Summary EU-based NGOs have for a number of years been arguing that the criteria of the EU Code of Conduct on Arms Exports (EU Code) allow far too much room for interpretation. This has had negative consequences both for EU member states, in terms of hamstringing attempts to achieve their stated goal of "promot[ing] convergence in the field of conventional arms exports", and for other states that have formally 'aligned themselves' to the EU Code but have little idea how to implement this in practice. Civil society therefore welcomed the decision in 2003 to develop elaborative guidelines for criterion 8, and is further encouraged by the decision under the 2005 UK Presidency to begin a similar process for criteria 2 and 7 and the apparent enthusiasm to eventually develop guidelines for all the criteria. NGOs would also welcome the opportunity to discuss this submission with COARM officials, as well as to analyse and respond to any interim drafts produced by COARM.
This paper, working from the Draft Council Common Position 2005/.../CFSP-Defining Common Rules Governing the Control of Exports of Military Technology and Equipment (draft for PSC, 28 June 2005), is an initial EU NGO contribution to the process of developing guidelines for criterion 7. It should be noted, however, that some of the ideas contained herein would, if applied more widely, have significant benefits far beyond the issue of diversion.
This paper looks at the following areas:
- Principles
- Definitional issues
- Types and causes of diversion
- In-country security: assessment and assistance
- Diversion at different stages in the transfer process
- Levels of risk
- Access to information and co-operation among member states
- Documentation
- End-use certification
- Delivery verification
- Registers of those involved in trade activities
- Responsibility of industry
- Elements of an effective system