News & Events

On 29 January 2021, Italy adopted a measure revoking and suspending the issuance of licences to export weapons to Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates. The measure took immediately effect and concerns 6 authorizations for the sale of missiles and aircraft bombs.

Thirty years after its entry into force, the law 185/1990[1] has been enforced for the first time. Specifically, the law bans the export of weapons to countries that violate human rights[2]. Likewise, it may be used to prevent the issuance of new licences. The measure adopted aims at complying with the Rome’s commitment to restoring peace in war-ravaged Yemen and protecting human rights.

The decision followed a resolution by the Italian Parliament of 17 December 2020[3], by which the majority asked for the suspension of export licences. The resolution has committed the government to reply by the 31 January 2021.

At the EU level, on 17 September 2020 a resolution was issued by the European Parliament, urging all Member States “to refrain from selling arms and military equipment to Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and any member of the international coalition, as well as the Yemeni Government and other parties to the conflict”[4].

All thing considered, Italy’s decision may have some effects on EU Member States, by triggering a blockade mechanism by the EU as a whole for at least three years. In fact, according article 4.1 of Council Common Position 2008/944/CFSP of 8 December 2008 defining common rules governing control of exports of military technology and equipment[5]:

“[…]Before any Member State grants a license which has been denied by another Member State or States for an essentially identical transaction within the last three years, it shall first consult the Member State or States which issued the denial(s) […].”

It is noteworthy that consultations and the no-undercut principle enshrined in this article are not legally binding.

Italy’s decision aligns with the one of USA, which on 27 January 2021 decided to halt the sale of weapons to UAE and Saudi Arabia in reason of the conflict in Yemen.

 

[1] Legge 9 luglio 1990, n. 185, “Nuove norme sul controllo dell'esportazione, importazione e transito dei materiali di armamento”, Gazzetta Ufficiale 14 July 1990, n. 163. Available at: http://presidenza.governo.it/UCPMA/doc/legge185_90.pdf

[2] Article 1.6 d of Law 185/1990: « L'esportazione ed il transito di materiali di armamento sono altresì vietati: verso i Paesi i cui governi sono responsabili di gravi violazioni delle convenzioni internazionali in materia di diritti umani, accertate dai competenti organi delle Nazioni Unite, dell'UE o del Consiglio d'Europa”.

[3] Atto Camera, Risoluzione in commissione 7-00588, presentato da EHM Yana Chiara, testo di Lunedì 30 novembre 2020, seduta n. 435. Available at: https://aic.camera.it/aic/scheda.html?numero=7-00588&ramo=C&leg=18

[4] Arms export: implementation of Common Position 2008/944/CFSP, European Parliament resolution of 17 September 2020 on Arms export: implementation of Common Position 2008/944/CFSP (2020/2003(INI)). Available at: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/seance_pleniere/textes_adoptes/provisoire/2020/09-17/0224/P9_TA-PROV(2020)0224_EN.pdf

[5] Council Common Position 2008/944/CFSP of 8 December 2008 defining common rules governing control of exports of military technology and equipment. Official Journal L 335, 13.12.2008. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32008E0944&from=IT

On 29 January 2021, the COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2021/111 of 29 January 2021 making the exportation of certain products subject to the production of an export authorization was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJ L 031I Of 30/01/2021).

This act follows the announcement from certain vaccine manufacturers that they would not be in a position to supply the quantities of vaccine destined to the Union that they had pledged, in potential breach of their contractual commitments.

Thus, in order to remedy a critical shortage of COVID-19 vaccines and to ensure transparency, pursuant to art. 5 of Regulation (EU) 2015/479 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2015 on common rules for exports, the Commission implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/111 submits the export of vaccines against SARS-related coronaviruses to a prior authorization of the competent authorities of the Member States.

Its article 1 also establishes some exceptions, particularly for the COVAX facilities and the low and middle-lower income countries due to their vulnerability and limited access to vaccines.

These measures should remain in force until 31 March 2021.

 

Further information can be found in the attchment.

On 15 January 2021, the Council adopted the Decision (CFSP) 2021/38 establishing a common approach on the elements of end-user certificates in the context of the export of small arms and light weapons (SALW) and their ammunition.

 

In accordance with :

 

• United Nations Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in SALW in All Its Aspects (UNPoA, 20 July 2001);
• Arms Trade Treaty (ATT, adopted by the UN General Assembly on 2 April 2013);
• Sustainable Development Goal 16.4 of the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (2015);

 

this decision follows the Council conclusions on an EU position for the Third Review Conference to review the implementation of the UNPoA. Adopted on 28 May 2018, these conclusions call for the promotion of the application of end-user certificates in the context of the control of SALW exports.

Successively, in the EU Strategy against illicit firearms, SALW and their ammunition (19 November 2018), the Council commits to considering a decision on end-user certificates for SALW exports, taking account of the work of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe in this regard, and it confirms this commitment in its conclusions of 16 September 2019 relating to the review of Council Common Position 2008/944/CFSP.

 

 

Some of the major highlights of the agreed common elements for end-user certificates can be found here below.

 

 

The Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/38 makes the authorization by a Member State (MS) of the export of SALW and their components, accessories and ammunition, as set out in the Annex, subject to the requirement of a "thoroughly checked end-user certificate or appropriate documentation, signed by the end-user prior to that authorisation" (art. 4 of the Decision).

 

Article 5 of the Decision establishes the essential elements regarding identification to be included in the end-user certificate (such as details of the exporter, of the end-user, country of final destination, and description of the goods), and the essential commitments that MS shall require by the end-user (e.g. that the goods will not be used for purposes other than the declared use).

Other optional elements that the MS might require to be included in the end-user certificate are listed in article 6.

 

A requirement of record keeping of the issued end-user certificates is laid down by article 7 in accordance with national law and practice.

 

While in case of identified fraud with, falsification of, or violation of an end-user certificate, the Decision envisage an information sharing with the other MS via the COARM online system.

 

This Decision, by establishing a common Union-wide approach to end-user control for SALW and their ammunition, could contribute to:

• A reduced risk of diversion;
• The creation of a level playing field;
• A better understanding of the relevant requirements for the defence industry and its clients.

 

However, as stressed in the Council, “such certificates are not a substitute for a pre-ante full assessment of risk, made on a case-by-case basis when deciding whether or not to grant an export licence”.

 

 

For further information, please consult the following link:

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32021D0038&from=EN

 

On 15 January 2021, on the Official Journal of the EU it was published the Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/27 of 7 January 2021 on the request for registration of the European citizens’ initiative entitled ‘Civil society initiative for a ban on biometric mass surveillance practices ‘.

 

Registered on 7 January 2021, the initiative calls on the Commission to adopt a legislative proposal to strictly regulate the use of biometric technologies in order to avoid undue interference with fundamental rights, and to prohibit, in law and in practice, indiscriminate or arbitrarily-targeted uses of biometrics which can lead to unlawful mass surveillance (unnecessary or disproportionate interference with people’s fundamental rights).

The legislative proposal would be based on the competence attributed to the EU by article 16(2) and/or article 114 TFEU, depending on whether the use of biometrics would be banned or strictly regulated.

 

More particularly, the initiative invites the Commission to submit binding rules which – building on and with full respect for the general safeguards in the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR, Regulation (EU) 2016/679) and Data Protection Law Enforcement Directive (LED, Directive (EU) 2016/680) – would explicitly prohibit the use of biometric data for identification, recognition (including of emotions), profiling, prediction and any related purpose, in public or publicly accessible spaces (including online spaces) on the grounds that this leads to inherently unnecessary and disproportionate mass surveillance.

 

It is noteworthy that this European citizens’ initiative is contemporary to the request of the Advocacy Officer for Internet Freedom at Reporters Without Borders, Lisa Dittmer, who, in occasion of the 2020 Export Control Forum and in the context of the evaluation of the new EU export control regime (Recast of the Dual-Use Regulation), called for a ban on the export of facial recognition technology for identification purposes.

 

The European citizens’ initiative text and its future developments can be consulted at the following link:

https://europa.eu/citizens-initiative/initiatives/details/2021/000001_en

 

Further information on the new EU export control regime can be found here:

http://www.esu.ulg.ac.be/file/20201215075555_Dual-Use-RECAST-final-agreement-18-Nov-2020.pdf

The Chaudfontaine Newsletter, Issue 42, has been published.

Scientific research sometimes might also present potential risks of misuse. Making available sensitive (dual-use) technology, such as technical data or know-how, could contribute to the development, production or use of biological, chemical, nuclear weapons or their means of delivery (e.g. missiles or drones), as well as human rights violations.
Academic proliferation has become one the main concerns related to strategic trade control since the adoption of the EU Regulation 428/2009, and its recast highlighted the importance to raise awareness among the academic and research community (see recital 8).

 

The EU Commission, with the support of the Member States, has developed a targeted “EU compliance guidance for research involving dual-use items” which will be soon published, after having been open to public consultation.

 

In this context, the European Commission Joint Research Centre, in collaboration with Liege University (European Studies Unit), has developed a data-mining tool which can provide support to universities and research centres (but not only) for awareness raising and mapping of scientific collaborations: TIM Dual-Use.

 

Retrieving relevant documents from SCOPUS (over 50 million scientific abstracts), PATSTAT (over 25 million international-patents from 90 countries) and EU CORDIS (EU-funded research projects) databases, on the basis of multiple queries built on keywords related to dual-use items, TIM Dual-Use is able to, inter alia:

• Map potential dual-use scientific publications and collaboration networks of a country or even specific companies, universities, and research institutes;
• Identify areas for targeted awareness-raising activities to reinforce internal compliance;
• Monitor emerging technology (technological development and trends, as appearing from chronological and geographical developments);

 

The TIM Dual-Use public platform can be consulted at the following European Commission Joint Research Centre’s website:

https://knowledge4policy.ec.europa.eu/text-mining/tim-dual-use_en.

REGULATION (EU) 2020/2171 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL

of 16 December 2020 amending Annex IIa to Council Regulation (EC) No 428/2009 as regards granting a Union General Export Authorisation for the export of certain dual-use items from the Union to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

 

On 21 December 2020, the Regulation (EU) 2020/2171 of the European Parliament and of the Council has been published in the Official Journal of the European Union (L 432/4).[1]

 

The Regulation has been adopted after one month from the publication of its Proposal[2].

 

It grants a Union General Export Authorisation (“EU001”) for the export of certain dual-use items from the Union to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

 

In particular, Annex IIa (providing for a EU001 for certain low-risk transactions) is amended as follows.

1. The UK has been included in the list of destinations as follows:
   • "Exports to Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, Switzerland, including Liechtenstein, United Kingdom and United States of America";

 

2. in Part 2 the following is inserted after "Switzerland, including Liechtenstein":
   • "- United Kingdom (without prejudice to the application of this Regulation to and in the UK in respect of Northern Ireland in accordance with Annex 2, point 47, of the IE/NI Protocol, listing the provisions of Union law referred to in Article 5(4) of the Withdrawal Agreement)".

 

The Regulation is motivated by the urgence of mitigating the potential disruptive effects of the UK withdrawal to the EU’s competitiveness. As a consequence, the UK has been added to the list of those third countries where certain dual-use items can be exported from the EU under certain conditions. This allows to relieve the administrative burden for authorities and operators of both sides. The Regulation aims eventually at facilitating the trade among the EU and the UK and Northern Ireland.

In this regard, the Regulation is consistent with the general approach to contingency measures to address a withdrawal of the UK without agreement.

 

Considered that the list of destinations covered by the EU001 is established by the Regulation and that at the Commission has no power to add other countries to that list, a regulation of the European Parliament and Council is the only adequate form of legal act to address this situation.

 

No publicly consultation on the proposal took place.

 

 

[1] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.L_.2020.432.01.0004.01.ENG

[2] http://www.esu.ulg.ac.be/file/20201112163553_Summary-Proposal-428-2009.pdf

On 15 December 2020, the UK published the lists of items covered by strategic trade controls (available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/944003/UK_strategic_export_control_lists_20201215.pdf  ).

 

Specifically, it is a consolidated list that includes the 7 lists in various pieces of international legislation establishing what types of goods are controlled.

 

By using the checker tool, such a consolidated version allows inter alia to establish:

 

• if your items are controlled
• the appropriate control entry reference in the consolidated list
• if an appropriate open general export licence (OGEL) exists
• If your items are listed under a control list (‘rating’) entry you need an export licence from Export Control Joint Unit (ECJU).[1]

 

[1] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-strategic-export-control-lists-the-consolidated-list-of-strategic-military-and-dual-use-items-that-require-export-authorisation

On 14 December 2020, it has been published on the Official Journal of the EU the Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/1749 of 7 October 2020 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 428/2009 setting up a Community regime for the control of exports, transfer, brokering and transit of dual-use items. By virtue of article 2, the Regulation enters into force on the day following that of its publication in the OJ.

The updated Annex I to Regulation 428/2009 includes the changes adopted by the 2019 Plenary meetings of the different international regimes, as well as the decisions agreed by the Australia Group Inter-sessional meeting of February 2020.

Please find the document in the attached link.

The Dual-Use Unit, established by the University of Liège, supports academic and research activities to comply with EU legislation on dual-use items trade, aiming at avoiding any misuse of research.

The Dual-Use Unit has updated its interactive verification process, available at both http://www.esu.ulg.ac.be/49/app.phpb and https://www.recherche.uliege.be/cms/c_11374378/fr/dual-use (to access the dedicated ULiège webpage, only available in French).

Specifically, the updated tool aims at helping researchers and academics to understand whether their research activity involves the transfer of dual-use items.
In sensitive cases, the tool will automatically redirect the user to full-fill a form which will be evaluated by the Dual-Use Unit.
In case an authorisation is considered necessary, the Dual-Use Unit will assist the researcher in asking the competent authorities for it.

Among the updates of the interactive verification process appear: 

• a clear and user-friendly interface; 
• specific definitions provided and easily available on click; 
• provision of ad hoc documents to be consulted and easily available on click; 
• automatic redirection to the form and submission on a click.

 

On 18 November 2020, the Council published an informal version of the final compromise text of the new EU Export Control Regulation (Recast of the Dual-Use Regulation 428/2009).
The way to the modernisation of EU export controls was a long process. Since the publication of the Green paper in 2011 (COM(2011) 393 final), almost ten years passed. In September 2016, the Commission transmitted its legislative proposal (COM(2016) 616 final) to the European parliament and the Council, which adopted their positions in January 2018 (TA/2018/6/P8) and June 2019 (ST 9923 2019 INIT), respectively.
Between October 2019 and November 2020, five informal trilogues took place. A compromise was reached during the final trilogue on 9 November, 2020.
Council’s position presents substantial differences with regard to the RECAST as proposed by the Commission and as successively amended by the European Parliament. The adoption and publication of the final joint text is scheduled in May 2021 and its entry into force ninety days later.

 

The main changes characterising the final compromise text are the following:

 

• Updating and introduction of new key concepts and definitions (e.g. exporter, re-export, technical assistance, supplier of technical assistance, transit, arms embargo, ICP, cyber-surveillance items, essentially identical transaction).

 

• EU autonomous mechanism to control the export of cyber-surveillance items for human right considerations (art. 4a), and publication of an “EU Watch List”.

 

• Enlarged scope of the catch-all provisions with the introduction the new art. 4a establishing human rights end-use controls on cyber-surveillance technologies, the art. 8a for emerging technologies, and with the extension of art. 8 catch-all clause to the prevention of act of terrorism.

 

• Coordination of national controls on non-listed items pursuant to art. 8a, submitting the export of non-listed items to authorisation if such authorisation is required on the basis of the national control list of another MS.

 

• Further harmonisation of certain services and measures (e.g. controls on the supply of technical assistance, application of catch-all provisions)

 

• Strengthened information-sharing and cooperation among national authorities (licensing, customs, enforcement, e.g. Enforcement Coordination Mechanism of art. 22), as well as with third countries, notably on outreach activities (see Chapter IX, art. 27).

 

• Greater transparency pursuant to art. 24, with an annual report by the Commission reporting information on authorisations (number and value by types of items and by destinations), denials, enforcement of controls (number of infringements and penalties).

 

• 2 new EU general export authorisation: EU007 on Intra-group export of software and technology, and EU008 on Encryption.

 

A more detailed view of the major updates is available in the attached document (final compomise text in the attached link).

On 4 November 2020, the Commission published the Proposal to amend Council Regulation 428/2009 by granting a Union General Export Authorisation (“EU001”) for the export of certain dual-use items from the Union to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

In particular, Annex IIa (providing for a EU001 for certain low-risk transactions) is amended as follows.

1. The UK has been included in the list of destinations as follows:
   • "Exports to Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, Switzerland,

   including Liechtenstein, United Kingdom and United States of America";

2. in Part 2 the following is inserted after "Switzerland, including Liechtenstein":

• "- United Kingdom (without prejudice to the application of this Regulation to and in the UK in respect of Northern Ireland in accordance with Annex 2, point 47, of the IE/NI Protocol, listing the provisions of Union law referred to in Article 5(4) of the Withdrawal Agreement)".

The Proposal is motivated by the urgence of mitigating the potential disruptive effects of the UK withdrawal to the EU’s competitiveness. Therefore, the UK would be added to the list of those third countries where certain dual-use items can be exported from the EU under certain conditions. This would allow to relieve the administrative burden for authorities and operators of both sides. Then, the Proposal aims eventually at facilitating the trade among the EU and the UK and Northern Ireland.

In this regard, the proposal is consistent with the general approach to contingency measures to address a withdrawal of the UK without agreement.

Considered that the list of destinations covered by the EU001 is established by the Regulation and that at the Commission has no power to add other countries to that list, a regulation of the European Parliament and Council is the only adequate form of legal act to address this situation.

No publicly consultation on the proposal took place.

On 23 October 2020, the Council published the Twenty-Second Annual Report according to Article 8(2) of Common Position 2008/944/CFSP.

Please find herewith the summary of it, which can be downloaded.

On 7 October 2020, the European Commission proposed the Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) .../... of 7.10.2020 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 428/2009 setting up a Community regime for the control of exports, transfer, brokering and transit of dual-use items.

 

It amends Annex I, Annexes IIa to IIg and Annex IV . 

The Chaudfontaine Newsletter, Issue 41, has been published.

On 15 September 2020, the Commission issued a notice to stakeholders regarding the UK withdrawal and EU rules in the field of firearms.

Whereas the transition period ends on 31 December 2020, persons trading dual-use items are in particular advised to take note of:

• legal situation applicable after the end of the transition period (Part A below);
• certain relevant separation provisions of the Withdrawal Agreement (Part B below);
• the rules applicable in Northern Ireland after the end of the transition period (Part C below).

 

A. Legal situation after the end of the transition period

After the end of the transition period, EU law on the acquisition, possession, [1] import and export[2] of firearms no longer apply to the UK[3].

This has in particular the following consequences:

• Movement of firearms - intra-eu movement of firearms :
  • the rules provided by Directive 91/477/EEC on the specific authorisation procedure for the movement of firearms from one Member State to another Member State will no longer apply to movement of firearms between the UK and the EU. Rather, the EU rules on import and export of firearms apply. EU firearms pass issued to persons in the UK is no longer valid in the EU.

• Import of firearms :
  • Imports of firearms follow Regulation (EU) No 258/2012, read in conjunction with Directive 91/477/EEC;
• Export of firearms :
  • export of civilian firearms are regulated by Regulation (EU) No 258/2012.

  

B. Relevant separation provisions of the withdrawal agreement

Under specific conditions[4], movements of goods ongoing at the end of the transition period are to be treated as intra-Union movements regarding importation and exportation licencing requirements in EU law.

 

C. Applicable rules in Northern Ireland after the end of the transition period

After the end of the transition period, the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland (“IE/NI Protocol”) [5]  applies.

The Protocol makes certain provisions of EU law applicable also to and in the UK in respect of Northern Ireland. In the Protocol, the EU and the UK have agreed that Northern Ireland is treated as if it were a MS.

The IE/NI Protocol provides that Directive 91/477/EEC and Regulation (EU) No 258/2012 apply to and in the UK in respect of Northern Ireland.[6]

This means that references to the EU in Parts A and B of the notice have to be understood as including Northern Ireland, whereas references to the UK have to be understood as referring only to Great Britain.

More specifically, this means inter alia the following:

• Movements of firearms between Northern Ireland and the EU are not considered as imports or exports. Rather, the rules for intra-EU movements set out in Directive 91/477/EEC apply. The transfer authorisation will be issued by the UK in respect of Northern Ireland. The European firearms pass issued prior to the end of the transition period in respect of persons in Northern Ireland remains valid.
• The import of firearms from Great Britain or a third country to Northern Ireland has to comply with the relevant provisions of EU law ;
• The export of firearms from Northern Ireland to a third country or to Great Britain has to comply with the relevant provisions of Regulation (EU) No 258/2012 ;

However, the IE/NI Protocol excludes the possibility for the United Kingdom in respect of Northern Ireland to participate in the decision-making and decision-shaping of the Union.

 

[1] Council Directive 91/477/EEC of 18 June 1991 on control of the acquisition and possession of weapons, OJ L 256, 13.9.1991, p. 51,

[2] Regulation (EU) No 258/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 March 2012 implementing Article 10 of the United Nations’ Protocol against the illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in firearms, their parts and components and ammunition, supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organised Crime (UN Firearms Protocol), and establishing export authorisation, and import and transit measures for firearms, their parts and components and ammunition, OJ L 94, 30.3.2012, p. 1.

[3] Regarding the applicability of these rules to Northern Ireland, see Part C of this notice.

[4] Provided by Article 47(1) of the Withdrawal Agreement.

[5] The Protocol is subject to periodic consent of the Northern Ireland Legislative Assembly. The initial period of application extending to 4 years after the end of the transition period.

[6] Article 5(4) of the IE/NI Protocol and section 47 of annex 2 to that Protocol.

On 16 September 2020, the European Commission, Directorate-General Trade, issued a notice to stakeholders on withdrawal of the UK and EU rules in the field of dual-use export controls.

Whereas the transition period ends on 31 December 2020, persons trading dual-use items are in particular advised to take note of:

• legal situation applicable after the end of the transition period (Part 1 below);
• certain relevant separation provisions of the Withdrawal Agreement (Part 2 below);
• the rules applicable in Northern Ireland after the end of the transition period (Part 3 below).

1. Legal situation after the end of the transition period

After the end of the transition period, the Council Regulation 428/2009 of 5 May 2009

setting up a Community regime for the control of exports, transfer, brokering and transit of dual-use items no longer apply to the UK.

This has in particular the following consequences:

• Dual-use exports to the UK:
  • controls under the Regulation will apply in relation to exports to the UK;
• export licenses issued by the UK under the Regulation:
  • will no longer be valid for exports of dual-use items from the EU to third countries;
• intra-EU transfer licences to the UK issued before the end of the transition period:
  • former transfers of Annex IV items from the EU to the UK will constitute an export subject to authorization;
  • intra-EU transfer licences issued by the competent authority of an EU MS for transfers to the UKissued before the end of the transition period will become valid licences for exports to the United Kingdom after the end of the transition period, and until the validity of the licence expires.

2. Relevant separation provisions of the withdrawal agreement

• ongoing movements of dual use items :
  • under specific conditions[1], movements of goods ongoing at the end of the transition period are to be treated as intra-Union movements regarding importation and exportation licencing requirements in EU law ;
• special fissile materials[2] present on the territory of the UK at the end of the transition period :
  • will become the property of the persons or undertakings unlimited right of use and consumption.[3]The export of this materials to a third country is to be authorized in accordance with the Regulation.

 3. Applicable rules in Northern Ireland after the end of the transition period

In the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland (IE/NI Protocol) the EU and the UK have agreed that Northern Ireland is treated as if it were a MS with regard to certain legislation.

The IE/NI Protocol provides that the Regulation applies to and in the UK in respect of Northern Ireland (this means that references to the EU in Parts A and B of this notice have to be understood as including Northern Ireland).

