [2009] O.J. L 134.
124.
Anna Wetter, Enforcing European Union Law on Exports of Dual-Use Goods (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009) at 54.
125.
See Article 2(11), Regulations, Council Regulation (EC) No 428/2009, Setting Up a Community Regime for the Control of Exports, Transfer, Brokering, and Transit of Dual-Use Goods (re-cast), [2009] O.J. L 134.
126.
Id. at Article 2(10)
127.
Id. at Article 2(8).
128.
Id. at Article 3.
129.
Id. at Article 9(2).
130.
Article 12, Regulations, Council Regulation (EC) No 428/2009, Setting Up a Community Regime for the Control of Exports, Transfer, Brokering, and Transit of Dual-Use Goods (re-cast), [2009] O.J. L 134.
131.
See Yann Aubin and Arnaud Idiart, Export Control Law and Regulations Handbook (The Netherlands: Kluwer Law International, 2007) at 153.
132.
See Yann Aubin and Arnaud Idiart, Export Control Law and Regulations Handbook (The Netherlands: Kluwer Law International, 2007). See Government Accountability Office Report, Defense Trade: State Department Needs to Conduct Assessments to Identify and Address Inefficiencies and Challenges in the Arms Export Process (U.S. GAO, GAO-08-710-T, Washington, DC; April 24th, 2008). See Ann Calvaresi-Barr, Export Controls: State and Commerce Have Not Taken Basic Steps to Better Ensure U.S. Interests are Protected (Testimony of GAO Acquisition and Sourcing Management Director before the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Colombia, Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Washington, DC; April 24, 2008). See also, Ram Jakhu and Joseph Wilson. “The New United States Export Control Regime: Its Impact on the Communications Satellite Industry” 25 Annals of Air & Space Law 157 (2000).
133.
§902 of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1990 and 1991 (P.L. 101–246; 22 U.S.C. 2151 note).
134.
Strom Thurmond Defense Act, 22 U.S.C. §2778, P.L. 105–261 (1998) at §1511–1516.
135.
See Regulations, Council Regulation (EC) No 428/2009, Setting Up a Community Regime for the Control of Exports, Transfer, Brokering, and Transit of Dual-Use Goods (re-cast), [2009] O.J. L 134. See also U.N. Security Council Resolution 1540, UN Doc. S/Res/1540 (2004).
136.
See Anna Wetter, Enforcing European Union Law on Exports of Dual-Use Goods (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009) at Appendix A: “Sanctions for dual-use export control violation in the E.U.”, citing EC, Directorate-General for Trade, Working Party on Dual-Use Goods, Report on the Answers to Questionnaire DS6/2005 Rev. 3 on existing sanctions-implementation of Article 19 of Council Regulation 1334/2000, DS 37/4/2005 Rev. 4. (11 May 2006); and EC, Directorate-General for Trade, Working Party on Dual-use Goods, Report on Sanctions imposed by EU Member States for violations of Export Control Legislation Draft Rev. 14 (September 2005).
137.
Id.
138.
This quantitative data is not publicly available and is beyond the capabilities of this research thesis. But it does raise an unanswered area of empirical legal research that needs to be conducted.