More specifically, this means inter alia the following:

• shipments of dual-use items from the EU to Northern Ireland, and vice-versa, are intra-EU transfers for the purpose of the Regulation;
• shipments of dual-use items from Northern Ireland to a third country or to Great Britain are exports for the purpose of Regulation. In that case, the UK designated authority is to act as competent authority for the purpose of the application of Regulation.    

The IE/NI Protocol excludes the possibility for the UK in respect of Northern Ireland to:

• participate in the decision-making and decision-shaping of the Union;
• invoke mutual recognition of assessments and authorisations by the UK in respect of Northern Ireland.

More specifically, this means inter alia the following:

• any authorisation issued by the UK in respect of Northern Ireland under the Regulation cannot be invoked for shipments of dual use items from a MS to a third country.

 

[1]Article 47(1) of the Withdrawal Agreement.

[2] I.e. material property of the Community according to Article 86 of the Euratom Treaty.

[3] The notion of “property” in Article 86 of the Euratom Treaty is not to be confused with the concept of “property” in civil law (“sui generis” Euratom ownership of Special Fissile materials in the Euratom Community).

 

Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council pursuant to Article 14(3) of Regulation (EU) 2019/880 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 on the introduction and the import of cultural goods

Pursuant to Article 14(3) of Regulation (EU) 2019/880 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 on the introduction and the import of cultural goods, on 31 July 2020 the European Commission published its first report to the European Parliament and the Council on the progress made in the establishment of the centralised electronic system for the import of cultural goods (ICG system), which should be operational by 28 June 2025 (six years from the entry into force of the Regulation), and which is closely linked to the implementation of the EU Single Window Certificate Exchange (EU-CSW CERTEX), to interconnect the ICG system with the Member States (MS) customs administrations.

The ICG system will be centrally managed by the Commission and the operators and Member State competent authorities will be able to use it through the Graphic User Interface (GUI).

The main advances reported by the Commission concern the preparation of the implementing provisions, for which the Commission:

• Is regularly consulting with MS delegates at the Expert Group on customs issues related to cultural goods;
• Is informing art market associations about the progress of work and taking into consideration their concerns in order to ensure an implementation adapted to the reality;
• Has established a discussion platform, “Customs 2020 Project Group on the import of cultural goods” (PGICG), to receive support from experts from national customs administrations and competent “cultural” authorities.

Whereas, among the main challenges related to the design of the ICG system, the Commission report highlights the difficulty of:

• Creating a standard data set particularized enough to allow an adequate identification of the objects meeting at once the e-licensing and declaration procedures’ needs and the market reality;
• Anticipating in the digital framework all the possible eventualities and needs related to the import license cycles;
• Conceiving a system compatible with existing national administrative procedures and practices that the MS developed over the years.

Finally, the implementing act will need to be voted by the Committee of Regulation 2019/880.

 

On 1 September 2020 the Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/1068 of 15 May 2020 amending Annexes I and V to Regulation (EU) No 649/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the export and import of hazardous chemicals entered into force (Official Journal of the European Union, OJ L 234/1, 21/07/2020).

Following the conclusions of the Conference of the Parties to the Rotterdam Convention in May 2019 and the decision of the Commission not to renew the approval of some chemicals as active substances under Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council, accordingly, have been amended the lists of chemicals in Parts 1 (chemicals subject to export notification), part 2 (chemicals banned or severely restricted in the EU within one or more categories) and part 3 (chemicals subject to “prior informed procedure”) of Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 649/2012, as well as the list of chemicals in Annex V (chemicals banned in the EU for the protection of human health or the environmement and whose export is prohibited) to the same Regulation.

The amended lists of chemicals of Annex I and V to the Regulation (EU) No 649/2012 can be found in the attachement.

The Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/621 of 18  18 February 2020 amending Annexes I and V to Regulation (EU) 2019/125 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning trade in certain goods which could be used for capital punishment, torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment has been published on the Official Journal of the EU (OJ L 144/1 of 07/05/2020).

 

 

 

The Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/621 amendments Annex I to the Anti-torture Regulation updating the addresses of Member States’ competent authorities and Annex V updating the list of destinations for which the EUGEA is valid.

Notably, Annex V is modified as follows:

in Annex V, the list in Part 2 Destinations is amended as follows:

A revised version of the Vademecum of The European Union Trade Control Regime of Items which could be used for Capital Punishment, Torture or Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Comment of the Legislation: Article-by-Article has been issued.

 

The revised version is available on the ESU website, in the “Publications” section.

You can freely download the full pdf or article by article.

A revised version of the Vademecum dedicated to the European Union Dual-Use Items Export Control Regime has been issued.

The revised version is available on the ESU website, in the “Publications” section.

You can freely download the full pdf or article by article.

On 15 march 2020, the COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2020/402 of 14 March 2020 making the exportation of certain products subject to the production of an export authorisation was published on the Official Journal of the European Union (OJ L 77 I/1 of 15/03/2020).

The act imposes the requirement for an export authorisation for the export outside the Union of personal protective equipment listed in Annex I, whether or not originating in the Union.

Such authorisation shall be granted by the competent authorities of the Member State where the exporter is established and shall be issued in writing or by electronic means.

Annex I of the Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/402 lists protective equipment primarily needed to counter the spread of the current epidemiological crisis caused by the coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 and the associated disease COVID-19.

The targeted categories of items are the following:

• Protective spectacles and visors;
• Face shields
• Mouth-nose-protection equipment
• Protective garments
• Gloves

The EU measure aims to remedy and prevent a critical situation of shortage of these equipment in some Member States, by ensuring adequacy of supply in the Union and meet the vital demand.

For the Chaudfontaine Series, the latest ESU’s publication on “A decade of evolution of dual-use trade control concepts: strengthening or weakening non-proliferation of WMD” is now available on our website.

You can freely download the whole publication or Part by Part, by accessing the “publication” section.

The final report of the 10th Edition of the Chaudfontaine Group on " The identification of gaps between formal defintions and their scope of application in Council Regulation (EC) No. 428/2009" is now available online. 

 

 

 

In light of the necessity to update the EU Dual-Use Regulation, and with the intention to contribute to the debate inaugurated by the trilogue process, from 26 to 28 January 2020 the Chaudfontaine Group gathered to discuss the gaps existing between formal definitions and their scope of application in Council Regulation (EC) No. 428/2009, aiming to find an agreement on new potentially improved definitions.

The group was composed of academics, public authorities and experts from research centres.

The full final report can be freely downloaded for the link below.

While new international security challenges would require a review and update of legal definitions, the EU Dual-Use Legislation seems not to properly respond to such new demands. For this reason, from 26 to 28 January the 2020 Chaudfontaine Group gathered to discuss the gaps existing between formal definitions and their scope of application in Council Regulation (EC) No. 428/20091, aiming to find an agreement on new potentially improved definitions. The group was composed of academics, public authorities and experts from research centres.

To access the main findings of the discussion, please dowload the document attached. 

ISTC is pleased to announce the call for its 2020 Doctoral Research Grant. The call is open to all disciplines but the research topic shall be related to developments and trends of chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear weapons non proliferation; strategic trade control; or national and international trade control systems.

Eligibility: The Doctoral Research Grant is open to postgraduate students (regardless citizenship) holding a Master‘s degree from a University established in principle in Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Armenia, Georgia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Uzbekistan and Mongolia. Applicants will have to be registered in a Ph.D. program in an EU or European Economic Area university and shall have two supervisors. One shall hold an academic position in an EU or European Economic Area university where he/she will be registered and the other shall hold an academic position in a Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Armenia or Georgia university. Please note that the call is limited to candidates who don’t hold all ready an PhD degree. To allow potential candidates achieving their studies, the  Master degree condition should be fulfilled when the contract will initiate.

The ISTC Special research fund is offering to a doctoral students a four-year contract. The contract starts on September 2020 (subject to validation of the Master’s degree). If duly justified, the start date may be changed at the applicant's request, subject to the mentors’ agreement. No contract may start later than November.

The candidate should obtain  the visa approval to stay in the EU or European Economic Area before that the grant will be allocate to start the PhD studies.

 

The selected doctoral student will be hosted simultaneously by the universities of his/her supervisors or with their agreement by any research center or universities conducting research related to his/her doctorate. The links of the proposed doctoral research and the field of expertise of supervisors, as well as their commitments to supervise the candidate will constitute an important criteria in the selection process (evaluation parameters are annexed).

The completion of the research may entail special funding (for example, to finance data collection, partly or entirely). The budget required to complete the research must be assessed and presented in the application.

All information and documents required for the application must be English.  The application form and the list of necessary documents are attached to the present call.

Application should be send by email to Sorin Popa (sorin.popa@ec.europa.eu) and David Cleave (cleave@istc.int). The deadline for the call for applications is 15 April 2020 at midday, Brussels time.

Late or incomplete applications will not be considered

After a first selection based on applications, candidates will be interviewed in a place to be confirmed by the selection committee.

 If you should have any questions, please contact:  Prof. dr. Maria Espona (espona@istc.int)

If you need any help to identify a potential supervisor in the EU or EEA, please contact:  Prof. dr. Quentin Michel, ESU Liege University (qmichel@uliege.be)

 

 

On 31 December 2019 the Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/2199 of 17 October 2019 amending Council Regulation (EC) 428/2009 entered into force (Official Journal of the European Union, OJ L 338, 30/12/19).

The Regulation updates Annexes to the Dual-Use Regulation following amendments agreed at the Wassenaar Arrangement and Missile Technology Control Regime over 2018.

STCU is pleased to announce the call for its 2020 Doctoral Research Grant. The call is open to all disciplines but the research topic shall be related to developments and trends of chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear weapons nonproliferation; strategic trade control; or national and international trade control systems

Eligibility: The Doctoral Research Grant is open to postgraduate students (regardless of citizenship) holding a Master‘s degree from a University established in principle in Georgia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan, or Moldova. Applicants will have to be registered in a Ph.D. program in a European Union (EU) or European Economic Area university and shall have two supervisors. One supervisor shall hold an academic position in an EU or European Economic Area university where he/she will be registered and the other supervisor shall hold an academic position in a university in Georgia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan or Moldova. Please note that the call is limited to candidates who don’t already hold a Ph.D. degree. Candidates currently engaged in the final stages of a Masters degree should complete their Masters degree before the end of this current Academic year (2019-2020), in order to be eligible for this Doctoral Research Grant.

The STCU Special Research Fund (funding provided 100% by the European Union) is offering a fixed price four-year contract to a qualifying doctoral student. The contract begins in September 2020 (subject to proof of Master’s degree completion). If duly justified, the start date may be changed at the applicant's request, subject to the mentors’ agreement.  No contract may start later than November 2020.

The candidate should be eligible to obtain a long-term visa to study in the EU or European Economic Area before the grant will be allocated to start Ph.D. studies.

The selected doctoral student will be hosted simultaneously by the universities of his/her supervisors or with their supervisor(s) agreement, by any research center(s) or university(ies) conducting research relevant to his/her doctorate. A strong connection between the proposed doctoral research and the field of expertise of the proposed supervisors, as well as their demonstrated commitment to supervise the candidate, will constitute an important criteria in the selection process (evaluation parameters are outlined in the attached annex).

If the completion of the proposed research requires additional funding (i.e. to finance data collection, partly or entirely) outside the traditional costs of a Ph.D. (i.e. tuition, living costs, etc.), the budget applicant should include these costs in their cost proposal (as well as the traditional costs) to complete the research.  No additional funding will be provided outside of the original estimate provided by the applicant, thus applicants are requested to pay attention to detail when composing their budget requests.

All information and documents required for the application must be in English.  The application form and the list of necessary documents are attached to this document.

The application should be sent by email to phd.grant@stcu.int. The deadline for the call for applications is 20 April 2020 at 12:00, Brussels time.

Late or incomplete applications will not be considered

After an initial screening based on applications, select candidates will be contacted for face-to-face (where possible, or if travel is difficult, video link will be utilized) interviews in a place to be confirmed at a later date by the selection committee.

If you have any questions, please contact:  Prof. Maria Espona (maria.espona@stcu.int)

If you need any help to identify a potential supervisor in the EU or EEA, please contact:  Prof. Dr. Quentin Michel, ESU Liege University (qmichel@uliege.be).

The ESU is hosting Mr. Givi Amiranashvili as  new PhD researcher. His doctoral research grant is organized in the framework of the Science and Technology Centre in Ukraine and is financially supported by the European Union.

The doctoral research is under the direction of Professor Quentin Michel and will be dedicated to: 10 year anniversary of the EU CBRN CoE initiative: Have its objectives been achieved? 

The research will examine how the initiative works and how to promote comprehensive cross-border cooperation among countries and ultimately, how the EU CBRN Centres of Excellence enhance world peace and global security.

The key impact of the Ph.D. research on CBRN field and society, in general, will be to propose some recommendations to tackle the challenges and to improve effectiveness of CBRN policy and CoE initiative at the national and regional levels.

The University of Liège has established an internal Dual-Use Unit.

 

 

The European Studies Unit based in Liège (Belgium) is offering internship opportunities to work on Non-Proliferation and Disarmament issues.

In the framework of the initiative launched by the EU Non-Proliferation Consortium, of which the ESU is a member, a total of 36 Non-Proliferation and Disarmament Internships in European think tanks, between 2018 and 2021, will be supported (according to COUNCIL DECISION (CFSP) 2018/299 of 26 February 2018).

The duration of each internship shall be 3 months (13 weeks).

Interns should be junior diplomats, master students, PhD students, Post-docs or journalists from EU Member States, EU institutions or from specific partner countries of the EU with a strong interest in arms control, non-proliferation and disarmament, and the corresponding EU policies, strategies and institutions.

Applicants should have a University Bachelor degree (as a minimum).

Potential candidates are invited to express their interest by sending an email, with CV annexed, to:

Quentin MICHEL (Head of the Unit): qmichel@uliege.be  and Lia CAPONETTI: lcaponetti@uliege.be.

More information about the initiative can be found at: https://www.nonproliferation.eu/evenement/eu-non-proliferation-and-disarmament-internships/.

The deadline for submitting is 15 November 2019.

On 16 September 2019, the Council of the European Union published a revised version of the Guidelines on EU Policy Towards Third Countries on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Brussels, 16 September 2019, 12107/19).

The purpose of the Guidelines is to provide practical guidance to EU institutions and Member States, that can be used in their engagement with third countries as well as in multilateral human rights fora, to support ongoing efforts to eradicate torture and other ill-treatment worldwide.

The revision of the guidelines has been necessary to adapt the 2012 Guidelines to major international developments in the field and to European Union most recent policies and legislation.

To access the full document, please see: https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2019/09/16/for-a-torture-free-world-council-reinforces-eu-policy-towards-third-countries-on-torture-and-other-cruel-inhuman-or-degrading-treatment/.

On 17 September 2019, the Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/1560 of 16 September 2019 amending Common Position 2008/944/CFSP defining common rules governing control of exports of military technology and equipment has been published on the Official Journal of the European Union(OJ L 239/16 of 19.09.2019).

Main amendments to the Common Position 2008/944/CFSP are the following:

• Article 1 of the Common Position is modified as to insert the verification of criteria listed in article 2 also for government-to-government transfers. Moreover, a paragraph is added imposing the reconsideration of export licence even if already issued if new relevant information is available.
• Paragraph 1 of article 2 is modified as to add also the respect of international “commitments”, beside international “obligations” for Criterion One. In the same article, two additional points are inserted as additional criteria to verify before granting an export authorisation:
  • ba) the international obligations of Member States under the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons and the relevant Protocols annexed thereto
  • bb) the international obligations of Member States under the Arms Trade Treaty
  • ca) the commitments of Member States under the Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects.
• Article 7 is modified as to explicit the type of information Member States should exchange on (including information on denial notifications and arms export policies, as well as by identifying possible measures to further increase convergence).
• Article 8 is modified as to establish the 30^thof June as deadline for each Member State to send information to the European External Action Service on its exports of military technology and equipment and on its implementation of the Common Position. The same article is modified as to establish the publication on the EEAS website of an annual report available to the public.
• Finally, the term for the revision of the Common position has been extended to every 5 years, instead of every 3 years.
• Other minor amendments concern the adaptation of the text to recent legislation instruments (e.g. in article 6 Regulation 428/2009) and/or nomenclature (such as in Article 2, “Ottawa Convention”).

The text of the Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/1560 is available on: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.L_.2019.239.01.0016.01.ENG&toc=OJ:L:2019:239:TOC.

On 5 August 2019, the Commission Recommendation (EU) 2019/1318 of 30 July 2019 on internal compliance programmes for dual-use trade controls under Council Regulation (EC) No 428/2009 has been published on the Official Journal of the European Union (OJ L 205/15 of 5/8/19).

 

This Commission Recommendation on ICPs, which is not legally binding, provides a framework to help exporters identify, manage and mitigate risks associated with dual-use trade controls and to ensure compliance with the relevant EU and national laws and regulations.

The guidance focuses on the following 7 core elements for an effective ICP, each one detailed in a dedicated section:

• Top-level management commitment to compliance
• Organisation structure, responsibilities and resources
• Training and awareness raising
• Transaction screening process and procedures
• Performance review, audits, reporting and corrective actions
• Recordkeeping and documentation
• Physical and information security

The Recommendation includes also a set of questions pertaining to a company’s ICP (contained in Annex I to the Recommendation) and a list of diversion risk indicators and “red flag” signs about suspicious enquiries or orders (contained in Annex II to the Recommendation).

Dear All,

To support EU Universities and research centers in identifying if their activities concern dual use items and if they might need to apply for an authorization, we have developed a small online tool. The test phase has been launched and you have access to it at the following weblink: http://www.esu.ulg.ac.be/49/app.php.  We will be pleased to receive any comments or suggestions. Please don’t pay attention to the form, it will be reshaped in a more user-friendly format when the test phase will be achieved.

On 5 June 2019, EU ambassadors agreed the Council’s negotiating position on a proposed recast of the regulation setting up a regime for the controls of exports, brokering, technical assistance, transit and transfer of dual-use items.

On the basis of this mandate, the Council Presidency will start negotiations with the European Parliament.

In general terms, the Council’s position differs largely from the RECAST as proposed by the European Commission and, in particular, as amended by the European Parliament (for the analysis of the RECAST proposal and European Parliament’s amendments, please check previous articles available on this website).

On the contrary, it adds only few elements to the current Regulation 428/2009, mainly to be in line with the new Union Customs Code (such as the introduction of re-export declaration and exit summary declaration) and clarifies some concepts through their definitions (e.g. technical assistance and supplier of technical assistance, military end-use, ICP, arms embargo, non-Union dual-use items).

To access the brief analysis of the Council's position, please download the pdf document here attached. 

The Ninth Edition of the Chaudfontaine Group, which was held from 2 to 4 June 2019 in Chaudfontaine (Belgium), made the state of play of ten years of EU legislation in dual-use items trade controls.

The objective was to assess the main concepts and principles contained in the Council Regulation (EC) No 428/2009 of 5 May 2009 setting up a Community regime for the control of exports, transfer, brokering and transit of dual-use items and the identification within those of potential international standards.

In order to better grasp and assess the different aspects and dimensions of the EU dual-use trade control system in place, the conference was divided in three main sessions:

• Session I focusing on the definition of concepts;
• Session II focusing on the definition of principles and mechanisms;
• Session III focusing on the EU list of controlled items (Annex I to Regulation 428/2009) and its adoption by third States.

The conference gathered participants having different backgrounds and working in different sectors:  governments, industry, researchers from European academic institutions as well as officials of the European Union in their personal capacity. Each participant actively contributed to the discussion by providing a short presentation aimed at launching the debate.

To find out more about the Conference and the main findings, please download the pdf document. 

Regulation (EU) 2019/880 of the European Parliament and of the Council Of 17 April 2019on the introduction and the import of cultural goods has been published on the official Journal of the European Union (OJ L 151/1 of 7/06/19) and it will enter into force on the twentieth day following the publication on the OJ.

The Regulation completes the EU legal framework on trade in cultural goods, which has included until now only legislation on the export of cultural goods (Regulation (EC) No 116/2009) and on the return of cultural objects unlawfully removed from the territory of a Member State (Directive 2014/60/EU). As for imports, it was limited to restrictive measures on trade in cultural goods from Iraq and Syria.

In Regulation (EU) 2019/880, cultural goods are listed in three different parts of the Annex to the Regulation.

• Part A: list of cultural items the introduction of which is prohibited if removed from the territory of the country where they were created or discovered in breach of laws and regulations of that country;
• Part B: list of cultural items the import of which needs an import licence or an importer statement;
• Part C: list of cultural items the import of which needs an importer statement.

 N.B.Items listed in Part A are described in general terms, while items listed in Parts B and C are clearly identified by a Combined Nomenclature (CN) Chapter, Heading or Subheading, they have minimum age and financial threshold.

MAIN ELEMENTS OF THE PROPOSAL

The scope: introduction and import of cultural goods (Art. 1)

The initiative aims at safeguarding humanity’s cultural heritage and preventing the illicit trade in cultural goods, in particular where it may contribute to terrorist financing, by setting out the conditions for the introduction and the conditions and procedures for the import of cultural goods. The Regulation does not apply to cultural goods which were either created or discovered in the customs territory of the Union.

Introduction and import of cultural goods (Art. 3)

The introduction of cultural goods listed in Part A of the Annex which were removed from the territory of the country where they were created or discovered in breach of laws and regulations of that country is prohibited. The import of cultural goods listed in Parts B and C of the Annex shall only be permitted upon the presentation of an import licence.  Exceptions to this rule are:

• returned cultural goods, within the meaning of Article 203 of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013;
• the import of cultural goods for the exclusive purpose of ensuring their safe keeping by, or under the supervision of, a public authority, with the intent to return these goods, when the situation so allows;
• the temporary admission of cultural goods for educational, scientific, conservation, restoration, exhibition, digitisation, performing arts, for the purpose of research conducted by academic institutions and for the purpose of cooperation between museums or similar institutions.

Import licence (Art. 4)

• For cultural goods referred to in Part B of the Annex;
• issued by the competent authority of the Member State in which the goods are placed;
• valid throughout the Union.

Importer statement (Art. 5)

• For cultural goods referred to in Part C of the Annex
• It consists of:
• a) a declaration signed by the holder of the goods that the goods have been exported from the country where they were created or discovered in accordance with its laws and regulations of that country at the time they were taken out of its territory; and
• b) a standardised document describing the cultural goods in question in sufficient detail for them to be identified by the authorities and to perform risk analysis and targeted controls.

 Competent customs offices (Art. 6)

Periodic publication by the Commission of the lists of competent customs offices designated by the Member States for the purposes of the Regulation. 

Use of an electronic system (Art. 8)

The storage and the exchange of information between the authorities of the Member States, in particular regarding importer statements and import licences, shall be carried out by a centralised electronic system.

On 5 June 2019, EU ambassadors agreed the Council’s negotiating position on a proposed recast of the regulation setting up a regime for the controls of exports, brokering, technical assistance, transit and transfer of dual-use items.

On the basis of this mandate, the Council Presidency will start negotiations with the European Parliament.

To access the full document, please see: https://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/39555/mandate-for-negociations.pdf.

An analysis of the Council's position will be published on this website in the following weeks. 

 

 

Annie Niessen, doctorante dans l'Unité d'études européennes, vient de se voir attribuer le Prix Jean Gol 2018-2019 pour ses recherches doctorales dans les domaines de l'intégration et de l'identité européennes, et plus particulièrement, sur la construction du discours institutionnel relatif aux interprétations de la notion d'« Etat européen ».

À la croisée des sciences politiques et des sciences de la communication, les recherches menées par Annie Niessen s'intéressent aux interprétations de l'« Etat européen » – première condition d'éligibilité pour pouvoir se porter candidat à l'Union européenne – qui ont été données dans les discours des institutions politiques de l'Union.

C'est en réalisant des recherches ciblées sur des cas précis de demande d'adhésion et des documents liés à la rédaction des traités depuis les prémices de la construction européenne, que la jeune chercheuse a décelé et analysé les interprétations institutionnelles, ainsi que les enjeux, les logiques et les processus de construction discursifs qui y sont liés.