References

Ann Calvaresi-Barr, Export Controls: State and Commerce Have Not Taken Basic Steps to Better Ensure U.S. Interests are Protected (Testimony of GAO Acquisition and Sourcing Management Director before the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Colombia, Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Washington, DC; April 24, 2008).
Google Scholar
R.J. Forbes, “Naphtha Goes To War”, in More Studies in Early Petroleum History 1860–1880 (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1959).
Google Scholar
John Hillery, “U.S. Satellite Export Control Policy” (Center for Security and International Studies: Sept. 20 2006).
Google Scholar
John Chider, “Ban Affects Japan: U.S. Supply of Materials to Her War on China Can be Cut Off” N.Y. Times (26 July, 1940).
Google Scholar
Peter Brown, “No Chinese Rockets for U.S. Satellites Yet” Asia Times (19 March 2009), available online at: <http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/KC19Ad01.html>.
Sandra Erwin, “Export Rules under Fire for Eroding U.S. Space Industry” National Defense Magazine (June 2009), available online at: <http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2009/June/Pages/ExportRulesUnderFireforErodingUSSpaceIndustry.aspx>.
Bruce Jackson, “An Overview of U.S. Export Controls” (Trade Management and Consulting Group of JP Morgan, August 2008), available online at: <http://www.buyusa.gov/colorado/overview.pdf> [Last accessed on October 20, 2009].
Jackson Slipek, “U.S. Export Controls: Is There a New Sheriff in Town,” available online at: SDCExec.Com (2009) <http://www.sdcexec.com/online/article.jsp?siteSection=13&id=11400&pageNum=1> [Last accessed on October 20, 2009].
China-U.S. Agreements of Satellite Technology Safeguards (1988, 1993, 1995).
Google Scholar
China-U.S. Agreements on International Trade in Commercial Launch Services (1989, 1995).
Google Scholar
Russia-U.S. Agreements of Satellite Technology Safeguards (1993, 1999).
Google Scholar
Treaty Establishing the European Community (TEC), 25 March 1957.
Google Scholar
U.N. Security Council Resolution 1540, UN Doc. S/Res/1540 (2004).
Google Scholar
Arms Export Controls Act of 1976, 22 U.S.C. §2778 et al. (2009). [U.S.]
Google Scholar
Export Administration Act, 50 U.S.C. §2402 et seq. (2009). [U.S.]
Google Scholar
Export Control Act, 54 Stat. 714, §6 Public Law 703 (2 July, 1940). [U.S.]
Google Scholar
International Trafficking in Arms Regulations (United States), United States Munitions List, 22 C.F.R. §120 (2009).
Google Scholar
Regulations, Council Regulation (EC) No 428/2009, Setting Up a Community Regime for the Control of Exports, Transfer, Brokering, and Transit of Dual-Use Goods (re-cast), [2009] O.J. L 134. [European Union]
Google Scholar
Defense Trade: State Department Needs to Conduct Assessments to Identify and Address Inefficiencies and Challenges in the Arms Export Process (U.S. GAO, GAO-08-710-T, Washington, DC; April 24th, 2008).
Google Scholar
U.S. Presidential Directive on National Space Policy (February 11th, 1988).
Google Scholar
Lotus Case (France v Turkey) (Judgment) [1927] PCIJ (ser A) No 10.
Google Scholar
Anna Wetter, Enforcing European Union Law on Export of Dual-Use Goods (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009).
Google Scholar
Ralph Payne-Gallwey, The Crossbow, Medieval and Modern, Military and Sporting: It’s Construction, History, and Management (London: Holland Press, 1958).
Google Scholar
Kenneth Abbott, “Linking Trade to Political Goals: Foreign Policy Export Controls in the 1970s and 1980s” 65 Minnesota Law Review 739 (1981).
Google Scholar
Kenneth Abbott, “Defining the Extra-territorial Reach of American Export Controls: Congress as Catalyst” 17 Cornell International Law Journal 79 (1984).
Google Scholar
Harold Berman and John Garson, “U.S. Exports Controls – Past, Present, and Future” 67(5) Columbia Law Review 791 (1967).
Article Google Scholar
Antonella Bini, “Export Control of Space Items: Preserving Europe’s Advantage” 23(2) Space Policy 70 (2007).
Article Google Scholar
Richard Cupitt and Suzette Grillot, “COCOM is Dead, Long Live COCOM: Persistence and Change in Multilateral Security Institutions” 27 British Journal of Political Science 361 at 387 (1997).
Article Google Scholar
M. Garcia-Alonso, “The Role of Technology Security in Model Trade with Horizontal Differentiation” 18(5) International Journal of Industrial Organization 747 (2000).
Article Google Scholar
Klaus Iserland, “Ten Years of Arianespace” 6(4) Space Policy 341 (1990).
Article Google Scholar
Ram Jakhu and Joseph Wilson. “The New United States Export Control Regime: Its Impact on the Communications Satellite Industry” 25 Annals of Air & Space Law 157 (2000).
Google Scholar
Joan Johnson-Freese, “Alice in Licenseland: U.S. Satellite Export Control Since 1990” 16 Space Policy 195 (2000).
Article Google Scholar
Bill Lai, “National Subsidies in the International Commercial Launch Market” 9(1) Space Policy 17 (1993).
Article Google Scholar
Andreas F. Lowenfeld, “Trade Controls for Political Ends” 4 Chicago Journal of International Law 355 (2003).
Google Scholar