Ses recherches ont d'ores et déjà bénéficié de l'apport significatif de ressources documentaires et d'échanges avec des personnalités scientifiques éminentes. Après avoir mené des recherches archivistiques approfondies aux Archives historiques de l'Union européenne, sises à l'Institut universitaire européen à Florence, lors d'un séjour pour lequel elle avait obtenu la bourse de recherche « Vibeke Sørensen », elle a effectué un deuxième séjour de recherche dans le département d'Études européennes de l'Université d'Amsterdam.

Les résultats découlant de ces recherches permettent une meilleure compréhension des dynamiques relatives à l'adhésion à l'Union européenne et à la construction de l'identité européenne des Etats par les acteurs institutionnels de l'Union. Les résultats de cette première phase de recherche constituent un socle de connaissances fondamental qui permet, dans un second temps, l'étude de la construction de ce même discours par les acteurs médiatiques, sur laquelle la jeune chercheuse se penche actuellement.

Le Prix Jean Gol est attribué par la Fondation éponyme qui a été créée au sein du Patrimoine de l'Université de Liège en souvenir du Ministre d'Etat Jean Gol. Il récompense annuellement un-e chercheur-se pour des activités de recherche menées dans les domaines du droit, de la science politique ou de l'information-communication.

The annexed table sums up Belgian legislation into force ruling the protection and trade control of cultural goods. 

The table sums up legislation by competent authority. 

 

 

 

 

Article 127 of the Belgian Constitution assigns cultural matters to communities.

The Special Law of 8 August 1980 transferred competence for cultural heritage to the Communities and the Special Law of 8 August 1988 transferred competence for monuments and sites to the Regions. Therefore, in Belgium, movable cultural heritagefalls within the powers of the three Belgian communities (Flemish, French and German-speaking) while the powers to regulate immovable cultural heritagebelong to the Regions (Flanders, Wallonia and Brussels). An exception has been established for the Brussels Region, which holds, since 2014 the powers to regulate the protection of both immovable and movable cultural goods (but no specific legislation has been adopted yet by the Region).

The Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/429 of 11 January 2019 supplementing Regulation (EU) 2017/821 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the methodology and criteria for the assessment and recognition of supply chain due diligence schemes concerning tin, tantalum, tungsten and gold has been published on the Official Journal of the European Union (OJ L 75/59 of 19/03/2019).

The Commission Delegated Regulation sets out methodology and criteria for the assessment and recognition of supply chain due diligence schemes concerning tin, tantalum, tungsten and gold, in line with the OECD Due Diligence Guidance, as already required by Recital (14) of Regulation (EU) 2017/821 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2017 laying down supply chain due diligence obligations for Union importers of tin, tantalum and tungsten, their ores, and gold originating from conflict-affected and high-risk areas (OJ L 130 of 19/05/2017).

Regulation (EU) 2017/821, which sets out due diligence obligations for Union importers of tin, tantalum and tungsten, their ores, and gold, will apply from 1 January 2021.

On 18 February 2019, the Council adopted the updated version of the Common Military List of the European Union (OJ C 95/1 of 12/03/19).

Click on the above link to access the list.

The annexed table sums up legislation in force in Belgium for the following categories of controlled items:
- Conventional weapons;
- Dual-use goods and technologies;
- Goods which could be used for capital punishment, torture or other cruel, inhuman or degradating treatement or punishment.

The table breaks down the legislation in force by category of controlled items and by competent authority.

The Special Law of 12 August 2003 transfers the competence for arms and dual-use items licensing to the Regions, except the transfer of goods originating from the Belgian military or police. 

More precisely, the Special Law transfers to the Regions: “The import, export and transit of arms, ammunition and equipment specifically intended for military or law enforcement use and related technology as well as dual-use goods and technology, without prejudice to the federal competence for import and export concerning the army and police and in accordance with the criteria laid down in the European Union Code of Conduct on Arms Exports”. 

It follows that Regions have a competence in licensing operations clearly listed in the Special Law (import, export and transit), while not listed operations, such as brokering activites, remain a Federal competence.

(Download the annexed table to access details on legislation in force by category of items and by Competent Authority).

On 19 February 2019, the Agreement on UK withdrawl from the European Union and from the European Atomic Energy Community was published on the Official Journal of the European Union(OJ C 66 I/1 of 19/02/19).

The Agreement, together with its Protocols, sets out the arrangements for the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the Union and the Euratom.

 

Title IX of the Agreement (Articles 79 to 85) deals with Euratom related issues.

Article 80 specifies that the United Kingdom will have sole responsibility for ensuring that all ores,source materials and special fissile materials covered by the Euratom Treaty and present on the territory of the United Kingdom at the end of the transition period are handled in accordance with relevant and applicable international treaties and conventions.

The same exclusive responsibility of the UK applies for ensuring its compliance with international obligations arising as a consequence of its membership of the International Atomic Energy Agency or as a consequence of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons or any other relevant international treaties or conventions to which the United Kingdom is a party.

Article 81 specifies that UK will have to implement a safeguards regime, which will offer equivalent effectiveness and coverage as that provided by the Community in the territory of the United Kingdom in line with the Agreement between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the European Atomic Energy Community and the International Atomic Energy Agency for the Application of Safeguards in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Connection with the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons [INFCIRC/263], as amended.

Finally, special fissile materials present on the territory of the United Kingdom will cease to be the property of the Community at the end of the transition period, as well as the categories of community equipment and other property related to the provision of safeguards located in the UK and defined in Annex V.

Following the Agreement, at the end of the transition period, the European Commission will transmit to the United Kingdom the final inventory of Euratom equipment and other property transferred and the United Kingdom will reimburse to the Union the value of that equipment.Article 148 of the Agreements fixes the dates for payments by the UK to the Union after 2020.[1]

[1]The Agreement shall enter into force on 30 March 2019. In the event that, prior to that date, the depositary of this Agreement has not received the written notification of the completion of the necessary internal procedures by the Union and the United Kingdom, the Agreement shall not enter into force.  (For details, please see article 185 of the Agreement).

La culture. Concept qui semble omniprésent dans les discours de l’UE. Pourtant, aucune définition de ce qu’elle recouvre n’est à trouver, ni dans les traités précédents, ni même dans le traité de Lisbonne qui la catégorise comme compétence d’appui. Dès lors, nous nous sommes posés la question suivante : qu’est-ce qui est perçu derrière la notion de « culture » depuis que celle-ci est devenue compétence dans le dernier Traité.

En croisant les approches théoriques et juridiques pour ensuite les confronter à la compréhension des personnes construisant l’UE aujourd’hui, nous avons tenté, non pas de la définir de façon homogène et rigide, mais d’ouvrir le champ des possibles du discernement de ce qu’est la culture, en dépassant la simple oscillation entre économie et symbole pour tendre vers la transversalité, avec la création par nos soins d’une « compétence transversale dissimulée ».

De tout ceci, il ressort que la culture, énoncée au travers des articles 2 et 167 du TFUE et est traversée et définie par des intérêts politiques et que la marge de manœuvre dont elle est pourvue fluctue et dépend de la seule volonté des Etats membres et de leur conciliation autour de ce qu’ils acceptent derrière ces énoncés juridiques, pourtant inchangés.

Le document est disponible  librement sur l'onglet "publications" du site 

Raphaëlle Mattart est diplômée de science-politiques, avec un master à finalité « études européennes ». Dans le cadre de ses recherches, elle s’est beaucoup intéressée à la dynamique mettant en lumière la différence entre ce qui est énoncé et ce qui est perçu et s’est principalement concentrée sur les thématiques suivantes : La culture, les aspects vaoloriels de l’UE et la diplomatie. Aujourd’hui, elle est chercheuse doctorante pour la Chaire en Entreprises Familiales à l’Université de Liège (HEC Liège) et se concentre sur de la culture de l’entreprise et les visions partagées comme outils et gages de pérennité au sein des entreprises familiales.

 The doctoral research, under the direction of Professor Quentin Michel, will be dedicated to Transparency in arms control: a guarantee for successful implementation? Comparative study on different mechanisms for information exchange and their verification regimes, and assessment of their impact and efficiency on the implementation of international arms control treaties.

Transparency and exchange of information are essential elements in arms control treaties and conventions. Aimed at creating confidence between States Parties, they also allow monitoring the progress in implementing these treaties.

But what is meant by transparency?  Different stakeholders not always have the same perception on the substance and level of transparency required. Defining transparency is needed by comparing with other control mechanisms and without limiting the scope to disarmament.

The research will make an inventory of the different treaties, conventions, arms control instruments and other related politically and legally binding documents. This inventory will be completed by an analysis of the substance of those treaties and a study of the different transparency regimes, their substance, institutional aspect and the verification measures. This will also allow to define the scope of the study.

Through the establishment of an analysis grid the research will examine the possibility of “categorising” the different treaties and transparency regimes. The study will consider the importance of the transparency regime and its use as a management tool in the implementation of the treaty. Is the information used to outline the policy to follow in the implementation of the different arms control or disarmament instruments? Does, and in what degree, the transparency regime contribute to the successful implementation?  And are they efficient in doing so?

The comparative study between the different treaties, transparency regimes, and a combination of both, and the use made of these information exchange instruments will allow us to draw conclusions on their efficiency in the implementation of arms control and disarmament treaties. Are some instruments more efficient than others?

A codified version of the EU Anti-Torure Regulation (REGULATION (EU) 2019/125 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 16 January 2019 concerning trade in certain goods which could be used for capital punishment, torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment) has been published on the Official Journal of the European Union (OJ L 30/1 of 31/1/2019). 

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DIRECTIVE (EU) 2019/69 of 16 January 2019 laying down technical specifications for alarm and signal weapons under Council Directive 91/477/EEC on control of the acquisition and possession of weapons has been published on the Offcial Journal of the European Union, on 17 January 2019 (OJ L 15/22 of 17/01/2019).

The Directive, in its Annex, sets out technical specifications for devices with a cartridge holder which are designed to fire only blanks, irritants, other active substances or pyrotechnic signalling rounds (Art. 1).

It is up to Member States to ensure that these devices are subjet to checks in order to determine their compliance with the technical specifications (Art. 2). To this end, each Member State shall designate, at least, one national focal point to provide results of checks to other Member States, when requested (Art. 3).

The deadline to transpose the Directive is 17 January 2020, at the latest.  

The COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DIRECTIVE (EU) 2019/68 of 16 January 2019 establishing technical specifications for the marking of firearms and their essential components under Council Directive 91/477/EEC on control of the acquisition and possession of weapons has been published on the Offcial Journal of the European Union, on 17 January 2019 (OJ L 15/18 of 17/01/2019).

The Directive, in its Annex, sets out technical specifications for the marking of firearms and their essential components (Artt 1 and 2).

In order to comply with the Directive, Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions by 17 January 2020at the latest (Art. 3).

The ESU has started a new research on countries which have adopted totally or partially the EU Dual-Use control list established in Annex I of the Council Regulation (EC) No 428/2009 of 5 May 2009 setting up a Community regime for the control of exports, transfer, brokering and transit of dual-use items (updated by Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/2268 of 26 September 2017).

The attached matrix is the first draft of a summarizing document, based on the information available to my Unit. We are almost certain that there are more states that are referring to the EU List but they are rather difficult to identify. Therefore, the document should be seen as a call to the international community to help us identifying such countries.

Would you have any information that could help us completing the matrix, please send an email at Qmichel@Uliege.be.

Quentin MICHEL

 

The document has been updated on January 15 to inculde Australia, New Zealand

Introductory note: institutional compromise on the proposal

The interinstitutional negotiations on the Commission’s proposal for a regulation have led to a compromise (summarised here below).

The Commission’s original proposal (Brussels, 13.7.2017 COM(2017) 375 final) is available on: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2014_2019/plmrep/AUTRES_INSTITUTIONS/COMM/COM/2019/01-21/COM_COM20170375_EN.pdf.

PROPOSAL RESULTING FROM INTERINSTITUTIONAL NEGOTIATIONS AND ANNEXED TO THE PROVISIONAL AGREEEMNT (10/01/2019)

The proposed Regulation completes the EU legal framework on trade in cultural goods, which has included until now only legislation on the export of cultural goods (Regulation (EC) No 116/2009)and on the return of cultural objects unlawfully removed from the territory of a Member State (Directive 2014/60/EU). As for imports, it was limited to restrictive measures on trade in cultural goods from Iraq and Syria.

Cultural goods are listed in three different parts of the Annex to the Regulation. N.B. Items listed in Part A are described in general terms, while items listed in Parts B and C are clearly identified by a Combined Nomenclature (CN) Chapter, Heading or Subheading, they have minimum age and financial threshold.

• Part A:list of cultural items the introduction of which is prohibitedif removed from the territory of the country where they were created or discovered in breach of laws and regulations of that country;
• Part B:list of cultural items the import of which needs an import licenceor an importer statement;
• Part C:list of cultural items the import of which needs an importer statement.

Main elements of the proposal

 The scope: introduction and import of cultural goods (Art. 1)

The initiative aims at safeguarding humanity’s cultural heritage and preventing the illicit trade in cultural goods, in particular where it may contribute to terrorist financing, by setting out the conditions for the introduction and the conditions and procedures for the import of cultural goods.

The Regulation does not apply to cultural goods which were either created or discovered in the customs territory of the Union.

Introduction and import of cultural goods (Art. 3)

The introductionof cultural goods listed in Part Aof the Annex which were removed from the

territory of the country where they were created or discovered in breach of laws and regulations of that country is prohibited.

The import of cultural goods listed in Parts B and Cof the Annex shall only be permitted upon the presentation of an import licence.

Exceptions to this rule are:

• returned cultural goods, within the meaning of Article 203 of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013;
• the import of cultural goods for the exclusive purpose of ensuring their safe keeping by, or under the supervision of, a public authority, with the intent to return these goods, when the situation so allows;
• thetemporary admissionof cultural goods for educational, scientific, conservation, restoration, exhibition, digitisation, performing arts, for the purpose of research conducted by academic institutions and for the purpose of cooperation between museums or similar institutions.

Import licence (Art. 4)

• For cultural goods referred to in Part B of the Annex;
• issued by the competent authority of the Member State in which the goods are placed;
• valid throughout the Union.

Importer statement (Art. 5)

• For cultural goods referred to in Part C of the Annex
• It consists of:
  • a) a declaration signed by the holder of the goods that the goods have been exported from the country where they were created or discovered in accordance with its laws and regulations of that country at the time they were taken out of its territory; and
  • b) a standardised documentdescribing the cultural goods in question in sufficient detail for them to be identified by the authorities and to perform risk analysis and targeted controls.

 Competent customs offices (Art. 7)

Periodic publication by the Commission of the lists of competent customs offices designated by the Member States for the purposes of the Regulation.

Use of an electronic system (Art. 9a)

The storage and the exchange of information between the authorities of the Member States, in particular regarding importer statements and import licences, shall be carried out by a centralised electronic system.

A revised version of the Vademecum dedicated to the European Union Dual-Use Items Export Control Regime has been published. It includes detailed information on each provision of the Council Regulation EC) No 428/2009 of 5 May 2009 setting up a Community regime for the control of exports, transfer, brokering and transit of dual-use items428/2009 and information, when available, on its implementation by the EU Member States.

The document may now be found on the “publication” section of the ESU website, to make it consultation more reader friendly. It gives the possibility to download the full document or only the sections that raise specific interest.

The  Council has made available on December 20  the text of Commission  proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and the Council amending Council Regulation (EC) No 428/2009 by granting a Union General Export Authorisation for the export of certain dual-use items from the Union to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

The proposal consists on adding the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in the list of beneficiaries of the EU General Export Authorisation 001. This EUGEA 001 covers nearly all items listed by Annex I excepted the most sensitive listed by Annex IIg to be exported to Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, Switzerland, including Liechtenstein and United States of America.

The Regulation will have to be adopted by Council and Parliament in co-decision and will enter into force:  from the day following that on which the Treaties cease to apply to the United Kingdom pursuant to Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union.  However, this Regulation shall not apply if a withdrawal agreement concluded with the United Kingdom in accordance with Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union has entered into force by that date 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The EU Commission in its  Communication (preparing for the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union on 30 March 2019: Implementing the Commission’s Contingency Action Plan) published on December 19 has proposed:

If the Withdrawal Agreement is not ratified, the export of dual-use items from the EU to the United Kingdom, as of the withdrawal date, will require individual licenses. Dual-use items are goods, software and technology that can be used for both civilian and military applications. The Union controls the export, transit and brokering of dual-use items so it can contribute to international peace and security and prevent the proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). Union General Export Authorisations (EUGEAs) allow exports of dual-use items to certain destinations under certain conditions. To facilitate controls on the export to the United Kingdom of dual use items as of the withdrawal date if the Withdrawal Agreement is not ratified, and to ensure the good functioning of the export authorisation regime for all EU27 Member States, the Commission has adopted the following act: 

-  A proposal for a Regulation to add the United Kingdom to the list of countries for which a general authorisation to export dual-use items is valid throughout the EU. 

 

 

 

The Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/1922 of 10 October 2018 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 428/2009 setting up a Community regime for the control of exports, transfer, brokering and transit of dual-use items has been published on the Offcial Journal of the European Union (OJ L319/1 of 14/12/18).

The Commission Delegated Regulation modifies the list of items in Annex I to Regulation 428/2009,  following the updates introduced by international export control regimes (the Wassenaar Arrangement, the Nuclear Suppliers Group, the Australia Group and the Missile Technology Control Regime).

The revised Nineteenth Annual Report defining common rules governing the control of exports of military technology and equipment, according to Article 8(2) of Council Common Position 2008/944/ CFSP has been published on the European Journal of the European Union (C 397/1 of 31.10.2018).

 

The report covers statistics on licences and exports of conventional arms from EU Member States during the 2016 calendar year. It also covers activities undertaken by the EU and its Member States in the framework of the implementation of Council Common Position 2008/944/CFSP throughout 2016 and 2017.

For the Chaudfontaine Series, the latest ESU’s publication on “Do academic activities contribute to WMD proliferation?”is now available on our website.

You can freely download the whole publication or Part by Part, by accessing the “publication” section.

COUNCIL DECISION (CFSP) 2018/1544 of 15 October 2018 concerning restrictive measures against the proliferation and use of chemical weapons has been published on the Official Journal of the European Union(OJ L 259/25 of 16.10.2018).

On 28 June 2018, the European Council called for the adoption of a new EU regime of restrictive measures to address the use and prolifera­tion of chemical weapons and better implement some provisions of the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC).

The Decision calls Member States to establish entry and transit restrictions in their territories (article 2) and calls for the adoption of financial restrictions (Article 3) for natural persons engaged in/linked to chemical weapons-related activities and associated with natural persons listed in the Annex to the Council decision.

Article 7 also calls the Union to encourage third States to adopt restrictive measures.

A Commission Delegated Regulation has been adopted (Council of the European Union, Brussels, 10 October 2018 C(2018) 6511 final) and will be soon published on the Official Journal of the European Union, to amend Annex I to Council Regulation (EC) No 428/2009 setting up a Community regime for the control of exports, transfer, brokering and transit of dual-use items.

The amendments aim at updating the list of controlled items following international export controls regimes updates of 2017. The amendments to the list of dual-use items in Annex I also necessitate consequential amendments to Annexes IIa to IIg and Annex IV.

The ESU is hosting two new PhD researchers Kamshat Saginbekova and Egor Kartuzov. These two doctoral research grants have been organized in the framework of the International Science and Technology Center (Kazakhstan) and Science and Technology Centre in Ukraine and are financially supported by the European Union.

The doctoral research are under the direction of Professor Quentin Michel will be dedicated respectively to:

1. Transfer of Ukrainian technologies of production of advanced materialsof dual use to the EU. Barriers and Challenges

The hypothesis of this PhD research effort is that the interests of both suppliers (Ukraine) and recipients (the EU) in transfer of dual-use materials science technologies can best be served not through selective control regulations only but through reciprocal cooperative efforts, as it is the most efficient way to control civil-use of materials science technologies, while at the same time ensuring their transfers. And, of course, dealing with a technology transfer, one should not forget about the need to develop a definite and clear methodology for initial scientific escort and support of science-intensive technology, bringing it to the declared operational level and using the raw materials of the recipient country. Of importance is also the training procedure for key engineering personnel, etc. Due to prove this hypothesis, this effort will therefore:

1. classify technology transfer barriers, namely: technical, organizational, economic and system barriers. Accounting for barriers analyzed from literature sources and author’s experience gained during more than 25 years of R&D dual-use projects execution and tight cooperation with the US Army Research Laboratory, Air Force, Navy and industrial companies of the USA and China, the author present barriers that he met in practice during the above said period.
2. evaluate specific, progressive steps required to achieve an effective cooperation between supplier and recipient of materials science technologies;
3. assess measures that would offer more transparency and openness in transfer of dual-se technologies and thus bring end-use to greater predictability; and
4. examine measures which could build-up more confidence and security between Ukraine and EU, while materials science technologies of dual-use are concerned.
5. highlight and evaluate key positions for the methodology as to a technology scientific escort and adaptation to raw material of country recipient after the transfer.

 

2. Politico-Economic Aspects of Trade Regulation in the Eurasian Economic Union: The Case Studies of Central Asian Countries

Trade regulation has different aspects, approaches, and aims within the integration unions like the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU). It may be used to provide a free trade for its member states or protect internal market of the Union by using tariff, non-tariff instruments, and even political tools that are not directly linked to trade. In the framework of EAEU, it has often ambiguous consequences, where it is not clear what economic effect is more important: positive or negative. In this case the main research question is to identify and evaluate the economic effects of trade regulation throughout the following topics of the proposed research:

1. Strategic trade control in case of Central Asian countries;
2. Trade regulation of goods in framework of the integration union like EAEU;
3. Trade regulation of energy goods of Central Asian countries.

 

 

 

Dual-use research in the context of universities and research centers is often considered in its broad sense: what are the (un)desired civil and military applications of research. Knowledge institutions are also concerned about the public perception of research with military potential. In the context of the EU export control system (governed by Regulation (EC) 428/2009, as modified), however, dual-use items (including technology) have a more restricted meaning in order to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

The EU dual-use control list does not only include nuclear dual-use items and therefore not only related research is involved. Metal alloys, composites, semiconductor electronics, infrared cameras, encryption and internet monitoring equipment, intrusion software, pathogens, toxins, etc. are only a few of the R&D domains that involve controlled dual-use items and thus related research output may trigger export control obligations. The interdisciplinary nature of nowadays research further expands the scope of potentially involved research disciplines. 

The Strategic Trade Controls Unit of the Flemish Government organises this academic export control outreach event to create further awareness concerning the EU dual-use export control system, the exemptions for academic research and the available guidance for academia in Flanders. The external speakers and panel discussions will offer the audience the opportunity to discuss the current and future export control challenges for researchers and research organisations. 

This event primarily focuses on researchers, research managers and policy makers from the Flemish research community. Registrations outside the Flemish research community will be assessed against the availability of free seats. 

Venue Brussels, Herman Teirlinck - Information about access can be found here (in Dutch)

Duur 9h15 -13h20 walking lunch will be provided after the event

Language English

 

The UK Department for International Trade (and more precisely its Export Control Unit) published a note, on 23 August 2018, on “Guidance: exporting controlled goods if there’s no Brexit deal”.

This guidance is a sort of vademecum explaining to UK economic operators how keep trading controlled items if a (specific) deal is not reached between UK and the EU.

Items concerned are:

• Military items;
• Firearms
• Dual-use items
• Torture-related and capital punishment-related items

The notice informs that EU regulations on the export of civilian firearms, dual-use items and goods that may be used for torture or capital punishment would become UK regulations as retained EU law under the EU (Withdrawal) Act 2018.

For further details, please see: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/exporting-controlled-goods-if-theres-no-brexit-deal/exporting-controlled-goods-if-theres-no-brexit-deal.

On 14 May 2018, nine EU members States (Czech Republic, Cyprus, Estonia, Finland, Ireland, Italy, Poland, Sweden and the United Kingdom) issued a discussion paper on the recast of the dual-use Regulation (Council of the European Union, General Secretariat, Brussels, 15 May 2018, WK 5755/2018 INIT).

The article is available at: https://www.euractiv.com/section/cybersecurity/news/nine-countries-unite-against-eu-export-controls-on-surveillance-software/.

The group of nine Member States claims that, despite the risk of misuse of cyber surveillance technology and the need to prevent it, the introduction of unilateral control measures, deviating from the international export control regimes, such as an autonomous EU control list, could seriously undermine the competitiveness of EU-based industry. Besides, they underline the inefficiency of such measures if implemented unilaterally by the EU, while other major economies continue exporting “freely” such technologies.

Other risks, such as the quality of these measures are highlighted, notably due to the lack of international expertise as it is the case for current control lists elaborated within international trade control regimes.

The group of States also questions the scope of such control measures, which might quickly evolve, over the years, as to include a broad-ranging list of any new technologies such as artificial intelligence, robotics, etc. with the risk of portraying the EU as a technology-averse actor.

The proposed alternatives, to reduce the risk of misuse of cyber-surveillance technology while avoiding to undermine EU industry and EU multilateral approach to trade controls, include a common approach to the issue within the Wassenaar Arrangement (which already covers some cyber-surveillance items) and the implementation of Article 8 of the Regulation but improving communication and transparency between Member States.

The State Secretariat for Economic Affairs (SECO) amended the Ordinance on Sanctions against Syria as to introduce a formal authorisation requirement for the trade of isopropanol to Syria.

Operations covered by the control requirements are: the sale, the shipment, the export and the transit of isopropanol to Syria, or for use in Syria. Financing operations in connection with such a good are also subject to authorisation.

The amendment, which is in force since the 1st June 2018, excludes the possibility that a supply of isopropanol or any other goods which the European Union has placed under an export restriction can be exported to Syria without the knowledge of the Swiss authorities.

As for isopropanol, the EU imposes a licence requirement since the entry into force of Council Regulation 697/2013 (OJ L 198/28 of 23/07/2013).

Reading the news about the possibility for the European Union to amend its Regulation 2271/96 to counter sanctions against EU operators that intend to implement, in the coming weeks, a potential agreement with Iran, I thought it could be useful to make available, on our website, the slides of my course International Strategic Trade Control Regimes, in particular the part dedicated to the history of the Helms Burton/ d’Amato Actsand the EU Regulation 2271/96.

A summary and analysis of the present situation will be available in the coming days.

Prof. dr. Quentin Michel

 

On 27 April 2018, the Council Regulation (EU) 2018/647 of 26 April 2018 amending Regulation (EU) No 401/2013 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Myanmar/Burma was published on the Official Journal of the European Union (OJ L 108/29 of 27/04/2018).

The Regulation implements, within the scope of the Treaty, measures adopted by the Council with Decision (CFSP) 2018/655 of 26 April 2018 (OJ L 108/29 of 27/04/2018) aiming at strengthening restrictive measures against Myanmar/Burma, by extending trade restrictions to dual-use items for military end-use and to equipment for monitoring communications that might be used for internal repression.

The extended restrictive measures concern in particular:

• The sell, supply, transfer or export, directly or indirectly, the provision of technical assistance, brokering services or other services related, as well as the financing or financial assistance of dual-use goods and technology as included in Annex I to Council Regulation (EC) No 428/2009 if those items are or may be intended, in their entirety or in part, for military use, military end-user or the Border Guard Police.
• The sell, supply, transfer or export, directly or indirectly, the provision of technical assistance, brokering services or other services related, as well as the financing or financial assistance of equipment, technology or software, identified in Annex III to Regulation (EU) 2018/647, that might be used for internal repression, as well as equipment, technology or software intended primarily for use in the monitoring or interception of internet or telephone communications.

Derogations to these trade restrictions are established if the controlled items are intended solely for humanitarian of protective use, or for institution-building programmes of the United Nations and the European Union, or for European Union and United Nations crisis-management operations.

The Commission implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/578 of 13 April 2018 has been published on the Official Journal of the European Union (OJ L 97/1 of 17/04/2018).

The Commission implementing Regulation amends Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 2368/2002 in order to update the list of competent authories of several participants in the KP and re-admit Venezuela in the KP certification scheme.

The updated version of the Common Military List of the European Union, adopted by the Council on 26 February 2018, has ben published on the Official Journal of the European Union (OJ C 98/1 of 15/03/2018).

 

On 13 February 2018, the Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/181 of 18 October 2017 amending Annex IIIb to Council Regulation (EC) No 1236/2005 concerning trade in certain goods which could be used for capital punishment, torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment was published on the Officila Journal of the European Union (OJ C/2017/6902 of 13/02/2018).

The Commission Delegated Regulation amends Annex IIIb to Regulation (EC) No 1236/2005, by modifiying the list of destinations for which the Union General Export Authorisation is valid. The following countries have been added to that list:

-       Domenican Republic;

-       Sao Tome and Principe;

-       Togo.

The 9th Annual Report according to article 8(2) of Council Common Position 2008/944/CFSP defining common rules governing the control of exports of military technology and equipment has been published on the Official Journal of the European Union (OJ C 56/1 of 14/02/2018).

 

 

 

The Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/2268 of 26 September 2017 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 428/2009 setting up a Community regime for the control of exports, transfer, brokering and transit of dual-use items has been published on the Official Journal of the European Union (OJ L 334/1 of 15/12/2017). 

The Commission Delegated Regulation updates the lists of dual-use items annexed to Regulation 428/2009, following the changes to the control lists adopted by the international non-proliferation regimes and export control arrangements in 2016.

For the Chaudfontaine Series, the latest ESU’s publication on “Incentives of Europe for Non-Proliferation Outreach Activities”, Quentin Michel and Wolfgang Lehofer (eds.), is now available on our website.

You can freely download the whole publication or Part by Part, by accessing the “publication” section.

The updated version of the Common Military List of the European Union has been published on the Official Journal of the European Union (OJ L 311/1 of 25/11/2017).

The updated list is contained in the Annex to the Commission Directive (EU) 2017/2054 of 8 November 2017amending Directive 2009/43/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the list of defence-related products.

 

The European Union published on the Official Journal of the European Union Council Regulation (EU) 2017/2063 of 13 November 2017 and Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074 of 13 November 2017 (OJ L 295/21 and OJ L 295/60 of 14/11/2017) establishing sanctions against Venezuela.

 

It is worth to notice that these EU sanctions are not in implementation of any United Nations Security Council resolution.

Following the continuing deterioration of democracy, the rule of law and human rights in Venezuela and acting in the respect the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Principles of the European Union, in particular the right to an effective remedy and a fair trial and the right to the protection of personal data, the EU established the following prohibitions, as regard to conventional weapons and dual-use goods and technologies:

For goods and technology listed in the EU Common List of Military Equipment (Article 2 of the Council Regulation):

- direct or indirect provision of technical assistance, brokering services and other services related to the as well as their manufacture, maintenance and use;

- direct or indirect provision of financing or financial assistance related to the goods and technology listed in the Common Military List, including in particular grants, loans and export credit insurance, as well as insurance and reinsurance, for any sale, supply, transfer or export of such items, or for the provision of related technical assistance, brokering services and other services.

Derogations are provided for contracts concluded before 13 November 2017 or to ancillary contracts necessary for the execution of such contracts.

For items listed in Annex I to this Council Regulation “Equipment which might be used for internal repression” (Article 3 of the Council Regulation):

- to sell, supply, transfer or export, directly or indirectly, equipment which might be used for internal repression, as well as technical assistance and brokering and other related services;

- to provide financing or financial assistance, including in particular grants, loans and export credit insurance, as well as insurance and reinsurance, related to these equipment.

Derogations are provided for humanitarian reasons and crisis management operations by the UN, the Union or regional and sub-regional organisations.

For items listed in Annex II to this Council Regulation “Equipment, technology and software intended primarily for use in the monitoring or interception of internet or telephone communications” NOT including equipment, technology or software which are specified in Annex I to Council Regulation (EC) 428/2009 or the Common Military List (Article 6 of the Council regulation):

- to sell, supply, transfer or export, directly or indirectly;

- to provide technical assistance or brokering services, or related to the installation, provision, manufacture, maintenance and use or to the provision, installation, operation or updating;

- to provide, directly or indirectly, financing or financial assistance;

- to provide any telecommunication or internet monitoring or interception services of any kind to, or for the direct or indirect benefit of, Venezuela’s government, public bodies, corporations and agencies or any person or entity acting on their behalf or at their direction.

Derogations can apply if there is an authorisation by Member States’ competent authority. However, competent authorities cannot grant any authorisation if they have reasonable grounds to determine that the equipment, technology or software in question would be used for internal repression.

Article 14 of the Council Regulation establishes a quite unusual provision, working a sort of catch-all provision, allowing to prohibit to participate, knowingly and intentionally, in activities the object or effect of which is to circumvent the measures laid down in this Regulation.

Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074 completes the export prohibitions imposed by the Regulation as regard to military activities, in particular through the prohibition:

- to sale, supply, transfer or export of arms and related materiel of all types, including weapons and ammunition, military vehicles and equipment, paramilitary equipment and their spare parts;

- to provide technical assistance, brokering services and other services related to military activities and to the provision, manufacture, maintenance and use of arms and related materiel of all types, including weapons and ammunition, military vehicles and equipment, paramilitary equipment and their pare parts;

- to provide financing or financial assistance related to military activities, including in particular grants, loans and export credit insurance, as well as insurance and reinsurance, for any sale, supply, transfer or export of arms and related materiel or for the provision of related technical assistance, brokering services and other services;

The same derogations established by the Regulation apply for this Decision.

At a time when the diffusion of knowledge into society and the utilisation of science by industry is as high as ever, some types of research may undergo restrictions on the basis of ethical principles and security imperatives. The role of Christos Charatsis PhD research is to clarify the legal obligations originating from export control laws and affecting research activities and, explore the level of awareness of proliferation risks within the scientific community. National law provisions and especially international law would normally reflect and codify long-lasting ethical principles and patterns that guarantee the smooth functioning of societies. The study by no means intends to stigmatise specific areas of research and direct a purely ethical discussion on what should be considered as moral or not when conducting research. Instead, its main purpose is to identify the implications of export controls of dual-use items and technologies for legitimate research and equip researchers and research organisations with a strategy to cope with the challenges being inherent to the combat against the proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD).

The research has been published  is available on our website. 

 

You can download the whole publication or one of its Parts, by accessing the “Publication” section.

 

The latest ESU’s publication on Introduction to Stratetgic Trade Control Regimes 2017, edited by Quentin MICHEL and Lia CAPONETTI, is now available on our website.

 

You can download the whole publication or one of its Parts, by accessing the “Publication” section.

 

Council Regulation (EU) 2017/1509 of 30 August 2017 (OJ L 224/1 of 31/08/2017) has been amended by Council Regulation (EU) 2017/1836 of 10 October 2017 (OJ L 261/1 of 11/10/2017) in order to transpose the sectoral sanctions imposed by UN Security Council resolution 2375 (2017), adopted on 11 September 2017, in response to the DPRK’s ongoing nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles-development activities.

Latest amendments, notably, insert new parts in Annex II (which lists all dual-use items, other nuclear-related, ballistic missile-related and weapons of mass destruction-related items) to transpose paragraph 4 and paragraph 5 of UNSCR 2371 (2017). These paragraphs concern respectively:

-       Weapons of mass destruction-related items, materials, equipment, goods and technology designated;

-       Conventional arms-related items, materials, equipment, goods and technology designated.

Other measures introduced by UNSC resolution 2375 (2017) include a ban on the sale of natural gas liquids to the DPRK, and on the importation of its textiles, as well as limitations on the sale of refined petroleum products and crude oil to the DPRK.

 

A first draft of the Commission Delegated Regulation amending annexes I, IIa to IIg and Annex IV to Council Regulation (EC) No 428/2009 setting up a Community regime for the control of exports, transfer, brokering and transit of dual-use items has been published on the website of the DG Trade of the European Commission. The texts are available at the following link: https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/index.cfm?fuseaction=list&n=10&adv=0&coteId=&year=2017&number=&version=F&dateFrom=&dateTo=&serviceId=67&documentType=COMMISSION_DELEGATED_ACT&title=dual-use&titleLanguage=&titleSearch=EXACT&sortBy=NUMBER&sortOrder=DESC.

Amendments to the annexes I, IIa to IIg and Annex IV are required in order to align the EU dual-use Regulation with the changes in control lists adopted by international non-proliferation regimes and export control arrangements in 2016. The last updates of the EU dual-use control list were introduced by Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 2016/1969 of 12 September 2016, taking account of the control list changes adopted by the international non-proliferation regimes and export control arrangements until the end of 2015.

The concerned modified annexes divided in the following texts:

• Annex I – Part I - List referred to in Article 3 of this Regulation List of dual-use items
• Annex I - Part II – Category 0: nuclear materials, facilities, and equipment
• Annex I - Part III – Category 1: special materials and related equipment
• Annex I - Part IV – Category 2: materials processing
• Annex I - Part V – Category 3: electronics
• Annex I - Part VI – Category 4: computers
• Annex I - Part VII – Category 5: telecommunications
• Annex I - Part VIII – Category 6: sensors and lasers
• Annex I - Part IX – Category 7: navigation and avionics
• Annex I - Part X – Category 8: marine
• Annex I - Part XI – Category 9: aerospace and propulsion)

• Annex IIa - Union General Export Authorisation No EU001 - referred to in Article 9(1) of this Regulation (Exports to Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, Switzerland, including Liechtenstein, and United States of America)
• Annex IIb - Union General Export Authorisation NO EU002 - referred to in Article 9(1) of this Regulation (Exports of certain dual-use items to certain destinations Issuing authority: European Union)
• Annex IIc - Union General Export Authorisation NO EU003 - referred to in Article 9(1) of this Regulation (Export after repair/replacement)
• Annex IId - Union General Export Authorisation NO EU004 - referred to in Article 9(1) of this Regulation (Temporary export for exhibition or fair)
• Annex IIe - Union General Export Authorisation No EU005 - referred to in Article 9(1) of this Regulation (Telecommunications)
• Annex IIf - Union General Export Authorisation NO EU006 - referred to in Article 9(1) of this Regulation (Chemicals)
• Annex IIg - List referred to in Article 9(4)(a) of this Regulation and Annexes IIa, IIc and IId to this Regulation

• ANNEX IV - List referred to in Article 22(1) of this Regulation (Intra-EU transfers).

The delegated act, adopted pursuant to Article 9(1) and Article 15(3) of the Council Regulation (EC) No 428/2009, shall enter into force only if no objection will be expressed either by the European Parliament or the Council within a period of two months of notification of the act to the European Parliament and the Council or if, before the expiry of that period, the European Parliament and the Council will informed the Commission that they will not object.

COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) 2017/1548 of 14 September 2017 amending Regulation (EU) 2017/1509 concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic People's Republic of Korea has been published on the Official Journal of the European Union (OJ L 237/39 of 15/09/2017).

The Regulation strengthens sanctions against North Korea, by amending Regulation (EU) 2017/1509 of 30 August 2017, in order to transpose the sectoral sanctions imposed by UN Security Council resolution 2371 (2017).

In particular, Annex II is modified as to add:

- Part VI: weapons of mass destruction-related items, materials, equipment, goods and technology designated pursuant to paragraph 4 of UNSCR 2371 (2017);

- Part VII: weapons of mass destruction-related items, materials, equipment, goods and technology designated pursuant to paragraph 5 of UNSCR 2371 (2017).

 Measures target also the DPRK’s main exports, imposing a total ban on all exports of:

- iron ore (modified article 4.2)

- seafood (new art. 16a)

- lead and lead ore (new art. 16b)

The same amendments are introduced by Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/1562 of 14 September 2017 (OJ L 237/86 of 15/09/2017) modifying Decision (CFSP) 2016/849.

COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) 2017/1509 of 30 August 2017 concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) and repealing Regulation (EC) No 329/2007 was published on 31 August 2017, on the Official Journal of the European Union (OJ L 224/1 of 31/08/2017), repealing Regulation (EC) No 329/2007.

 

Council Regulation (EC) No 329/2007 has been amended several times and, in view of the extent of the amendments introduced, it has been repealed and replaced by Regulation (EU) 2017/1509.

Council Regulation (EU) 2017/1509 contains amendments introduced by Council Regulation (EU) 2017/1501 of 24 August 2017 (OJ L 221/1 of 26/08/2017) implementing United Nations Security Council (UNSC) Resolution 2371 (2017). The resolution added nine natural persons and four legal persons to the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures. And laid down exemptions from those measures with regard to two the Foreign Trade Bank (FTB) and the Korean National Insurance Company (KNIC). In particular, exemptions    with regard to funds and economic resources belonging or made available to the Foreign Trade Bank or the Korean National Insurance Company (KNIC) insofar as such funds and economic resources are meant exclusively for the official purposes of a diplomatic or consular mission in North Korea, or for humanitarian assistance activities which are undertaken by, or in coordination with, the United Nations.

The same amendments are introduced, accordingly, by Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/1504 of 24 August 2017 (OJ L 221/22 of 26/08/2017), which modifies Decision (CFSP) 2016/849. 

 Annex II lists all dual-use items, other nuclear-related, ballistic missile-related and weapons of mass destruction-related items, divided into the following five parts:

-      Part I: all goods and technology listed in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 428/2009 (dual-use items);

-      Part II: other items, materials, equipment, goods and technology which could contribute to DPRK’s nuclear-related, ballistic missile-related or other weapons of mass destruction-related programmes;

-      Part III: certain key components for the ballistic-missile sector;

-      Part IV: weapons of mass destruction-related items, materials, equipment, goods and technology identified and designated pursuant to paragraph 25 of UN Security Council Resolution 2270 (2016);

-      Part V: weapons of mass destruction-related items, materials, equipment, goods and technology identified and designated pursuant to paragraph 4 of UN Security Council Resolution 2321 (2016).

Article 3 of the Regulation establishes the prohibition:

-      to sell, supply, transfer or export, directly or indirectly, all items listed in Annex II, whether or not originating in the Union, to any natural or legal person, entity or body in, or for use in the DPRK;

-      to import, purchase or transfer, directly or indirectly, whether or not originating in the DPRK

Article 7, for the same categories of items as well as for items listed in the EU Common List of Military Equipment, establishes the prohibition:

-      to provide, directly or indirectly, technical assistance, brokering services, manufacture, maintenance and use;

-      to provide, directly or indirectly, financing or financial assistance, including in particular grants, loans and export credit insurance, as well as insurance and reinsurance, for any sale, supply, transfer or export of such items, or for any provision of related technical assistance;

-      to obtain, directly or indirectly, technical assistance;

-      to obtain, directly or indirectly, financing or financial assistance.

 Article 46 empowers the Commission to amend Parts II, III, IV and V of Annex II on the basis of determinations made by either the Sanctions Committee or the United Nations Security Council.

The Regulation prohibits also trade operations related to:

-      Aviation fuel (as listed in Annex III)

-      Gold, titanium ore, vanadium ore and rare earth minerals (as listed in Annex IV)

-      Coal, iron and iron ore (as listed in Annex V)

-      Petroleum products (as listed in Annex VI)

-      Copper, nickel, silver and zinc (as listed in Annex VII)

-      Luxurt goods (as listed in Annex XIII)

-      Gold, precious metals and diamonds (as listed in Annex IX)

On 13 July 2017, the proposal for a Regulation on the import of cultural goods was issued.

 

---

Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on the import of cultural goods, Brussels, 13.7.2017 COM(2017) 375 final 2017/0158 (COD). Available on: https://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/sites/taxation/files/cultural_goods_proposal_en.pdf

The proposal has to be inserted in the framework of the 2015 European Agenda on Security and of the 2016 Action Plan to step up the flight against the financing of terrorism.

The Regulation and the actions described below also respond to the European Parliament Resolution of 30 April 2015 on the destruction of cultural sites perpetrated by ISIS/Da’esh, which called, inter alia, for strong actions to disrupt the illegal trade of cultural goods.

Import license or importer statement (Article 3)

Article 3 of the proposed Regulation establishes the scope based on the principle according to which the entry of cultural goods into the EU customs territory is only permitted when an import licence has been obtained (for cultural goods referred to in points (c), (d) and (h) of the Annex) or an importer statement is submitted (for cultural goods referred to in points (a), (b), (e), (f), (g), (i), (j), (k) and (l) of the Annex).

 Exceptions

Some exceptions to the requirement of import license or of the importer statement are established for cultural goods entering temporarily the EU custom territory for:

- exhibitions or academic and scientific research,

- or in cases where they need a temporary refuge from destruction and loss, when the source country is affected by armed conflict or is suffering a natural disaster.

 The Commission, by means of implementing acts establishes the modalities for temporary admission.

 The import license (Article 4)

 For cultural goods referred to in points (c), (d) and (h) of the Annex

 The holder of the goods shall apply for an import licence to the competent authority of the Member State of entry

The application shall be accompanied by any supporting documents and information substantiating that the cultural goods have been exported from the source country in accordance with its laws and regulations, or in accordance with the UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property signed in Paris on 14 November 1970 ('the 1970 UNESCO Convention')  if the export country is  a Contracting Party to the Convention.

The competent authority, within 90 days, shall decide to issue or not the license.

The license cannot be issued if:

- laws and regulations of the exporting country have not been respected or laws and regulations established by the UNESCO Convention, if the exporting country is a Contracting Party

- the competent authority has reasonable grounds to believe that the holder of the goods did not acquire them lawfully.

 Competent authorities are designated by each Member State.

 Importer statement (Article 5)

For cultural goods referred to in points (a), (b), (e), (f), (g), (i), (j), (k) and (l) of the Annex.

 The importer statement shall contain a declaration signed by the holder of the goods that the goods have been exported from the source country in accordance with its laws and regulations or laws and regulations established by the UNESCO Convention, if the exporting country is a Contracting Party.

The importer statement shall include a standardised document describing the cultural goods in sufficient detail for them to be identified by the customs authorities.

 Customs (Articles 6-8)

Customs  authority shall check the import license and/or the importer statement.

They are also authorised to seize and temporarily retain cultural goods if provisions laid down in the Regulation have not been respected.

 Administrative cooperation (Article 9)

Member States shall ensure co-operation between their competent authorities. To this end, an electronic system may be developed for the storage and the exchange of information.

 Awareness-raising (Article 11)

Article 11 calls Member States to organise training and capacity building activities to ensure the effective implementation of the Regulation and to use awareness-raising campaigns to sensitise buyers of cultural goods.

Regulation (EU) 2017/821 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2017 laying down supply chain due diligence obligations for Union importers of tin, tantalum and tungsten, their ores, and gold originating from conflict-affected and high-risk areas was published on the Official Journal of the European Union (L 130/1 of 19/05/2017).

 

 

---

A brief overview of the content of Regulation (EU) 2017/821 is available on this website, in a technical note published on 22 March 2017, under the title “Updates on the EU Regulation Proposal on Conflict Minerals”. Available on: http://www.esu.ulg.ac.be/index.php?serv=49&cat=3.

 

The publication of the Regulation was accompanied by a series of statements by the Council and by the Commission, published on the C series of the Official Journal of the European Union (C 158/1 of 19/05/2017).

In the first statement, the Council agrees to delegate to the Commission the power to adopt delegated acts to amend the thresholds of Annex I, but on an exceptional basis.

In its three statements, the Commission declares that:

- it will consider making additional legislative proposals targeted at EU companies;

- in the exercise of its empowerment to adopt delegated acts, it will take into account the specific risks associated with the operation of upstream gold supply chains in conflict affected and high risk areas and taking into account the position of Union micro and small enterprises importing gold in the EU;

- in response to the request of the European Parliament for specific guidelines, the Commission is willing to develop performance indicators specific to the responsible sourcing of conflict minerals.

The 18^th annual report according to Article 8(2) of Council Common Position 2008/944/CFSP defining common rules governing the control of exports of military technology and equipment has been published on the Official Journal of the European Union (OJ C153/1 of 16/05/2017).

 

 

On 28 March 2017, an updated version of the European Union Common Military List, as adopted by the Council on 6 March 2017, has been published on the Official Journal of the European Union (OJ C 97/1 of 28/03/2017).

The Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council setting up a Union system for supply chain due diligence self-certification of responsible importers of tin, tantalum and tungsten, their ores, and gold originating in conflict-affected and high-risk areas[1] was launched, on March 2014, by the European Commission and forwarded to the European Parliament and to the Council, according to the ordinary legislative procedure.

---

[1] Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council setting up a Union system for supply chain due diligence self-certification of responsible importers of tin, tantalum and tungsten, their ores, and gold originating in conflict-affected and high-risk areas, COM/2014/0111 final - 2014/0059 (COD). Available on: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52014PC0111

 

On 20 May 2015, the European Parliament adopted 60 amendments to the proposal. However, the vote on the legislative resolution was postponed to a later session, thereby not closing the first reading.

Up to date, a number of informal contacts have taken place between the Council, the European Parliament and the Commission with a view to reaching an agreement on this dossier at first reading, thereby avoiding the need for second reading and conciliation.

In this context, the rapporteur, Mr. Iuliu WINKLER presented one single compromise amendment (amendment 156), agreed during the informal contacts and intended to replace the 60 amendments previously adopted by the European Parliament.

During these informal contacts, it was also agreed an amendment (amendment 157) inviting the Parliament to take note of a Council statement and three Commission statements made in the context of the informal contacts.

When it voted on 16 March 2017, the plenary adopted the single compromise amendment (amendment 156) to the proposal for a Regulation.

The Commission’s proposal as thus amended constitutes the Parliament’s first-reading position which should be, therefore, approved by the Council without further modifications.

The adoption by the Council is expected in the coming weeks.

Some particularly relevant provisions, contained in the European Parliament’s first reading position, are hereby highlighted.

The proposal of Regulation aims at introducing a supply chain due-diligence system for Union importers of tin, tantalum and tungsten, their ores, and gold (often grouped under the acronym of 3TG and called “conflict minerals” since their systematic exploitation and trade, in conflict-affected and high-risk areas, contribute to the commission of serious violations of human rights, international humanitarian law or violations amounting to crimes under international law).

The supply chain due-diligence system proposed by the Regulation is basically a self-certification mechanism, which seeks to encourage EU operators, importing minerals and metals, to a responsible sourcing of minerals.

It is a responsibility mechanism residing entirely on the importers, who, in order to comply with the Regulation, shall fulfil same obligations, such as: “management system”, “risk management”, “third party audit”, and “disclosure”. National competent authorities have only ex post checks to carry out, to ensure whether self-certified responsible importer comply with the obligations or not.

The Regulation will not apply to (Article 1):

• Union importers of minerals or metal, where their annual import volume of each of the minerals or metals concerned is below the volume thresholds set out in Annex I. However, all volume thresholds are set as to cover no less than 95 % of the total volumes imported into the Union of each mineral and metal concerned;
• recycled metals (with the exception of Article 7(4));
• stocks where a Union importer demonstrates that those stocks were created in the current form on a verifiable date prior to 1 February 2013.

Supply chain due diligence obligations (Article 3): Union importers of minerals or metals will have to comply with the supply chain due diligence obligations set out in the Regulation as well as keeping documentation demonstrating their respective compliance with those obligations, including the results of the independent third-party audits.

Recognition of supply chain due diligence schemes (Article 8): supply chain due diligence schemes can be submitted, by interested parties, to the Commission, in order to be recognised by Commission. The Commission will adopt delegated acts to set out the methodology and criteria allowing the assessment whether supply chain due diligence schemes facilitates the fulfilment of the requirements of the Regulation by economic operators and allowing the Commission to recognise schemes.

Management system obligations (Article 4)

Union importers of minerals or metals will have to:

• adopt and clearly communicate to suppliers and the public up-to-date information on their supply chain policy for the minerals and metals potentially originating from conflict- affected and high-risk areas; 
• incorporate in their supply chain policy standards set out in the model supply chain policy in Annex II to the OECD Due Diligence Guidance;
• structure their respective internal management systems to support supply chain due diligence by assigning responsibility to senior management, in cases where the Union importer is not a natural person, to oversee the supply chain due diligence process as well as maintain records of those systems for a minimum of five years;
• strengthen their engagement with suppliers by incorporating their supply chain policy into contracts and agreements with suppliers;
• establish a grievance mechanism as an early-warning risk-awareness system;
• as regards minerals and metals, operate a chain of custody or supply chain traceability system;
• as regards by-products, provide information supported by documentation as from the point of origin of those by-products.

Risk management obligations (Article 5)

 Union importers of minerals will have to:

•  identify and assess the risks of adverse impacts in their mineral supply chain against the standards of their supply chain policy, consistent with Annex II and the due diligence recommendations of the OECD Due Diligence Guidance;
•  implement a strategy to respond to the identified risks designed so as to prevent or mitigate adverse impacts.

Third-party obligations (Article 6)

Union importers of minerals or metals will have to carry out audits via an independent third-party (‘third party audit’). However, Union importers of metals are exempted from this obligation as far as they can demonstrate that all smelters and refiners in their supply chain comply with the Regulation.

Guidelines and Commission’s list of conflict-affected and high-risk areas (Article 14)

The Commission, in consultation with the European External Action Service and the OECD, will prepare non-binding guidelines in the form of a handbook for economic operators, explaining how best to apply the criteria for the identification of conflict-affected and high-risk areas. This handbook will take into account the OECD Due Diligence Guidance.

The Commission will provide an indicative, non-exhaustive, regularly updated list of conflict-affected and high-risk areas.

The Commission Directive (EU) 2017/433 of 7 March 2017 amending Directive 2009/43/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the list of defence-related products has been published on the Official Journal of the European Union (OJ L 70/1 of 15/03/2017).

The Commission Directive inserts updates on the list of defence-related products, accordingly to the updated Common Military List, adopted by the Council on 14 March 2016.[1]

Par l’arrêt C-158/14 rendu ce mardi 14 mars, la Cour de Justice de l’Union européenne s’est prononcée sur la légalité, au sens du droit international humanitaire, de la qualification terroriste de groupes armés agissant dans le cadre d’un conflit.

La question préjudicielle posée à la Cour a pour origine le gèle d’avoirs de partisans des Tigres de libération de l’Eelam tamoul (TLET) par les autorités néerlandaises en application d’une législation nationale mettant en œuvre la résolution 1373 du Conseil de sécurité des Nations unies. Cette résolution vise principalement à la prévention des actes de terrorisme au moyen, notamment, de mesures de gel de fonds.

 Selon  les  autorités  néerlandaises, le groupe TLET devait être considéré comme un groupe « terroriste ». Ces partisans pouvaient donc voir leurs ressources gelées.

Cette décision a été prise en tenant compte d’un règlement d’exécution du Conseil de l’Union européenne de 2010, qui maintenait les TLET sur une  liste  de  groupes  impliqués  dans  des  actes  de  terrorisme. Cependant, ces partisans ont fait valoir que ce règlement est invalide étant donné que les actions des TLET n’étaient pas des actes de terrorisme, mais plutôt les actes d'une force armée non étatique engagée dans un conflit armé au Sri Lanka et auxquels seul le droit humanitaire s’appliquerait.

Dans son arrêt, la Cour considère que le droit international coutumier ne s’oppose pas à la qualification terroriste de groupes armés impliqués dans un conflit. De plus, elle souligne que le droit  international  humanitaire  poursuit  des  buts différents de ceux du droit de l’UE.

De ce fait,  la  Cour  a répondu à cette question préjudicielle que les  activités  de  forces  armées  en  période  de  conflit  armé,  au sens du droit international humanitaire, peuvent constituer des «actes de terrorisme», au sens du droit de l’Union.

Crédit photo : https://www.flickr.com/photos/actualitte

On 28 February 2017, Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/345[1] and Council Regulation (EU) 2017/330[2] have been published on the Official Journal of the European Union to strengthen sanctions against North Korea.

 

---

[1] COUNCIL DECISION (CFSP) 2017/345 of 27 February 2017 amending Decision (CFSP) 2016/849 concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Official Journal of the European Union, OJ L 50/59 of 28/02/2017.

[2] COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) 2017/330 of 27 February 2017 amending Regulation (EC) No 329/2007 concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Official Journal of the European Union, OJ L 50/1 of 28/02/2017.

 

 

On 27 February 2017, the Council adopted legal acts imposing further restrictive measures against North Korea. These measures transpose the additional restrictive measures imposed by United Nations Security Council resolution (UNSCR) 2321, adopted on 30 November 2016. 

Trade restrictions concern the following:

-      transactions in coal, iron and iron ore from the DPRK;

-      a ban on imports of copper, nickel, silver, zinc as well as statues from the DPRK;

-      a ban on export of new helicopters and vessels to the DPRK.

Adopted measures also provide for the tightening of existing restrictions in the transport sector as well as in the financial sector.

Further measures have also been established to prevent specialised teaching or training of DPRK nationals in disciplines which would contribute to the DPRK’s nuclear or ballistic-missile programmes and to suspend scientific and technical cooperation involving persons or groups officially sponsored by or representing the DPRK except for medical exchanges. 

The seventh edition of the Chaudfontaine Group was held from 8 to 10 January 2017, in Chaudfontaine, with the support of DG DEVCO of the European Commission.

 

This seventh edition focused on “Incentives of non-proliferation outreach activities: actors and rationale”. The objective of the seminar was to debate WMD dual-use goods trade control outreach activities, also in the light of the European Commission’ s proposal for a new EU dual-use legislation, which makes a clear link between the internal and external dimensions of dual-use trade controls.

The seminar, divided into three main sessions, dealt with the recast of the EU dual-use trade legislation, the correlation between EU international trade and export controls in outreach activities and the link between outreach activities and the enhancement of international security.

Since 1 January 2017 Annie NIESSEN has joined the ESU as a PhD student. She was granted a doctoral scholarship from the University of Liège to carry out research on the “European State” in the European Union from a legal, institutional, political and media point of view. The aim is to compare and confront the interpretations of the “European State” provided by the European institutions with the interpretations spread by national political leaders and newspapers. Graduated from the University of Liège in Multilingual Communication, Annie NIESSEN will conduct this research project in four years under the guidance of Mr. Quentin Michel, Professor in European Studies (ULg) and Mr. Geoffrey Geuens, lecturer in Communication and Information Sciences (ULg).        

On 13 December 2016, Regulation (EU) 2016/2134 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 November 2016 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1236/2005 concerning trade in certain goods which could be used for capital punishment, torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment has been published on the Official Journal of the European Union (OJ L 338/1 of 13/12/2016).

 

---

Regulation (EU) 2016/2134 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 November 2016 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1236/2005 concerning trade in certain goods which could be used for capital punishment, torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Official Journal of the European Union (OJ L 338/1 of 13/12/2016). Available on: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.L_.2016.338.01.0001.01.ENG&toc=OJ:L:2016:338:TOC

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/1969 of 12 September 2016 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 428/2009 setting up a Community regime for the control of exports, transfer, brokering and transit of dual-use items was published on the Official Journal of the European Union on 15 November 2016.

 

---

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/1969 of 12 September 2016 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 428/2009 setting up a Community regime for the control of exports, transfer, brokering and transit of dual-use items, OJ L 307/1 of 15/11/2016.

The Commission Delegated Regulation updates Annex I in conformity with changes to the control lists adopted by the international trade control regimes in 2015. Consequential amendments are introduced for Annexes IIa to IIg and Annex IV.

On 10 October 2016, Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1831 of 14 October 2016 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 329/2007 concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic People's Republic of Korea was published on the Official Journal of the European Union (OJ L 280/3 of 18/10/2016).

The Commission Implementing Regulation strengthens sanctions against North Korea, by updating Annex Ig to Regulation (EC) No 329/2007.

The Annex lists weapons of mass destruction-related items, materials, equipment, goods and technology identified and designated as sensitive goods, pursuant to paragraph 25 of UN Security Council Resolution 2270.

The third issue of the Strategic Trade Review has now been published and can be downloaded.

The journal’s objective is to introduce practitioners, researchers and the general public to the results of research in the strategic trade field and to advance the discourse and dialogue to more significant recognition, thereby contributing to enhanced international peace and security. The journal aims to serve as a forum for advanced exploration and innovative ideas and to provide its readers with valuable resources regarding the current state of this area of study. STR invites researchers as well as the practitioner community to take part in shaping the future of the field by contributing articles. Please check the "submissions" for further information.

On 28 September 2016, the European Commission presented the new proposal of dual-use Regulation.

One of the main changes concern the strengthening of the “human security” dimension in export controls, in order to prevent human rights violations due to certain cyber-surveillance technologies.

Another novelty introduced in the new proposal is the simplification of administrative procedures, allowing to optimise licensing process also thanks to the introduction of new EU General Export Authorisations and the harmonisation of brokering controls, technical assistance and transit of dual-use items.

The new proposal, furthermore, dedicates some specific provisions to prevent the misuse of dual-use items in relation to terrorism.

The text of the new proposal is available on: http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2016/september/tradoc_154976.pdf

An analysis of the new dual-use Regulation proposal will be published in the following days on the ESU website.

On 20 September 2016, the website EurActiv published the news that the President of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, has postponing the deposit of the Commission’s new proposal for a Regulation on dual-use items.

 

The new Regulation, which should strengthen the existing EU dual-use export control system, notably should include stricter controls for the export of surveillance technology.

According to EurActiv, the new proposal that should have been presented on 21 September 2016, has been postponed by the President onto the agenda for next week’s meeting of the college of Commissioners.

The proposal was originally set to be approved by written procedure, but will now be debated between Commissioners.

More information are available on the EurActive website: http://www.euractiv.com/section/trade-society/news/juncker-postpones-controversial-export-control-bill-on-surveillance-technology/.

A leak draft of the proposal has been published by EurActive and is available on:

http://www.euractiv.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2016/07/dual-use-proposal.pdf

The European Commission submitted its annual report to the European Parliament on the implementation of Regulation (EC) No 428/2009 (the so-called dual-use Regulation), as established by Article 23(3) of the Regulation.

The report provides information on the implementation of the Regulation in 2015 and includes aggregated export control data for 2014.

The report focuses on three main issues:

1)    The evolution of the policy and the regulatory framework;

2)    The activities of the Dual-Use Coordination Group;

3)    Key-data on EU export controls.

1) Under the first issue, the Commission reports the following activities that contributed to the export control policy review:

-       Launch of an impact assessment;[1]

-       Contracting of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) as external consultant to conduct a data collection project to support the impact assessment;

-       Conducted online public consultation to collect stakeholders’ and public’s input regarding the review process;

-       Conducted targeted consultations with key stakeholders;

-       Consulted the Council’ Dual-Use Working Party;

-       Release of an updated version of the “correlation table” linking customs codes with dual-use classifications.

The Commission reports how export control review issues were also on the agenda of the European Parliament, which during the considered period of time, created a joint DROIT-INTA Committee (on April 2015) focusing on the impact of intrusion and surveillance systems on human rights in third countries and organised a series of parliamentary questions.

As for the amendments, the Commission reports that the Regulation, in the considered period of time, was amended once with Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 2420/2015 of 12 October 2015[2] updating Annex I of Regulation 428/2009, in order to introduce some updates decided in international export control regimes (mainly the Wassenaar Arrangement and the Missile Technology Control Regime). Annexes II and IV of Regulation 428/2009 were also updated accordingly.

As for the implementation of certain provisions of Regulation 428/2009 by Member States, the Report refers to the Information Note published in the Official Journal of the European Union of 13 February 2015.[3]

2) As for the Dual-Use Coordination Group (DUCG)[4], the Commission reports a long list of activities, especially meetings to discuss crucial issues such as: the interpretation of the clause “specifically designed component”, the application of the definition of “exporter” also to “resellers”, the application of transit controls and the control of dual-use research.

The DUCG cooperated also with other groups/actors involved in the following activities:

-       Monitoring of the joint technical sub-group examining the potential convergence of customs “Authorised Economic Operators” (AEO) programmes with export control “Internal Compliance Programme” (ICP);

-       Monitoring of the “Surveillance technology expert group” (STEG) examining issues related to the control of cyber-surveillance technology and its potential impact on human rights and the security of the EU and its citizens;

-       Cooperation with SIPRI and Ecorys in the “data collection project”;

-       Technical consultations in support of the preparation of the Commission Delegated Regulation updating the EU control List;

-       Preparations of EU guidelines supporting structured exchange of information and consultations between Member States with respect to the application of the “cryptography note”, and the definition of “exporter” as applied to “resellers”;

-       Support to further development of the Dual-Use e-System (DUeS)[5] especially through the creation of a new section to support exchange of information on denials issued under Regulation (EC) No 1236/2005 (the so-called Anti-Torture Regulation);

-       A “DUCG-Industry Forum” was held on 7 December 2015 in Brussels to discuss review options and the findings of the online public consultation;

-       Support to the preparation of an export control pilot simulation exercise (SimEX 2015) for customs and licensing officers, jointly organised by DG TAXUD and the Joint Research Centre (JRC), which, on its side continue with a series of seminars for licensing authorities in collaboration with the US Department of Energy;

-       “EU P2P Outreach programme” on dual-use items in partner counties continued in 2015, in 34 countries.

3) As for key data, the Commission highlights how it is difficult to get reliable information on dual-use exports as there is no correspondingly defined economic sector. Moreover, not all Member States collect all data. Anyway, it is stressed that the dual-use export domain represents about 20% of EU total exports (including intra-EU trade). The dual-use category the most exported is category 1- Special materials and related equipment and the main country of destination (out of the EU) is the USA. In general terms, a large part of the dual-use export domain concerns exports towards”E001 countries” benefiting from general authorisations.

Authorised dual-use trade amounted to EUR 41.2 billion, representing 2.4% of total extra-EU exports, with a majority of transactions authorised under individual licenses (about 25.000 single licences issued in 2014). As for denials, only 472 denials issued in 2014, representing about 0.4% of total extra-EU exports.

On 23 June 2016, the United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 2293 (2016)

providing for certain amendments to the exemptions to the arms embargo against the DRC (as well as to the criteria for designation with regard to restrictions on travel and the freezing of funds).

 

Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/1173 of 18 July[1] and Council Regulation (EU) 2016/1165[2] are meant to implement these changes, amending respectively Council Decision 2010/788/CFSP[3] and Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005.

 

The main amendments are the following:

 

-       Point (c) of Article 2(1) is amended as to include the prior notification to the Sanction Committee, established pursuant to UNSCR 1533(2004), of all supply, sale or transfer of non-lethal military equipment intended solely for humanitarian or protective use, as well as the provision of technical assistance and training.

-       Point (e) is added to Article 2(1) as to extend the scope to “other sales and/or supply of arms and related materiel, or provision of assistance or personnel, as approved in advance by the Sanction Committee”.

-       Point (e) of Article 3 is reworded as to specify the types of violations committed by persons and entities and subject to restrictive measures: human rights violations, violations of international humanitarian law, acts involving the targeting of civilians (replacing the terms children and women) and attacks on schools and hospitals.

-       Point (g) of Article 3 is also reworded as to enlarge the scope of action: criminal networks are added (as individuals or entities subject to restrictive measures); the (entire) DCR territory is involved (instead of only the eastern part of the DCR); the terms “gold” and “wildlife” are specified when referring to illicit trade of natural resources.

 

 

Council Regulation (EU) 2016/1165 adds the same amendments, in terms of content, to:

-       Article 1b(1), point (d) is added as to include the prior notification to the Sanction Committee for technical assistance, financing or financial assistance or brokering services related to other sales and supply of arms and related materiel;

-       Article 2a(1), point (e) is reworded as to specify the types of violations committed by persons and entities and subject to restrictive measures: human rights violations, violations of international humanitarian law, acts involving the targeting of civilians (replacing the terms children and women) and attacks on schools and hospitals;

-       Article 2a(1), point (g) is also reworded as to enlarge the scope of action: criminal networks are added (as individuals or entities subject to restrictive measures); the (entire) DCR territory is involved (instead of only the eastern part of the DCR); the terms “gold” and “wildlife” are specified when referring to illicit trade of natural resources.

 

 

 

---

[1] COUNCIL DECISION (CFSP) 2016/1173 of 18 July 2016 amending Decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ L 193/108 of 19/07/2016).

[2] COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) 2016/1165 of 18 July 2016 amending Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against persons acting in violation of the arms embargo with regard to the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ L 193/15 of 19/07/2016).

[3] COUNCIL DECISION 2010/788/CFSP of 20 December 2010 concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo and repealing Common Position 2008/369/CFSP (OJ L 336/30 of 21/12/2010).

Following the entry into force of UNSCR 2270 (2016), COUNCIL DECISION (CFSP) 2016/1341[1] and COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) 2016/1333[2] have been published on the Official Journal of the European Union.

 

Amendments regard additional goods to which prohibitions on the transfer, procurement and provision of technical assistance apply, a list of weapons of mass destruction-related items, materials, equipment, goods and technology to be identified and designated as sensitive goods and the prohibition on the entry into ports of any vessel that is also flagged DPRK.

 

 

More specifically, COUNCIL DECISION (CFSP) 2016/1341 inserts the following amendments:

-       In point (b) of Article 1(1), paragraph 25 of UNSCR 2270(2016) is added to the list of UNSC resolutions in force and implemented by the EU;

-       Paragraph 1 of Article 18 is reworded as to include vessel not only owned, operated and crewed by the DPRK, but also flagged. 

 

COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) 2016/1333 inserts the following amendments:

-       Annex Ig is added in point (a) of paragraph 1 of Article 2 and paragraph 3, in points (a) to (d) in Article 3(1);

-       In paragraph 2 of Article 2, a subparagraph is added to specify the content of Annex Ig: “weapons-of-mass-destruction-related items, materials, equipment, goods and technology identified and designated as sensitive goods, pursuant to paragraph 25 of UN Security Council Resolution 2270 (2016)”;

-       A point is added to paragraph 1 of article 13, specifying the modalities to amend Annex Ig (on the basis of determinations made by the UN Security Council or the Sanctions Committee and add the reference numbers taken from the Combined Nomenclature as set out in Annex I to Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87).

---

[1] COUNCIL DECISION (CFSP) 2016/1341 of 4 August 2016 amending Decision (CFSP) 2016/849 concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (OJ L 212/116 of 05/08/2016).

[2] COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) 2016/1333 of 4 August 2016 amending Regulation (EC) No 329/2007 concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (OJ L 212/1 of 05/08/2016).

Commission Directive (EU) 2016/970 of 27 May 2016 amending Directive 2009/43/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the list of defence-related products has been published on the Official Journal of the European Union (OJ L 163/1 of 21.06.2016).

 

The Commission Directive amends the list of defence-related products contained in Directive 2009/43/EC following the updates of the EU Common Military List, on 9 February 2015.

Commission Directive (EU) 2016/970 also calls Member States to adopt and publish, by 21 September 2016, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2009/43/EC and notify the adopted provisions to the European Commission.

 

---

It is worth to notice that defence-related products correspond to those listed in the Common Military List of the European.

COMMON MILITARY LIST OF THE EUROPEAN UNION adopted by the Council on 9 February 2015, OJ C 129, 21.4.2015, p. 1.

The final Jury of Christos Charatsis Doctoral Thesis took place on Thursday June 16, 2016, from 14:10 to 16:10 in the Amphitheatre of the European Commission  Joint Research Centre, Ispra, Italy.

The doctoral research was dedicated to: “Interferences between non-proliferation and science: ‘exporting’ dual-use know-how and technology in conformity with security imperatives”.

In his doctoral research, Christos Charatsis analysed the following questions:

What are the legal, practical and normative implications in implementing export controls in a research setting?

What are the obligations of the research and academic community in complying with non-proliferation in general and export control imperatives in particular?

What is the role of the JRC in this context?

 The doctoral research document will be available on ULg ORBI website.

L’Unité d’études européennes (ESU) est heureuse d’annoncer que la soutenance de thèse de Madame Zoé Lejeune a eu lieu le 14 juin 2016, de 15 heures à 17 heures, à la salle du Conseil de la Faculté de droit, de science politique et de criminologie de l’Université de Liège, au domaine du Sart Tilman.

Madame Zoé Lejeune a soutenu une thèse consacrée à La question urbaine revisitée : Analyse socio-politique comparée de la régulation publique des inégalités environnementales.

La recherche doctorale tentait  plus particulièrement d’identifier les facteurs, d’une part de ces variations spatiales  et, d’autre part, de la régulation publique des inégalités environnementales.  Pour ce faire elle distingue  par une approche comparative  entre  les deux espaces retenus (Sheffield et Liège) six dimensions explicatives regroupées en trois grandes catégories  d’analyse : le problème, le système et les politiques publiques. 

De cette analyse comparative, elle formule et postule de l’existence de deux modèles  conceptuels fondés sur les mêmes variables explicatives mais distincts dans les deux contextes étudiés (dialogue maitrisé et confrontation constructive). Elle met en exergue une série de différentiels et de perspectives communes qu’elle confronte aux principaux résultats issus de l’analyse des variables.

Cette démarche démontre de  l’intérêt à porter à une démarche non seulement plus intégrale des inégalités en milieu urbain mais également à repenser les dynamiques qui les caractérisent.

Le jury était composé des membres suivants : Madame Isabelle Reginster (IWEPS), Prof. Jacques Teller (Université de Liège), Prof. Guillaume Faburel (Université Lumière Lyon 2), Prof. Quentin Michel (Université de Liège) , Prof. Gilles Pinson (Sciences Politiques Bordeaux).

La thèse  sera  accessible prochainement sur le site en Open Access ORBI de l’ULg.

Democratic People’s Republic of Korea: Sanctions Update

 

In the last month, the EU institutions reinforced sanctions against Democratic People’s Republic of Korea twice.

 

On 3 May, Council Regulation (EU) 2016/682 of 29 April 2016 amending Regulation (EC) No 329/2007 concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea has been published on the Official Journal of the European Union (OJ L 117/2 of 3/5/2016).

Some amendments concern dual-use items and nuclear-related materials and some minerals (gold, titanium ore, vanadium ore and rare earth minerals).

The main changes for dual-use items and nuclear-related materials concern their re-organisation in Annexes, following the modification of Article 2 of Council Regulation 329/2007.

-      Dual-use items as defined in Council Regulation (EC) No 428/2009 and prohibited are listed in Annex I to this Council Regulation (EU) 2016/682.

-      Annex Ia has been added to the Regulation, listing the prohibition of other items, materials, equipment, goods and technology which could contribute to North Korea’s nuclear-related, other weapons of mass destruction-related or ballistic missile-related programmes.

-      Annex Ib has been added, listing the prohibition of certain key components for the ballistic missile sector.

For items listed in Annex I, Ia and Ib, it shall be prohibited to purchase, import or transport the goods and technology from North Korea, whether or not the item concerned originates in North Korea.

Finally, Annexes Ic and Id are added as to prohibit to purchase, import or transfer or transport on board the flag vessels or aircraft of a Member State gold, titanium ore, vanadium ore and rare earth minerals (listed in Annex Ic) or coal, iron and iron ore (listed in Annex Id).

 

On 28 May, Council Regulation (EU) 2016/841 and Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/849 of 27 May 2016 have been published on the Official Journal of the European Union (OJ L 141 of 28/05/2016).

Decision (CFSP) 2016/849 mainly strengthens existing prohibitions, notably:

-       It prohibits the supply, sale or transfer to North Korea of further items, materials and equipment relating to dual-use goods and technology;

-       It introduces a prohibition on the import of luxury goods from North Korea;

-       It prohibits any aircraft operated by North Korean carriers or originating from North Korea from landing in, taking off from or overflying Member States’ territory as well as any vessel that is owned, operated or crewed by North Korea from entering into Member States’ ports.

Finally, financial sanctions concerning:

-       The prohibition of transfers of funds to and from North Korea (unless specifically authorised in advance);

-       Prohibition of investment by North Korea and its nationals in the territories under the jurisdiction of Member States and investment by Union nationals or entities in North Korea;

-        Prohibitions on the provision of financial support for trade with North Korea.

-       A prior-contract exemption from the obligation to freeze the funds and economic resources of certain North Korean persons and entities is also introduced.

 

Council Regulation (EU) 2016/841 of 27 May 2016 amending Regulation (EC) No 329/2007 concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea introduced amendments accordingly to Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/849.

 

 

On 20 July 2015, the Kimberley Process Chair issued the Administrative Decision on Resumption of Exports of Rough Diamonds from the Central African Republic, allowing Central African Republic to export rough diamonds (upon full implementation of the Operational Framework set out in the Annex of the Administrative Decision).

 

Following this decision, Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/557 of 7 April 2016 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 2368/2002 implementing the Kimberley Process certification scheme for the international trade in rough diamonds has been published on the Official Journal of the European Union (OJ L 96/8 of 12/04/2016).  

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/557 updates Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 2368/2002,[1] as to include the Central African Republic.

---

[1] Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 2368/2002 contains the list of participants in the Kimberley Process certification scheme and their duly appointed competent authorities.

 

Vendredi 13 mai 2016 – journée d’études du BISC 

Le plus grand défi existant pour notre société en général et particulièrement pour nos services de renseignement est sans conteste la masse de données électroniques auxquelles nous sommes chacun quotidiennement confrontés. Sur le cours terme, nous avons évolué vers une société numérique dans laquelle la distinction entre les données pertinentes et non pertinentes devient de plus en plus difficile. Quotidiennement,  nous stockons de plus en plus de données sous forme de fichiers, de photos et de films. Les citoyens sentent de plus en plus le besoin d’échanger leurs idées, actions, opinions et réseaux sur le web pour stocker et collecter en utilisant des équipements très variés.

Nos services de renseignement se retrouvent désormais confrontés à un incroyable défi. Comment traiter la croissance exponentielle de la quantité de données collectées ? De quelle manière cette diversité de données doit-elle être analysée ? Dispose-t-on des « outils » suffisants pour faire face à la vitesse à laquelle ces données circulent ?

Durant cette journée d’études, nous essayerons de répondre à certaines lacunes concernant le  « Big Data ». Pour ce faire, nous aborderons cette notion dans son cadre théorique, conceptuel et juridique. En complément, un laps de temps sera consacré à développer certains exemples pratiques. Nous laisserons également la parole aux secteurs public et privé afin de comprendre de quelle manière on collabore dans le filtrage des données.

Following the adoption, on 2 March 2016, of the UN Security Council resolution 2270 (2016), further condemning the DPRK’s launch of 7 February 2016, which used ballistic missile technology and continues to be a threat to international peace and security, the EU strengthened its sanctions regime against DPRK.

 

On 1 April 2016, Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/476 of 31 March 2016 amending Decision 2013/183/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic People’s republic of Korea has been published on the Official Journal of the European Union (OJ L 85/38 of 1/4/2016).

New restrictions concern, in particular:

 

-       “Any other items” that could directly contribute to the development of the DPRK’s operational capabilities of its armed forces (point “f” inserted in Article 1.1) except if for humanitarian or livelihood purposes, to be determined, on a case-by-case basis by the Sanctions Committee (Article 1a inserted);

-       Gold, titanium ore, vanadium ore, and rare earth minerals (Article 2a inserted) as well as coal, iron, and iron ore (Article 4a inserted), with some exception for coal, following Member States’ notification to the Sanctions Committee;

-       The sale or supply of aviation fuel, including aviation gasoline, naptha-type jet fuel, kerosene-type jet fuel, and kerosene-type rocket fuel, with some exceptions to be verified by the sanctions Committee, notably in case of humanitarian needs (Article 4b inserted);

-       Financial restrictions (with exceptions for UN and its specialised agencies‘ operations, missions and activities – Article 15a inserted) for, with and towards DPRK banks, including the Central Bank of DPRK (Article 8 modified);

-       Inspection of all cargo to and from the DPRK if Member States have reasonable ground to believe that the cargo contains items whose supply, sale, transfer or export is prohibited under Decision 2016/476/CFSP (paragraph inserted in Article 10);

-       Prohibition of entrance into the ports of any vessel, if Member States have reasonable ground to believe that the vessel is owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by a person or entity listed in Annex I, or contains cargo whose supply, sale, transfer or export is prohibited under UNSC resolutions (Article 11a inserted);

-       Prohibition to lease or charter flagged vessels or aircraft or provide crew services to the DPRK to any persons or entities listed in Annex I (Article 12a inserted);

-       Obligation for member States to de-register any vessel owned, operated or crewed by the DPRK (Article 12b inserted) and prohibition to register vessels in the DPRK, obtain authorisation for a vessel to use the DPRK flag, or to own, lease, operate, or provide any vessel classification, certification or associated service, or insure any vessel flagged by the DPRK (Article 12c inserted);

-       Duty for Member States to expel DPRK diplomats, government representatives or other DPRK nationals acting in a governmental capacity, except in case of transit to the UN Headquarters or other UN facilities, or in case f fulfilment of a judicial process or for medical, safety or other humanitarian purposes, to be determined by the sanctions Committee, on a case-by-case basis (Article 14a);

-       Duty for Member States to expel nationals of third countries if working on behalf of, or at the direction of any person or entity listed in Annex I (Article 14b inserted);

-       Duty for member States to close representative offices of entities listed in Annex I (Article 15b inserted);

-       Prevention of specialised teaching or training for DPRK nationals also for advanced physics, advanced computer simulation and related computer sciences, geospatial navigation, nuclear engineering, aerospace engineering, aeronautical engineering and related disciplines (Article 16 modified).

 

 

 

---

Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/475 of 31 March 2016 (OJ L 85/34 of 1/4/2016) and Council Regulation (EU) 2016/465 of 31 March 2016 (OJ l85/1 of 1/4/2016) establish some exceptions to financial restrictions regarding Korea National Insurance Corporation (KNIC). In particular, the competent authorities of the Member States may authorise making certain funds or economic resources available to the Korea National Insurance Corporation (KNIC), according to some conditions laid down in the Council decision and Regulation.

 

On December 2015, the World Customs Organisation (WCO) issued a resolution (the Punta Cana resolution) in response to terrorist attacks in Tunisia, Turkey, Lebanon, France, Mali and other countries, as well as on a Russian airliner over Egypt.

This Resolution is considered as essential for custom community as UNSCR 1540 was for trade control.

 

In its resolution, the WCO recognises the central role of customs in tacking cross-border provision of material support to terrorism and terrorist financing.

For this reason, the WCO commits to supporting Customs in enhancing border security capabilities and invites them to use the full range of detection and investigative techniques (including risk profiling, API[1]/PNR[2] analysis, intelligence sharing, controlled deliveries, etc.).

 

The resolution also advocates a deeper engagement with partner intergovernmental organisations and encourages governments to provide financial, human and service support to Customs authorities, which are also encouraged to seek powers where they do not have sufficient powers to make their contribution in the fight against terrorism.

 

Actions to implement the resolution will be normally decided at the next WCO Council.

---

[1] Advance Passenger Information (API) refers to a passenger’s identity such as full name, date of birth and nationality. API is typically obtained from travel documents such as passports (“interactive API”).

[2] Passenger Name Records (PNR) are collected by airlines solely for their business purposes. PNRs contain information about bookings made which can include as little as a name, an itinerary and a ticket indicator. Accuracy is not guaranteed and PNRs can contain sensitive personal data.

An Executive Summary of the Opinion of the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) on the dissemination and use of intrusive surveillance technologies was published on the European Official Journal on 1 March 2016 (C 79/9).

In this Opinion, the EDPS calls the Council of the EU, the European Parliament, the European Commission to address the threat of intrusive surveillance technologies by a series of actions among which export control measures in the context of dual-use technologies.

 

Fore more information, please see: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.C_.2016.079.01.0009.01.ENG&toc=OJ:C:2016:079:TOC.

 

 

 

On 29 February 2016, Officers of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) Serious and Organized Crime Unit have arrested two individuals in connection with the illegal export of controlled goods and technologies to China.

It concerns controlled goods and technologies intended for space satellite use being shipped from Canada to China in violation of the Canadian Controlled Goods Program and related Export Laws. 

 

The arrested individuals and their companies are charged of the following export control-related crimes (besides other criminal crimes such as fraud, theft and conspiracy):

-      Possession and Transfer of Controlled Goods contrary to the Defense Production Act;

-      Export of Controlled Goods without Permit under the Export and Import Permits Act;

-      Attempt to Export of Controlled Goods under the Export and Import Permits Act;

-      Failing to report goods in value exceeding $2,000 contrary to the Customs Act;

-      Failing to report restricted goods contrary to the Customs Act.

 

The two individuals arrested (Arthur PANG and Binqiao LI) have been appearing for a bail hearing on 29 February 2016 at the Waterloo Region Courthouse. While arrest warrants have been issued for Nick TASKER and Hugh CIAO. 

 The investigation is ongoing and additional charges are anticipated.

 

More information available on: http://www.newswire.ca/fr/news-releases/rcmp-charge-four-in-connection-with-the-illegal-export-of-goods-and-technologies-to-china-570517321.html.

 

 

Le projet de loi modifiant la loi organique du 30 novembre 1998 des services de renseignement et de sécurité, concernant le contrôle des activités des services de renseignement étrangers en Belgique a été adaptée par la Chambre

Ce texte adopté le 21 janvier 2016 et soumis à la sanction royale attribue de nouvelles prérogatives pour nos services de renseignement vis-à-vis de l'action des services étrangers sur notre territoire.

Outre l'insertion de cette référence au sein de leur mission, cette loi leur confère également la possibilité d'engager certaines méthodes pour assurer sa réalisation.

Toutefois, la Sûreté de l’État et le Service général du Renseignement et de la Sécurité devront encore conclure un accord de coopération sur la base de directives obtenues du Conseil national de sécurité...

Commission implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2403 of 15 December 2015 establishing common guidelines on deactivation standards and techniques for ensuring that deactivated firearms are rendered irreversibly inoperable was published on the Official Journal of the European Union (L 333/62 of 19 December 2015).

Commission implementing Regulation 2015/2403 establishes common guidelines on deactivation standards and techniques for deactivation of firearms belonging to categories A (prohibited firearms), B (firearms subject to authorization), C (firearms subject to declaration) or D as defined in Annex I to Directive 91/477/EEC of 18 June 1991 on control of the acquisition and possession of weapons (Official Journal of the European Union L 256/51 of 13 September 1991).

The Firearms Directive 91/477/EEC of 18 June 1991 regulates the acquisition, possession, and the commercial exchange within the EU of civil firearms (e.g. firearms used for sport shooting and hunting). It sets common minimum standards, which Member States have to transpose in their national weapon laws, and aims at balancing internal market objectives (i.e. cross border movement of firearms) and security policy objectives (i.e. high level of security and protection against criminal acts and illicit trafficking) within the EU.

Directive 91/477/EEC originally constituted an accompanying measure for the completion of the internal market. The abolition of controls on the possession of weapons at intra-Community frontiers made it necessary to adopt effective rules enabling controls to be carried out within the Member States. To this end the Directive contains rules on the acquisition and possession of firearms and on the transfers of the firearms between Member States.[1]

The main elements introduced by Commission implementing Regulation 2015/2403 are:

-      The establishment of national competent authorities as verifying entities;

-      The establishment of common standards and procedures to deactivate firearms;

-      The establishment of common unique marking attesting the deactivation of firearms;

-      The issuing of a deactivation certificate by the verifying entity;

-      The imposition of a record-keeping of the certificates issued for deactivated firearms for a period of at least 20 years;

-      Common conditions regulating the transfers of firearms within the Union.

Common standards and procedures to deactivate firearms are set out in Annex I to Commission implementing Regulation 2015/2403, containing technical specifications on how to deactivate firearms.

Article 5 sets out conditions for marking of deactivated firearms:

-       Deactivated firearms shall be marked with a common unique marking affixed by the verifying entity (in accordance with the template set out in Annex II to Commission implementing Regulation 2015/2403).

The verifying entity shall issue a deactivation certificate to the owner of the firearm, as set out in Article 3 (in accordance to the template set out in Annex III to Commission implementing Regulation 2015/2403).

Member States shall ensure that a record is kept of the certificates issued for deactivated firearms for a period of at least 20 years. The record must include an indication of the date of deactivation and the certificate number.

Article 7 sets out conditions regulating the transfer of deactivated firearms within the Union. According to Article 7, deactivated firearms may only be transferred to another Member State if they bear the common unique marking and are accompanied by a deactivation certificate.

Member States remaining free to establish further deactivation measures, as stated by Article 6, in case of transfer to a Member State having addition measures in place, the exporting Member State shall comply with these additional measures.

Commission implementing Regulation 2015/2403, which establishes also a notification mechanism to the Commission on any measure adopted by Member States (Article 8), will apply from 8 April 2016.

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2420 of 12 October 2015 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 428/2009 setting up a Community regime for the control of exports, transfer, brokering and transit of dual use items (Official Journal of the European Union L 134/1 of 29/05/2009) has been published on the Official Journal of the European Union, on 24 December 2015 (L 340/1 of 24/12/2015).

Delegated Regulation 2015/2420 updates Annex I, Annexes IIa to IIg and Annex IV to Regulation 428/2009.

The Delegated Regulation integrates the 2014 updates established in international export control regimes to which the European Union and/or its Member States are party.[1]

Annex I to Delegated Regulation 2015/2420, establishing the common list of dual-use items subject to controls in the Union, contains about 100 amendments related to the control of machines tools, avionics technology, some aircraft systems, spacecraft equipment and unmanned aerial vehicles.

Some listed items related to information security, contained in the previous version of Annex I, have been deleted from the new version of Annex I.

Annexes IIa to IIf add new Union General Export Authorisations (EU GEA).[2]

Finally, Annex IV adds new authorisation requirements for some intra-Community transfers.

Lire article lié.

Le 28 mai dernier, le Gouvernement wallon approuvait le Plan Marshall 4.0. Cette nouvelle édition du programme de redéploiement économique de la Wallonie vise à inscrire la Région dans la révolution numérique et a pour ambition de « structurer une véritable politique industrielle fondée sur l’innovation et intégrant les principes de « bonne gouvernance ». Le Plan comprend cinq axes stratégiques, dont un  - Axe 5 : soutenir l’Innovation numérique -  qui fait explicitement référence à l’intelligence stratégique et à l’intelligence territoriale. Deux démarches similaires, qui ne diffèrent que par leur champ d’application, l’une s’étendant à l’entreprise, l’autre au  territoire....

Le 28 mai dernier, le Gouvernement wallon approuvait le Plan Marshall 4.0. Cette nouvelle édition du programme de redéploiement économique de la Wallonie vise à inscrire la Région dans la révolution numérique et a pour ambition de « structurer une véritable politique industrielle fondée sur l’innovation et intégrant les principes de « bonne gouvernance ». Le Plan comprend cinq axes stratégiques, dont un  - Axe 5 : soutenir l’Innovation numérique -  qui fait explicitement référence à l’intelligence stratégique et à l’intelligence territoriale. Deux démarches similaires, qui ne diffèrent que par leur champ d’application, l’une s’étendant à l’entreprise, l’autre au  territoire.

C’est fort d’une expérience de près de 10 années avec la mise en place d’un dispositif wallon en Intelligence Stratégique, que le Gouvernement wallon intègre l’Intelligence stratégique dans son nouveau programme. Aujourd’hui comment la Région peut-elle tirer parti de son expérience en la matière pour faciliter la prise de décision stratégique et l’innovation tant au niveau des PME, que des pôles de compétitivités et de la Wallonie ?

Pour répondre à cette question, 9 experts belges et internationaux de l’Intelligence stratégique et territoriale, des représentants de la Région wallonne et des témoins du monde de l’entreprise se sont réunis aux Amphis de l’Europe, à l’ULg, le 30 septembre dernier,

Les 3 piliers de l’Intelligence stratégique, la Veille, la Protection et l’Influence, ont été abordés. Le pilier veille était animé par Chirstian Harbulot, directeur de l'École de guerre économique à Paris,  l’influence par Romain Zerbib, co-auteur de l’ouvrage « Influentia » édités chez Lavauzelle et la protection par Philippe Clerc, Conseiller expert intelligence économique internationale, CCI France. Chacun de ces piliers était introduit par l’expert, puis illustré de façon pratique par un acteur de terrain avant qu’un représentant de l’administration wallonne ne propose une analyse croisée du Plan Marshall 4.0  et de l’intelligence stratégique.

Le colloque a favorisé la rencontre des trois acteurs majeurs de l’intelligence stratégique : l’Administration wallonne, le monde de l’entreprise et les universités. L’ambition des organisateurs a été d’inciter la fédération les énergies en Wallonie pour soutenir le déploiement du Plan Marshall 4.0 en capitalisant sur les actions déjà mises en œuvre par les différents organismes.

A l’origine de cette initiative, le Département de Sciences Politiques de l’ULg et ULg-HEC, en collaboration avec l’Agence pour l’Entreprise et l’Innovation (AEI) , AKASIAS, Eurometropolitan e-campus (ee-campus).

Pour toute information complémentaire : patrick.leroy@ulg.ac.be

 

Colloque organisé le 10 novembre 2015, à Bruxelles, Surté de l'Etat

"L'Intelligence Stratégique au service du Plan Marshall 4.0",  tel est le thème du Colloque organisé le mercredi 30 septembre 2015, de 9h00 à 17h00, à l'ULg, Amphithéâtres de l'Europe au Sart Tilman.    

Le Département de Science Politique de la Faculté de Droit de l'ULg (unité études européennes - ESU),HEC-ULg, en collaboration avec l'Agence pour l'Entreprise et l'Innovation (AEI), Akasias, et Eurometropolitan e-campus (ee-campus) sont à l'origine de cette initiative.

Fort d'une expérience de 10 années en la matière, le Gouvernement wallon vient d'intégrer l'Intelligence Stratégique au programme du Plan Marshall 4.0. Mais comment la Région peut-elle tirer parti de son expérience en la matière pour faciliter la prise de décision stratégique et l’innovation tant au niveau des PME que des pôles de compétitivité et de la Wallonie ?  

Pour répondre à cette question, 9 experts belges et internationaux de l’Intelligence stratégique et territoriale, des représentants de la Région wallonne et des témoins du monde de l’entreprise se succéderont. Ainsi, le pilier veille sera animé par Chirstian Harbulot, directeur de l'École de guerre économique à Paris, l’influence par Romain Zerbib, auteur de l’ouvrage Influentia et la protection par Philippe Clerc, Conseiller expert intelligence économique internationale, CCI France. Chacun de ces piliers sera introduit par l’expert, puis illustré de façon pratique parun acteur de terrain pour ensuite apporter une lecture croisée sur la façon de soutenir le Plan Marshall et ainsi contribuer au redéploiement de la Wallonie.

L’objectif de ce colloque est également de fédérer les énergies en Wallonie en capitalisant sur les actions déjà mises en œuvre par différents organismes.

L'inscription est gratuite. 

Pour toute information complémentaire et pour vous inscrire : https://intelligence-strategique-outil-plan-marshall-4.eventbrite.fr

 

OPINION of the Committee on Foreign Affairs for the Committee on International Trade on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1236/2005 concerning trade in certain goods which could be used for capital punishment, torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (COM(2014)0001 – C7-0014/2014 – 2014/0005(COD))

The Opinion of the Committee on Foreign Affairs seeks to strengthen the provisions on the ancillary services linked to the transfer of goods, as well as on transit, technical assistance and commercial marketing. It also aims to introduce a targeted end-use clause in order for Member States to prohibit or suspend the transfer of security-related items not listed in Annex II and III that clearly have no other practical use other than the purpose of capital punishment, torture or other ill-treatment, or there are reasonable grounds to believe that the transfer of those items would lead to the facilitation or the commission of judicial execution, torture or other ill-treatment.

It also proposes the establishment of an Equipment Coordination Group and the introduction of a periodical review mechanism and more systematic information-sharing and reporting in order to strengthen the oversight and efficient implementation of the Regulation.

A l'occasion de la sortie de son ouvrage "Politique agricole commune : analyse transversale de la conditionnalité environnementale", Maxime Habran revient sur la crise que connaît le secteur agricole et sur les manières dont l'Europe pourrait la résoudre.

Following the substantial amendments to Council Regulation (EC) No 625/2009 of 7 July 2009 on common rules for imports from certain third countries and the need for further amendments, Regulation (EC) No 625/2009 has been recast, leading to the publication of Regulation (EU) 2015/755.

 

Six chapters, organise the main principles and procedures ruling the import of products originating from third countries, excluding textile products.

1. General principles  (Chapter I)

Establishes the scope of the Regulation by listing countries (Annex I: Azerbaijan Belarus Kazakhstan North Korea Turkmenistan Uzbekistan).

It applies to all imports of products excepted textiles that are covered by Regulation (EC) No 517/94.

Imports into the Union shall take place freely and accordingly shall not be subject to any quantitative restrictions, without prejudice to the safeguard measures.

2. Union information and consultation procedure (Chapter II) calls on Member States to inform the Commission if they consider that trends in imports appear to call for surveillance or safeguard measures.

3. Union investigation procedure (Chapter III article 3 to 6) defines in particular:

-      Conditions for the Commission to initiate an investigation procedure;

-      Commission report to be submitted to the Committee on Safeguards (established by art. 22);

-      Confidentiality of the information collected for the procedure;

-      Elements to take into consideration when examining the trend in imports (volume of imports, price, impact on EU producers,

        etc.).

4. Surveillance (Chapter IV) establishes:

-       Category of surveillance introduced by the Commission (retrospective or prior surveillance);

-       Time of validity of the surveillance measures ;

-       Condition for issuing a surveillance document (on the basis of the form model in Annex II), content of the document and

         validity throughout the Union;

-       Possibility for the Commission to limit the period of validity of the surveillance document or to subject the issuing to certain

        conditions ;

-       Geographical extension of surveillance (the all EU customs territory or only some regions).

5. Safeguard measures (Chapter V) lays down procedures for the Commission to introduce safeguard measures to alter the import of a product causing or threatening to cause serious prejudice to Union producers of like or directly competing products.

The Regulation also gives the Commission the power to amend or revoke applied surveillance or safeguard measures.

6. Final provisions (Chapter VI) includes provisions on:

-       Non preclusion of the fulfilment of obligations arising from special rules contained in agreements with third countries;

-       Non preclusion for Member States to adopt further actions (such as prohibitions, quantitative restrictions or surveillance

        measures on grounds of public morality, public security, etc., special formalities concerning foreign exchange or following

        international agreements);

-       Need for the Commission to include information on the implementation of this Regulation in its annual report on the

         application  and implementation of trade defence measures presented to the European Parliament and to the Council;

-       Exclusion of the operation of the instruments establishing the common organisation of agricultural markets;

-       Empowerment of the Commission to adopt delegated acts (according to the procedure established by art. 21)

         concerning amendments of Annex I;

-       Repeal of Regulation (EC) No 427/2003 and (EC) 625/2009.

The Review Conference convened on its last day at the hour announced for the purpose of adopting by consensus the Draft Final Document that had been distributed to the States Parties only. Adoption by consensus implied that there was no more room for discussion on any individual matter contained in that Document: the entire ‘Draft Final Document’ had to be agreed as such. 

To the surprise of a majority of Participants - and most if not all NGO observers- the Head of the  delegation of the United States declared that though her Government was committed to the ‘humanitarian pledge’ ,supported the Treaty , which remained a cornerstone of non-proliferation, peaceful uses and disarmament , her Government was not able to join the consensus on the Draft Final Document  in view of her Governments disagreement with the content of Paragraphs 164 –171  of the Draft Final Documents . “The Middle East, particularly implementation of the 1995 Resolution on the Middle East”. She referred in this context inter alia  to the “arbitrary (–i.e. early) - dates, and  unrealistic and unworkable conditions for the negotiations ”... as well as to the content of  paragraph 164 -  “[T]he 1995 Resolution remains valid until its goals and objectives are achieved ”, including tasking  the UN Secretary General with convening  no later than 1 March 2016 an international conference on a zone free of nuclear weapons (and of all other weapons of mass destruction) in the Middle East. “the mandate of 2010 had expired”.

 The United Kingdom and Canada - reiterating their support of the ‘three pillars’ of the Treaty stressing the importance of the Treaty- ,- joined the US in refusing consensus adoption of the Draft Final Document and expressing similar reservations as the US. 

The absence of consensus thus concluded the 2015 NPT Review Conference – as had been the case of the2005 Review Conference –invalidating thereby the “Draft Final Document” in its entirety. A large number of Delegations expressed disappointment and deep regret at this failure... an ‘avoidable stalemate’. A strictly formal conclusion was read by the President of the Conference, Ambassador Taous Feroukhi (Algeria). 

Nouvelle publication de Zoé Lejeune : La justice et les inégalités environnementales : concepts, méthodes et traduction politique aux États-Unis et en Europe in Revue française des affaires sociales 2015/1 (n° 1-2).

A peer-reviewed international journal dedicated to strategic trade control. Articles feature viewpoints, case studies and analysis on international law, technological developments, trade analysis, illicit procurement, good practices, enforcement and capacity-building in conventional and dual-use trade control.

Submit an Article: The Strategic Trade Review welcomes unsolicited manuscripts for future issues. For further information please go tohttp://local.droit.ulg.ac.be/jcms/service/49/revue.php

 

Texte résultant des délibérations de l’Assemblée nationale à l’issue de la séance du 16 avril 2015. 

 

Le vote sur l’ensemble du projet de loi aura lieu le mardi 5 mai 2015 

Pour plus d'informations sur le processus d'élaboration:

http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/14/dossiers/renseignement.asp

To catalyse the formation of an European Union in-reach training curriculum and complement the current initiatives implemented by the European Commission Joint Research Centre (JRC), the US Department of Energy, The World Customs Organization and individual Member States (MS) authorities, the JRC in collaboration with competent European Commission directorates (DG TAXUD and DG TRADE), organized the first pilot export control simulation exercise for customs and licensing officers (SimEX 2015).

Although dedicated to EU MS, this experience could also inspire similar exercises in other parts of the world, and the lessons learned should benefit the EU outreach program through the experience gained by participating EU experts.

The exercise was held on March 17-19, 2015 at JRC-Ispra and saw the participation of 6 licensing officers and 11 customs officers from 12 MS, working for two days on simulated scenarios and realistic conditions in two fictitious MS, each one having a customs and a licensing team. The exercise was prepared and managed by a Master Team playing the role of various export control actors, with the purpose of tackling technical, regulatory, procedural and communication topics among different authorities and EU MS.

Additional events are foreseen as follow-up of the successful SimEX 2015 exercise.

André Dumoulin, "Vers une armée européenne après la déclaration de Jean-Claude Juncker ?", Interview, Matin Première, RTBF-radio, 9 mars 2015

 

André Dumoulin, conférence sur "La symbolique du voile islamique", Hautes Etudes de sécurité et de défense (4ème cycle), Institut Royal Supérieur de Défense, Bruxelles, 3 avril 2015.

André Dumoulin, conférence sur "La symbolique du voile islamique", Hautes Etudes de sécurité et de défense (4ème cycle), Institut Royal Supérieur de Défense, Bruxelles, 3 avril 2015.

André Dumoulin, conférence sur "Prise de risque militaire et "zéro-mort", Hautes Etudes de sécurité et de défense (4ème cycle), Institut Royal Supérieur de Défense, Bruxelles, 20 juin 2015.

Dans le cadre du cours du prof. Dumoulin sur "Théories de la sécurité" (bac 3), Monsieur Guy Rapaille, Président du Comité de contrôle des services de renseignement belge (Comité R), viendra nous parler des questions de renseignements.

date : mardi 17 mars 2015

de 10h30 à 13h

local : Ricardo

Dans le cadre du cours du prof. Dumoulin sur "Théories de la sécurité" (bac 3), Monsieur Guy Rapaille, Président du Comité de contrôle des services de renseignement belge (Comité R), viendra nous parler des questions de renseignements.

date : mardi 17 mars 2015

de 10h30 à 13h

local : Ricardo

 

André Dumoulin, audition sur "La défense belge dans le futur", Commission Défense nationale, Chambre des Représentants, Bruxelles, 21 janvier 2015.

Commission Delegated Regulation (delegated act) updating the EU Control List of dual-us items, has been published in the Official Journal of the European Union (Official Journal L 371, 30.12.2014, p. 1–212).  It includes modifications  adopted  by export control regimes in 2011, 2012 and 2013. 

The  updated Control List is available on http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:JOL_2014_371_R_0001&from=EN/ or could be downloaded from this webpage (use download box  above on the  left side)

 

Intervenant :

Monsieur André DUMOULIN,

Docteur en Sciences politiques de l’Université de Lille II.

Licencié en Sciences politiques de l’Université de Liège (ULg).

Professeur à l’ULg, au département de science politique.

L’actualité du drone militaire nous amène à aborder les aspects stratégiques et doctrinaux mais aussi juridiques et éthiques autour des robots pilotés à distance. Les enseigne- ments pluridimensionnels tirés de l’analyse de cette arme en opérations en Afghanistan, au Yémen ou ailleurs entraînent une série de questions, souvent polémiques et contradic- toires, imposant à la fois l’identification des idéologies sous- jacentes, et la mise en évidence des éléments de désinforma- tion d’où qu’ils viennent.

Montage visuel

Pas de réservation - accueil dès 19h30 Renseignements : 0495 59 44 59

Des outils simples qui vous permettent de le maîtriser, de le protéger et de l’influencer !

Etes-vous acteur ou spectateur de la croissance de votre entreprise ? 

L’objectif des Assises est de proposer une série d’ateliers de formation vous permettant de mobiliser de nouveaux outils concrets de gestion de l’information.

La conférence du soir permettra de répondre à la question « l’Intelligence Stratégique, fiction ou réalité pour les PME wallonnes ? ».

Participer à cette journée, c’est découvrir de nouveaux outils, c’est se mettre à jour, c’est rencontrer les acteurs actifs sur cette thématique.

Données pratiques :

• Le jeudi 13 novembre à la Ferme de la Ramée (Jodoigne) pour des ateliers de formation de 13h30 à 17h30, et à sa conférence « L’IS fait son cinéma » à 18h.
• Entrée à 45€ HTVA pour la journée (gratuit pour les étudiants). Participation gratuite à la conférence et au gala du soir. 

December 2nd, 2014 - State Security, Brussels

Citizens, organizations and societies rely on cyber security in order to function. Today, we depend on computers to organize our professional work. Although we all benefit from technological progress, societies have never been so vulnerable as they are now.  Our economy, security, privacy… can easily be breached. This means we have to ensure a cyber security community whose strategies are constantly updated by new knowledge. Building appropriate cyber security capabilities requires information about cyber threats. It also requires knowledge on how to build accurate defense strategies. In order to detect threats and avoid false alerts, the process of cyber intelligence involves carefully assessing strategic and tactical considerations.

This conference will highlight the reasons why Belgium needs a cyber-intelligence capacity. We will also emphasize on experiences from national cyber security incidents and the major threats our country has to deal with. It is our pleasure to announce Sir David Omand, Professor at Kings College London, as our keynote speaker. Professor Omand is a specialist in the development of national security strategy and counter-terrorism, intelligence studies and the historical development of the UK intelligence community. He will discuss the role of intelligence in the digital age.

BISC conference:

"Building Belgium's cyber intelligence knowledge capacity" 

December 2nd, 2014 - State Security, Brussels

Citizens, organizations and societies rely on cyber security in order to function. Today, we depend on computers to organize our professional work. Although we all benefit from technological progress, societies have never been so vulnerable as they are now.  Our economy, security, privacy… can easily be breached. This means we have to ensure a cyber security community whose strategies are constantly updated by new knowledge. Building appropriate cyber security capabilities requires information about cyber threats. It also requires knowledge on how to build accurate defense strategies. In order to detect threats and avoid false alerts, the process of cyber intelligence involves carefully assessing strategic and tactical considerations.

This conference will highlight the reasons why Belgium needs a cyber-intelligence capacity. We will also emphasize on experiences from national cyber security incidents and the major threats our country has to deal with. It is our pleasure to announce Sir David Omand, Professor at Kings College London, as our keynote speaker. Professor Omand is a specialist in the development of national security strategy and counter-terrorism, intelligence studies and the historical development of the UK intelligence community. He will discuss the role of intelligence in the digital age.

Program

Flyer in pdf.

Presidents: R. Libert, Director of Analysis (State Security) and Patrick Leroy, Plans & Policy, Division Security Intelligence (Military Intelligence & Security Service)

09h00:    Registration of the participants - welcome coffee

09h30:    Welcome by Mr. Guy Rapaille, president of the BISC (F)

09h40:    KEY NOTE SPEAKER: Professor Sir David OMAND, GCB, King's College London (UK) - Intelligence in the digital age (E)

10h30:    Coffee break

11h00:    Why do we need a cyber-intelligence capacity? (E) - Mr Miguel Debruycker, Military Intelligence & Security Service

11h30:   Cyber awareness (N) - Prof. Dr. Ir Wim Mees, Royal Military Academy, Department of Communication, Information, Systems & Sensors (CISS)

12h10:    Lunch

13h30:  An academic initiative to enlarge the expertise and knowledge in cyber security for the civil community (F) - Mr Carl Lukalu, Director Eurometropolitan E-Campus

14h00:  Cyber intelligence exchange in business environment – a battle for trust and data. Experiences of a cyber threat information exchange research project and the need for public private collaboration - Mr Luc Beirens, Deloitte

14h30:   Coffee break

15h00:    Political intervention (N/F) (to be confirmed)

15h30:   Discussion with Mr Jaak Raes (State Security), Gen Eddy Testelmans (ADIV/SGRS), representative of  CCSB (Centre for Cyber Security Belgium), Mr Luc Beirens (Deloitte), Mr Carl Lukalu (E-Campus), Professor Sir David OMAND, GCB
Moderated by Prof. dr. Marc Cools (Professor Free University of Brussels and Ghent University and director of BISC)

16h30:   Closing remarks and invitation to the drink (N)

Keynote Speaker:

Professor Sir David Omand is a Cambridge University graduate in economics, has an honorary Doctorate from Birmingham University and has completed a degree in Mathematics and Theoretical Physics with the Open University.

He is a member of the editorial board of Intelligence and National Security. In the Department of War Studies, of King’s College London, he is co-responsible for delivering training to government intelligence analysts and lectures regularly to BA and MA level classes in intelligence studies.

Sir David Omand was the first UK Security and Intelligence Coordinator, responsible to the Prime Minister for the professional health of the intelligence community, national counter-terrorism strategy and “homeland security”. He served for seven years on the Joint Intelligence Committee. He was Permanent Secretary of the Home Office from 1997 to 2000, and before that Director of GCHQ (the UK Sigint Agency). Previously, in the Ministry of Defence as Deputy Under Secretary of State for Policy, he was particularly concerned with long term strategy, with the British military contribution in restoring peace in the former Yugoslavia and the recasting of British nuclear deterrence policy at the end of the Cold war. He was Principal Private Secretary to the Defence Secretary during the Falklands conflict, and served for three years in NATO Brussels as UK Defence Counsellor. He has been a visiting Professor in the department of War Studies since 2005.

Venue

Belgian State Security (VSSE)

North Gate I Building - Koning Albert II-laan 6 - 1000 Brussels

The easiest way to reach the North Gate I building is by metro (subway) or by train. The Rogier or Yser metro stops are nearest. Brussels North railway station is only at 10 minutes walk.

Security measures: You present yourself with your identity card at the information desk. Please tell the guard that you are attending the BISC conference. Your name will be checked on the participants list. You will then be guided to the conference welcome desk. Please note that the use of mobile devices (phone, tablet, photo camera) in the building is not allowed

BISC members

Marc Cools, University of Ghent and Free University of Brussels
Emmanuel Debruyne, Catholic University of Louvain-la-Neuve
Frank Franceus, Standing Commitee I
Patrick Leroy, General Intelligence and Security Service
André Lemaître, University of Liège
Robin Libert, State Security 
Veerle Pashley, Ghent University
Maj Thierry Piette, School for Intelligence and Security
Jaak Raes, State Security
Guy Rapaille, Standing Commitee I
Maj Alain Segers, School for Intelligence and Security
David Stans, University of Liège
Gen Eddy Testelmans, General Intelligence and Security Service
Johan Truyens, Military Intelligence & Security Service
Alain Winants, State Security 

Audience

Defence personnel  - members of the intelligence and security services – academic personnel and students (criminology, political sciences, historians) – Police personnel – Political representatives – Personnel of Administrations and Ministerial cabinets – Economic and industrial community - NATO and UE employees - Embassies - Press

Practicalities

The entrance fee includes lunch, coffee breaks, the drink and a publication (BISC Nr. 4)

• Members of the public sector: 65 euros
• Members of the private sector: 95 euros
• Fulltime university or college students : 25 euros (without publication. Publication can be obtained for 15 euros)

Registration: online on this page (see below).

Payment must be done after receipt of an invoice from CPS-BISC. Cancellations (sent by email) are possible until 3 days before the conference. 

Languages: The presentations will be given in English, Dutch and French. There will be no translation.

Contact BISC

Belgian Intelligence Studies Centre BISC - A division of the Belgian Centre for Policing and Security (CPS)
Contact person: Nathalie Roegiers, Pacificatielaan 27, B-9000 Gent
Tel: 0032 (0)9 223.24.11, email: info@intelligencestudies.be - www.intelligencestudies.be 

Commission Delegated Regulation (delegated act) updating the EU Control List of dual-us items, was adopted on Wednesday 22 October  and was transmitted to the Council and the European Parliament under reference C(2014) 7567. It includes modifications  adopted  by export control regimes in 2011, 2012 and 2013.

In the absence of objections from the Council and Parliament in the next 2 months, the Regulation will be published in the Official Journal of the European Union at the end of December.  The Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal.

Meanwhile, the Regulation and updated Control List are available on Commission DG Trade webpage at http://ec.europa.eu/trade/import-and-export-rules/export-from-eu/dual-use-controls/ or could be download from this webpage (use download box  above on the  left side)

The fifth edition of the Chaudfontaine Group was held from 28 to 30 September 2014 in Chaudfontaine. The object was to clarify "concepts and parameters of essential elements of a trade control system" with reference to the African context. During this event, essential elements of a trade control system were debated on the basis of first results of testing in African countries.

Odette Jankowitsch-Prevor, Quentin Michel, Sylvain Paile (eds.), Modelling Dual-Use Trade Control Systems, Brussels, P.I.E. Peter Lang, coll. Non-Proliferation and Security, Vol. 10, 2014, 261 p.

In December 2013, at its fourth conference, the Chaudfontaine Group met and debated with African experts the needs of the African countries in controlling the trade of the dual-use items and the challenges they face in their search for effective and efficient rules. The objective was to study whether international norms or experiences, issued by States or organisations, could be used as standardised models for these countries that are affected by unique security concerns.

 

On 12 September 2014, the Council adopted new sanctions against Russia, by adopting Regulation (EU) 960/2014 of 8 September 2014 amending Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia's actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ L271/3)

New elements

1) Article 2a is inserted adding the prohibition of  

-      sell, supply, transfer or export, directly or indirectly, dual-use goods and technology as included in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 428/2009, whether or not originating in the Union ;

-      technical assistance, brokering services or other services related to goods and technology set out in paragraph 1 and to the provision, manufacture, maintenance and use of these goods and technology, directly or indirectly ;

-      to provide financing or financial assistance related to goods and technology referred to in paragraph 1, including in particular grants, loans and export credit insurance, for any sale, supply, transfer or export of these goods and technology, or for the provision of related technical assistance, brokering services or other services, directly or indirectly

to any person, entity or body in Russia, as listed in Annex IV;

2) Exceptions to above mentioned provisions are forseen if the sale, supply, transfer or export of dual use goods and technology intended for :

-      the aeronautics and space industry, or the related provision of technical and financial assistance, for non military use and for a non military end user,

-      for maintenance and safety of existing civil nuclear capabilities within the EU, for non military use and for a non military end user.

 3) Article 3a insert a prohibition to provide, directly or indirectly, the following associated services necessary for deep water oil exploration and production, arctic oil exploration and production, or shale oil projects in Russia:

-      drilling, (ii) well testing, (iii) logging and completion services, (iv) supply of specialised floating vessels.

4) Exceptions to above mentioned restrictions are forseen if :

the services in question are necessary for the urgent prevention or mitigation of an event likely to have a serious and significant impact on human health and safety or the environment.’.

 5) A new deadline is established : provisions apply to activities starting from 12 September 2014 (all prohibitions listed shall be without prejudice to the execution of an obligation arising from a contract or an agreement concluded before 12 September 2014).

Les questions de sécurité et de défense qui étaient traditionnellement de la compétence exclusive des états sont devenues depuis une vingtaine d’années des sujets de coopération et de coordination transnationale, en particulier dans l ‘espace de l’Union européenne.

L’approche comparative entre plusieurs Etats membres est donc un moyen très efficace de déterminer à la fois les spécificités nationales qui demeurent dans ces domaines et les problématiques qui sont en voie d’harmonisation ou d’intégration dans une vision commune européenne des pratiques de sécurité et de défense.

Plusieurs thématiques de défense et de sécurité paraissent développées, à des stades différents, tant en Belgique qu’en France, ce qui justifie qu’elles soient étudiées en commun et que des croisements d’expérience s’opèrent entre chercheurs et praticiens belges et français.

Le but de ce séminaire est de présenter des recherches et de réaliser un débat ainsi qu’un échange d’expériences et de pratiques entre les représentants de la France et de la Belgique. 

Programme

 

9h30 – 10h00 Enregistrement des Participants – Accueil

 

10h00 – 10h10 Introduction par le Professeur Marc Cools – Département de Droit Pénal et de Criminologie (Université de Gand et ‘Vrije Universiteit Brussel’)

 

10h10 – 11h00 Ethique et Sociétés Militaires Privées

MSc. Veerle Pashley – Université de Gand

 

11h00 – 11h50 Plural Policing in Kosovo

Dr. Jelle Janssens – Université de Gand

 

11h50 – 12h30 Questions et Débat

 

12h30 – 13h30 Déjeuner

 

13h30 – 14h20 Contrôle et Services de Renseignements en Belgique

Dr. David Stans – Université de Liège

 

14h20 – 15h10 La Sécurité Privée en Belgique

Prof. Dr. Marc Cools – Université de Gand et ‘Vrije Universiteit Brussel’

 

15h10 – 16h00 Questions et débat

 

 

La Commission européenne a décidé de suspendre les aides dans le cadre des mesures de soutien aux maraîchers

Commission suspends emergency measures for perishable fruit and vegetables and will come forward with a more targeted scheme

The European Commission has today suspended the emergency market measures for perishable fruit and vegetable markets (worth 125 million €) announced on August 18 in the wake of the Russian measures banning imports of certain EU agricultural products. There has been strong interest from the sectors concerned, but the scheme has to be closed due to a disproportionate surge in claims – for example where the figures submitted for some products are several times higher than the total EU average annual exports to Russia.

In order to prolong the effectiveness of the emergency measures and still achieve the objective of stabilising the markets for these products in all Member States affected by the Russian embargo, the European Commission will come forward with a more targeted scheme in the near future, taking into account the experience of the past weeks.

European Commission Dacian Ciolo? stated: "The European Commission remains committed to support those producers who have suddenly lost an important market because of the Russian measures. I intend to present a new scheme in the coming days which is more targeted and efficient and which will continue on from this scheme."

Réponse partielle du Gouvernement wallon à l'embargo russe sur les produits alimentaires

Arrêté du Gouvernement wallon exécutant le Règlement délégué (UE) n° 932/2014 du 29 août 2014 fixant des mesures exceptionnelles de soutien temporaire en faveur des producteurs de certains fruits et légumes et modifiant le Règlement délégué (UE) n° 913/2014. 

 

 

4 SEPTEMBRE 2014. - Arrêté du Gouvernement wallon exécutant le Règlement délégué (UE) n° 932/2014 du 29 août 2014 fixant des mesures exceptionnelles de soutien temporaire en faveur des producteurs de certains fruits et légumes et modifiant le Règlement délégué (UE) n° 913/2014

Le Gouvernement wallon,
Vu le Règlement 1308/2013 du Parlement européen et du Conseil du 17 décembre 2013 portant organisation commune des marchés des produits agricoles et abrogeant les Règlements (CEE) n° 922/72, (CEE) n° 234/79, (CE) n° 1037/2001 et (CE) n° 1234/2007 du Conseil;
Vu le Règlement d'exécution (UE) n° 543/2011 de la Commission du 7 juin 2011 portant modalités d'application du Règlement (CE) n° 1234/2007 du Conseil en ce qui concerne les secteurs des fruits et légumes et des fruits et légumes transformés;
Vu le Règlement délégué (UE) n° 932/2014 du 29 août 2014 fixant des mesures exceptionnelles de soutien temporaire en faveur des producteurs de certains fruits et légumes et modifiant le Règlement délégué (UE) n° 913/2014;
Vu le Code wallon de l'Agriculture, les articles D.241 et D.242;
Vu l'avis de l'Inspection des Finances, donné le 1^er septembre 2014;
Vu l'avis de la Cellule autonome d'avis en Développement durable, donné le 3 septembre 2014;
Vu l'accord du Ministre du Budget, donné le 4 septembre 2014;
Vu les lois sur le Conseil d'Etat, coordonnées le 12 janvier 1973, l'article 3, § 1^er;
Vu l'urgence;
Considérant la circonstance que la récolte des poires a lieu actuellement et qu'il convient de fixer les modalités dans les plus brefs délais au risque de ne pas pouvoir accorder aux producteurs une aide que l'Union européenne leur octroie;
Sur la proposition du Ministre de l'Agriculture;
Après délibération,
Arrête :
Article 1^er. § 1^er. Les producteurs de poires bénéficient de l'aide prévue à l'article 6 du Règlement délégué (UE) n° 932/2014 fixant des mesures exceptionnelles de soutien temporaire en faveur des producteurs de certains fruits et légumes et modifiant le Règlement délégué (UE) n° 913/2014, dénommé ci-après le règlement n° 932/2014 s'ils respectent les conditions suivantes :
1° avoir son siège d'exploitation sur le territoire de la Région wallonne;
2° exploiter au moins 10 ares dédiés à la production de poires sur le territoire de la Région wallonne;
3° ne pas avoir procédé à leur récolte entre le 18 août et le 30 novembre 2014;
4° ne pas être membre d'une organisation de producteurs reconnue pour les poires par la Région flamande;
5° ne pas bénéficier d'une compensation financière en vertu d'un contrat d'assurance.
§ 2. Le montant de l'aide visée au paragraphe 1^er est de 3.220 euros par hectare pour les parcelles situées sur le territoire de la Région wallonne.
Art. 2. En application de l'article 6, § 3, du Règlement délégué n° 932 /2014, les producteurs de poires notifient leur non récolte à l'organisme payeur par le biais du formulaire mis à disposition à la Direction générale opérationnelle Agriculture, Ressources naturelles et Environnement, Département des Aides, Direction des Surfaces agricoles, chaussée de Louvain 14, 5000 Namur, ou sur le site internet du portail wallon de l'agriculture : http://agriculture.wallonie.be. Cette notification est reçue le 2 septembre 2014.
Un formulaire incomplet est irrecevable, excepté pour les producteurs non identifiés au Système intégré de gestion et de contrôle (SIGEC).
Art. 3. Conformément à l'article 11, § 3, du Règlement 932/2014, la demande de paiement des producteurs de poires est reçue par l'organisme payeur au plus tard le 12 décembre 2014 en joignant les documents justificatifs du montant de l'aide. Toute demande de paiement reçue après cette date est irrecevable. Toute demande incomplète ou envoyée sans les documents justificatifs est irrecevable.
Les producteurs de poires sont identifiés au SIGEC et ont déclaré leurs parcelles au plus tard le 9 septembre 2014.
L'organisme payeur est chargé de procéder au paiement de l'aide visée à l'article 1^er.
Art. 4. Le Département de la Police et des Contrôles de l'Administration est chargé des contrôles visés à l'article 7 du Règlement n° 932/2014 concernant les producteurs non membres d'une organisation de producteurs de poires pour toutes les parcelles de ces producteurs situées en Région wallonne.
Dans le cadre de cette mission, il peut se faire assister d'experts.
Art. 5. Le Ministre peut octroyer des aides aux producteurs des autres fruits et légumes mentionnés à l'article 1^er, § 2, du Règlement n° 932/2014 selon les mêmes modalités que celles définies dans le présent arrêté. Toutefois, il peut dans ce cas fixer un montant d'aide par hectare différent par production ainsi qu'une autre date limite pour la notification de non récolte prévue à l'article 2, § 1^er, et pour l'identification et la déclaration visées à l'article 3, alinéa 2.
Art. 6. Le présent arrêté produit ses effets le 18 août 2014.
Art. 7. Le Ministre de l'Agriculture est chargé de l'exécution du présent arrêté.
Namur, le 4 septembre 2014.
Le Ministre-Président,
P. MAGNETTE
Le Ministre de l'Agriculture, de la Nature, de la Ruralité, du Tourisme et des Infrastructures sportives,
R. COLLIN

Texte disponible ici : http://www.stradalex.com/moniteur/view.php?filename=2014%2F09%2F12%2F20142056561.html 

 

The basic intention of this work is to trace the path of Articles that today are no longer part of the European positive law and which have successively been repealed by subsequent versions of the Treaties 

This book complements the main omnibus on the evolution over time of the provisions of institutional Treaties founding the European Union. The basic intention of this work, and this for the sake of completeness, is to trace the path of Articles that today are no longer part of the European positive law and which have successively been repealed by subsequent versions of the Treaties. However, these provisions continue to generate strong interest on the part of students and researchers driven by the desire or curiosity to discover the content of the European institutional law at a given moment of its history.

On 31 July 2014, Council Regulation (EU) No. 833/2014 and Council Decision 2014/512/CFSP were published on the Official Journal of the European Union raising new sanctions against Russia concerning, also, dual-use goods and technology

 

---

 

Main elements:

Annex II provides a list of certain technologies used by oil industry that will be submitted to export authorisation;

 Authorisations for all sales, supplies, transfers or exports of the technologies included in Annex II shall not be granted if competent authorities have reasonable ground to determine that the sale, supply transfer or export of the technologies is for projects pertaining to deep water oil exploration and production, Artic oil exploration and production, or shale oil projects in Russia;

An authorisation is also required for export of technical assistance or brokering services and financing or financial assistance related to technologies listed in Annex II;

A prohibition to sell, supply, transfer or export, directly or indirectly, dual-use goods and technology (listed in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No. 428/2009) is adopted if those items are or may be intended for military use or for a military end-user;

A denial of authorisation is required by Regulation (EC) No. 428/2009, if the competent authorities have reasonable ground to believe that the end-user might be a military end-user or that the goods might have a military end-use;

A prohibition is also adopted to supply :

a)    technical assistance related to the goods and technology listed in the Common Military List;

b)   financing or financial assistance related to the goods and technology listed in the Common Military List;

c)    technical assistance or brokering services related to dual-use goods and technology if intended for military end-use or end-user;

d)   financing or financial assistance related to the dual-use goods and technology.

These provisions apply to activities starting from 1 August 2014 (all prohibitions listed shall be without prejudice to the execution of an obligation arising from a contract or an agreement concluded before 1 August 2014).

La réforme de la politique agricole commune (PAC) qui entre en vigueur en 2014 était supposée la faire évoluer vers un verdissement significatif. On est loin du compte, mais la thèse de doctorat de Maxime Habran du département de science politique de l’Université de Liège sur l’évolution de la protection de l’environnement au sein de la PAC montre des avancées encourageantes sur le long terme. 

Article complet ici 

 

 

Commission implementing Regulation (EU) 775/2014 of 16 July 2014 amended Annex II and Annex III of Regulation (EC) 1236/2005, by adding categories of items has been published in Official Journal of the EU (17/07/2014, L210/1).

 

 

 

 

More specifically

Annex II (list of items covered by a prohibition of export – Art.3 - and import – Art. 4) the categories of items have been extended as follows:

• Category 2 Goods designed for restraining human beings, has been renamed Goods which are not suitable for use by law enforcement authorities to restrain human beings to include more sub-categories (seven compared to one of the previous Regulation);

• Category 3  Portable devices which are not suitable for use by law enforcement authorities for the purpose of riot control or self-protection and category 4 Whips have been added.

 Annex III (List of items requiring an export authorisation – Art.5) has been extended as follows :

• The word weapons is added to category 2 and the word Portable as referred to  devices is eliminated. The new wording is Weapons and devices designed for the purpose of riot control or self-protection, it includes more sub-categories ;
• Category 3 is re-framed to be more comprehensive and to focus on chemical substances : Weapons and equipment disseminating incapacitating or irritating chemical substances for the purpose of riot control or self-protection and certain related substance;
• Category 4 Products which could be used for the execution of human beings by means of lethal injection and category 5 Components designed for goods designed for the execution of human beings have been added as new categories.

Regulation (EU) 599/2014 of the European Council and of the Council of 16 April amending Council Regulation (EC) No 428/2009 setting up a Community regime for the control of exports, transfer, brokering and transit of dual-use items has been published in the EU Official Journal of 12 June 2014 (L173/79)

The amendments concern essentially the power granted to the Commission to adopt delegated acts regarding the lists items and countries covered by the DU Regulation.

More specifically:

- a paragraph is added to article 15 allowing the Commission to update the list of dual-use items.  Previously the annual update was done by Council and the Parliament under the normal legislative procedure that takes around a year.

- a sub-paragraph is added to Article 9(1) that gives to the Commission the power to remove destinations from the scope of UGEAs if such destinations become subject to an arms embargo as referred to in article 4(2)

- article 23(a) and 23(b) are added to lay down the procedure for the Commission to adopt delegated acts and to allow the Council and European Parliament to object, oppose or even revoke the delegated power.

A joint statement (European Parliament, Council and Commission) related to the amending regulation has also been published recognises the importance to keep updated the dual use items control lists in order to keep up with new threats  and rapid technological changes (with an accent to the risk of export of certain information and communication technologies that can be used in connection with human rights violations, technologies used for mass-surveillance, monitoring, tracking, tracing and censoring, as well as for software vulnerabilities). A new legislative proposal is expected in the near future to control specific risks set by information and communication 

May 28,  Directive 2014/60/EU has been published in the EU Official Journal on May 28 (L159/1).

The Directive concerns the return of cultural objects defined or classified by a Member State as being among national treasures, which have been unlawfully removed from the territory of that Member State.

Directive 93/7/EEC is repealed with effect from 19 December 2015. The new directive has 

-      Extend the scope to any cultural object classified or defined by a Member State under national legislation or administrative procedures as a national treasure possessing artistic, historic or archaeological value within the meaning of Article 36 TFEU;

-      Increase cooperation between Member States through the use of the Internal Market Information System ("IMI") provided for by Regulation (EU) No 1024/2012;

-       Increase the time limit to initiate return proceedings for certain objects;

-       Increase the time-limit for checking whether the cultural object found in another Member State is a cultural object and for bringing return proceedings;

-       Stipulate that the possessor must provide proof that he exercised due care and attention in acquiring the object, for the purpose of compensation;

-       Set out non-exhaustive criteria to be taken into account to determine whether the possessor exercised due care and attention when acquiring the cultural object.

Le Comité R supervise tous les services de renseignements comme la sûreté de l'Etat et son homologue militaire, le SGRS (Service général du renseignement et de la sécurité). La Belgique a été l'une des premières à se doter d'un système de contrôle de cet ordre. Cet organe fête aujourd'hui ses 20 ans : l'occasion de recevoir le Roi, mais aussi de dresser le bilan. Cet anniversaire est d'ailleurs assombri par la faille "Heart bleed" qui a affecté le système informatique externe du Comité R.

Source: Rtbf

André Dumoulin, "Le drone armé : questionnements doctrinaux, juridiques, éthiques et idéologiques", Maison de la laïcité de Verviers, 23 avril 2014

L’après-guerre froide, puis le nouvel environnement post-11 septembre, ont profondément bouleversé les balises stratégiques en général et la place du nucléaire militaire en particulier. L’avenir de la dissuasion nucléaire revient au-devant de la scène. Qu’il s’agisse de sa permanence prudente selon le principe de précaution face à la menace de la prolifération, la surprise stratégique ou la résurgence de tensions internationales à l’aune de la crise ukraino-russe. Qu’il s’agisse des nouvelles réflexions qui se sont engagées ces dernières années autour du dépassement de la dissuasion, pour des motifs à la fois doctrinaux, idéologiques, stratégiques, éthiques ou budgétaires.

Comment penser l’avenir du nucléaire, singulièrement en Europe, où s’affrontent les argumentaires partisans et critiques ? La dissuasion en Europe est-elle fragilisée ? Est-elle dépassable ? Ne peut-elle être contournée ? Quid de l’avenir des armes nucléaires américaines en Europe ? Quels choix britanniques ? Comment « lire » la politique nucléaire de la France à horizon prévisible ? Maintes questions peuvent être posées à propos de l’avenir de la dissuasion sur le Vieux continent, alors que les Etats nucléaires ont engagé des programmes de modernisation.

Les deux interventions devraient aider à poser les termes du débat et à ouvrir la voie à différents scénarios.

André Dumoulin, "La coopération structurée permanente : origine, enjeux et limites", séminaire "sécurité européenne et OTAN", Ecole des officiers de l'Armée de l'air française, base aérienne 701, Salon-de-Provence, 21 mai 2014

Un jeune sur deux quitte l’armée avant la fin de sa formation.

Certains ‘professionnels’ des services de renseignements et du monde académique ont récemment pris l’initiative de fonder le ‘Belgian Intelligence Studies Center’ ou ‘BISC’. En tant que centre d’études pour les études de renseignement, le centre ‘BISC’ souhaite réunir, sous l’aile du Centrum voor Politiestudies vzw ou ‘CPS vzw’, le monde académique et les services de renseignement et de sécurité. Le centre souhaite ainsi contribuer à la solution de questions sociétales en matière de renseignements. Cette collaboration se concrétisera dans l’organisation de journées d’études et de publications. Il est évident que ‘BISC’ devra également devenir une force motrice pour la stimulation des recherches scientifiques en la matière. 

Recent namen een aantal ‘professionals’ uit de Belgische inlichtingengemeenschap en academici het heft in handen met de oprichting van het ‘Belgian Intelligence Studies Center’ of ‘BISC’. Onder de vleugels van het Centrum voor Politiestudies vzw of ‘CPS vzw’ wenst het ‘BISC’ als studiecentrum voor inlichtingenstudies de inlichtingen- en veiligheidsdiensten en de wetenschappelijke gemeenschap dichter bij elkaar te brengen en een bijdrage te leveren aan het oplossen van maatschappelijke inlichtingen-vraagstukken. Deze samenwerking zal tot uiting komen in het organiseren van studiedagen en publicaties. Het is evident dat het ‘BISC’ ook een drijvende kracht dient te worden in het stimuleren van het wetenschappelijk onderzoek ter zake.

Ce colloque constitue la première partie d’une trilogie d’activités organisées par ou en collaboration avec la province de Flandre Occidentale. La deuxième partie aura lieu le 5 juin et exposera les vestiges matériels de cette ligne de défense. La troisième partie, le 6 juin, se concentrera sur l’influence artistique du mur de l’Atlantique. Un programme détaillé suivra bientôt.

Lors de cette journée certaines pièces originales jamais montrées seront exposées. A la fin de la journée, les participants seront invités à une visite guidée de l’Atlantikwall à Raversyde.

Il y a 70 ans, les forces alliées débarquées sur les plages de la Normandie furent confrontées à la structure défensive la plus grande et la plus coûteuse de l’époque contemporaine: le Mur de l’Atlantique. La soixantaine de bunkers, postes d’observation et batteries de canons ainsi que les 2 km de couloirs souterrains constituent l’une des parties les mieux conservées du «Mur de l’Atlantique», la tristement célèbre ligne de défense allemande. Celui-ci fut construit par les Allemands durant la deuxième guerre mondiale, de la frontière franco-espagnole à la Norvège.

L’histoire du débarquement en 1944 et du Mur de l’Atlantique fut racontée maintes fois. Toutefois, ce qui s’est passé avant le débarquement derrière et le long du Mur de l’Atlantique est moins connu. Une opération militaire réussie nécessite une très bonne préparation et des renseignements précis sur le théâtre des opérations et sur ce que l’ennemi peut jeter dans la bataille. Une fois les soldats sur la plage, il est trop tard pour collecter des renseignements. Cette observation inspira le titre de ce colloque: ‘D-day moins X : activités de renseignement derrière et le long du mur de l’Atlantique’.
Les informations peuvent être recueillies de différentes manières. Une première forme de collecte est l’IMINT ou Image Intelligence. La RAF a pris des millions d’images de haute résolution de l’Europe occupée, et aussi du Mur de l’Antique sur le littoral belge. La façon dont ce travail fut réalisé sera illustrée à l’aide d’images originales, commentées et examinées par un spécialiste contemporain. Toutefois, la photographie aérienne a des limites: les objets déplacés ou cachés ne sont pas détectés. Les activités des hommes sur le terrain, human intelligence (HUMINT) sont donc essentielles pour construire une image complète. Pour cette raison, ce colloque se concentre également sur l’histoire des réseaux d’intelligence clandestins belges: les ‘agents de Londres’ et en particulier à la côte. Sur base des recherches scientifiques et du témoignage du petit-fils d’un de ces agents, ces activités seront présentées de manière vivante et réelle.
Ensuite, les renseignements devaient être envoyés au service de planning militaire à Londres. Le petit-fils de l’Agent de Renseignement et d’Action (ARA) Roger Morsa nous racontera le travail exceptionnel et crucial de son grand-père sur la côte belge. Les agents de terrain ne pouvaient faire leur travail que s’ils étaient supportés à leur tour par la RAF, par exemple pour renvoyer les renseignements à Londres. Un historien renommé du Cabinet Office et auteur de nombreuses publications sur les services de renseignement alliés expliquera le rôle des Special Duties Squadrons.

Lors de cette journée certaines pièces originales jamais montrées seront exposées. A la fin de la journée, les participants seront invités à une visite guidée de l’Atlantikwall à Raversyde.

In January 2014, the Commission has finally proposed to the European Parliament and the Council a Regulation amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1236/2005 concerning trade in certain goods which could be used for capital punishment, torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

This proposal intends essentially to

- review the definition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment

- prohibit certain brokering transactions and services (including technical assistance)

- define criteria for granting export authorisation

- introduce a EU General Export Authorisation for certain medicinal products

 - delegate to the Commission the power to amend Annexes

"Union européenne : passé, présent et futur", formation donnée pour les enseignants du secondaire des écoles libres du réseau catholique, CECAFOC, Namur, 24 janvier 2014

André Dumoulin, Livre blanc français de la défense 20132 : lignes de forces autour de la sécurité-défense européenne, focus paper n°29, , IRSD, décembre 2013

Voir la rubrique publication

January 2014 A revised version of the Vademecum  related to the European Union Dual-Use Items Control Regime has been issued. It includes update information on Croatia, Finland and Estonia.

 

It includes formal amendments. A new version, containing more information on Member States' application of the European regime, will be soon produced.

The Fourth Edition of the Chaudfontaine Group was held from the 8 to 10 December 2013 in Chaudfontaine to debate on "Universal trade control regime versus regional export control model(s)".

Differently from the previous editions, the 2013 annual meeting expanded the invitation to representatives coming from five different African countries (Algeria, Kenya, Niger, Nigeria and Democratic Republic of Congo). The possibility of developing a national and sub-regional model for Africa of dual-use trade control has been analysed and debated by the participants. 

 

A publication summing up discussions and findings of the Group shall be published in June 2015.

 L’Europe de la défense a-t-elle été la grande oubliée des chefs d’Etat et des gouvernements ces dernières années ? Depuis 2008, aucune orientation du Conseil européen n’a été donnée à une politique pourtant fondamentale pour l’Union européenne.

Alors que les Chefs d’Etat et de gouvernement se réunissent chaque mois pour définir les solutions permettant de résoudre la crise budgétaire et économique et identifier des leviers de croissance, l’industrie de défense et de sécurité est un gisement de croissance et de compétitivité qui n’a pas encore été exploitée à plein.

Quelques jours avant le Conseil européen de décembre 2013 qui devrait aborder cette problématique, la Fondation Jaurès et l’Institut Emile Vandervelde sont heureux de vous convier à une conférence-débat mettant en perspective les enjeux du débat sur l’Europe de la Défense.

Le Comité d’Action Laïque de Fléron-Beyne asbl

a le plaisir de vous inviter à une soirée conférence

OÙ EN EST LE DÉSARMEMENT NUCLÉAIRE?

Le mercredi 23 octobre 2013 à 20h00

Rue Laurent Gilys 14 • 4621 Fléron - Retinne 

Quentin Michel, Sylvain Paile, Maryna Tsukanova and Andrea Viski published a comprehensive handbook of the trade of the dual-use goods and technologies, the instruments of its control and the challenges of considering the risks for international security together with the need of the globalised economy.

 

In November 2012, the Chaudfontaine Group exchanged views on the effectiveness of export controls, challenged by the flow of intangible goods and the practice of extraterritorial application of national laws. The outcomes of the discussions and debates on the subject are now published.

 

 

Avec la réforme de la politique agricole commune (PAC) initiée en 2010, la politique de protection de l’environnement se trouve au centre de tous les débats. Le projet de verdissement ou greening proposé par la Commission européenne aurait dû marquer durablement les deux piliers de la PAC que sont le soutien aux marchés et le développement rural. Le Conseil des ministres de l’agriculture s’est prononcé lors de la session des 18 et 19 mars 2013 sur les quatre propositions de règlements. L’accord dégagé ne reflète pas la vision environnementale souhaitée par la Commission. Certes, le verdissement existe toujours, mais vidé de sa substance. Les négociations ne sont évidemment pas terminées. La prochaine étape sera un trilogue entre Commission européenne, Parlement européen et Conseil dans l’espoir d’aboutir à un texte final pour la fin du mois de juin et une entrée en vigueur partielle de la réforme en 2014 puis 2015.

aussi disponible sur www.agricultures.be 

Agronomie, Environnement & Sociétés est la revue de l’Association françaised’agronomie (Afa). Cette association a été créée en octobre 2008 sur le mode d’un carrefour interprofessionnel pour une agronomie en prise avec les enjeux sociétaux. La revue a pour but d’intensifier les échanges et débats qu’elle organise entre ses adhérents et en accroître la visibilité dans le grand public. Cette jeune association œuvre pour la constitution d’une communauté scientifique et technique autour de cette discipline, par-delà la diversité des métiers d’agronomes.

Le BISC vous invite à cette demi journée d'étude au sein de la Sûreté.

Cette conférence se déroulera le 13 Juin au Cercle de Wallonie.

Le Belgian intelligence studies center (BISC) vous invite au sein de la Sûreté de l'Etat le 19 mars prochain à participer à une demi-journée d'études intitulée : « CHRONIQUE DE MA GUERRE CACHEE, 1941 – 1944 » PAR FERNAND DEBREYNE.

Les Services de Renseignement et d’Action, dont les activités commencent pour les plus précoces à l’été 1940 mais se développent essentiellement à partir de 1941, ont servi durant l’occupation nazie de réseaux actifs sur le territoire belge pour le compte d’une Sûreté de l’Etat ressuscitée en novembre 1940 à Londres.

Fernand Debreyne, alias Rodolphe ou VN/RK/24, qui fut actif dès 1941 au sein du Service Luc, nous apporte un récit, aussi dense que riche sur son vécu et ses activités durant la guerre, nourri par des années de réflexions et la distance du temps écoulé. Il a été reconnu au grade de capitaine Agent de Renseignement et d’Action et décoré pour ses mérites et son engagement.

Monsieur Pr. em. Dr. Francis Balace introduira la séance