Russia-U.S. Agreements on International Trade in Commercial Launch Services (1993).
Google Scholar
Cedric Ryngaret, “Extraterritorial Export Controls” 7(3) Chinese Journal of International Law 625 (2008).
Article Google Scholar
Walter Surrey and Crawford Shaw, “Excerpt from a lawyer’s Guide to International Business Transactions,” (1963) in Stanley Metzger, Ed., Law of International Trade: Documents and Readings (Washington, DC: Learner Law Book Company, 1966) at 1051.
Google Scholar
Ryan Zelnio, “Whose Jurisdiction over the U.S. Commercial Satellite Industry?” 23(4) Space Policy 221–233 (2007).
Article Google Scholar
2009 Commercial Space Transportation Forecasts, (Federal Aviation Administration: Washington D.C., 2009).
Google Scholar
Balancing the National Interest: U.S. National Security Export Control and Global Economic Competition (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1987).
Google Scholar
M. May, Ed., Cox Committee Report: An Assessment (Stanford, CA: CISAC, 1999).
Google Scholar
Futron Corporation White Paper, How Many Satellites Are Enough? A Forecast of Demand for Satellites 2004–2012 (Bethesda, MD: 2004).
Google Scholar
Encyclopedia of International Law Vol. IV (Amsterdam: Max Plank Institute of Comparative Law, 1992–2001), Rudolph Bernhardt Ed.
Google Scholar
Chris Forrester, “Eutelsat Picks Chinese Launch,” RapidTVNews (26 February 2009), available online at: <http://www.rapidtvnews.com/index.php/200902263244/eutelsat-picks-chinese-launch.html>.
“Introduction to U.S. Export Controls for the Commercial Space Industry,” Department of Commerce Publication (October 2008), available online at: <http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/media/Intro%20to%20US%20Export%20Controls.pdf> (Last Accessed November 17th, 2009) at pg.3.
Peter Selding, “China Launches New Communications Satellite” (10 June 2008), available online at: Space.com <http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/080610-chinasat9-longmarch3b.html>.
Benjamin Sutherland, “Why America Is Lost in Space” Newsweek Online (9 February 2009), available online at: <http://www.newsweek.com/id/182544>.
CIA World Fact Book: China (2010).
Google Scholar
Neutrality Act, 22 U.S.C. 441, 49 Stat. 1081 (1935). [U.S.]
Google Scholar
Strom Thurmond Defense Act, 22 U.S.C. §2778, P.L. 105–261 (1998) at §1511–1516. [U.S.]
Google Scholar
Butterfield v. Stranahan, 192 U.S. 470; 24 S. Ct. 349 (1904).
Google Scholar
Dart v. U.S., 270 U.S. App. D.C. 160, 848 F.2d 217, 223 (D.C. Cir. 1988).
Google Scholar
Karn v Macnamara, 925 F. Supp. 1 (1996).
Google Scholar
United States v. Spawr Opticial Research, Inc., 864 F.2d 1467 (9th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 809, 107 L Ed. 2d 20, 110 S. Ct. 51 (1989).
Google Scholar
Yann Aubin and Arnaud Idiart, Export Control Law and Regulation Handbook (Kluwer Law International, 2007).
Google Scholar
Peter Van Fenema, The International Trade in Launch Services (Leiden Faculty of Law, 1999).
Google Scholar
Worthington Ford, Journals of the Continental Congress 1774–1779 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1905).
Google Scholar
John Heinz, U.S. Strategic Trade: An Export Control Systems for the 1990s (Oxford: Westword Press, 1991).
Google Scholar
Elizabeth Jefferys, Byzantine Style, Religion and Civilization (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006).
Google Scholar
Rachel Claus, “Space-Based Fundamental Research and the ITAR: A Study in Vagueness, Overbreadth, and Prior Restraint” 2 Santa Clara Journal of International Law 1 (2003).
Google Scholar
Daniel Drezner, All Politics is Global (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2007). [U.S.]
Google Scholar
Report on the Answers to Questionnaire DS6/2005 Rev. 3 on existing sanctions-implementation of Article 19 of Council Regulation 1334/2000, DS 37/4/2005 Rev. 4. (11 May 2006).
Google Scholar
Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act of 2009, Pub.L. No. 110-417, §1233, 122 Stat. 4639 (14 October 2008).
Google Scholar
U.S. v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367, 20 L. Ed. 2d 672, 88 S. Ct. 1673 (1968).
Google Scholar
Michael Mastanduno, Economic Containment: COCOM and the Politics of East-West Trade (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1992).
Google Scholar

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada
Michael C. Mineiro
815 Thayer Ave, Suite 510, Silver Springs, MD, 20910, USA
Michael C. Mineiro

Authors

Michael C. Mineiro
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael C. Mineiro .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Mineiro, M.C. (2012). The U.S. Approach to Comsat Export Controls and the Challenge of U.S-E.U. Regulatory Divergence. In: Space Technology Export Controls and International Cooperation in Outer Space. Space Regulations Library Series, vol 6. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2567-6_4

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2567-6_4
Published: 03 October 2011
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-2566-9
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-2567-6
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics