![Sample our Politics & International Relations journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5947/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Politics-International-Relations.jpg"})
Abstract
The impact of small arms and light weapons (SALW) trafficking on civilian populations has received increasing attention from nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), academic institutions, national governments, and international organizations. Within the last 10 years it has been internationally recognized that the proliferation of SALW to areas of civil conflict has led to what the Red Cross describes as “appalling levels of wanton violence.” Concurrent with the increased focus on the destructiveness of SALW is the realization that present national and international import/export regulatory systems are inadequate to meet the challenge of controlling the proliferation of these weapons. Needed in this area of study is more specific information and policy guidance regarding the best methods and practices for implementing effective SALW trafficking controls. In response to the international SALW trafficking problem, this article provides a comprehensive framework to assess the development and operation of international small arms control regimes. It uses the U.S. export control regime as a case study to document, assess, and benchmark how import/export control systems can be optimally employed to control the international SALW trade.
This research was supported by the Institute for Security and Public Policy at Northeastern University, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. The authors would like to thank Terry Austin of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, Peter Gagliardi of Forensic Technology Inc., and Péricles Gasparini of the UN Regional Centre for Peace, Disarmament, and Development in Latin America (Lima, Peru) for their helpful comments in the preparation of this paper; and Rebecca Dietz and Meagan Brown for editorial assistance. We also would like to provide our thanks to anonymous reviewers for their helpful suggestions and insights.
Notes
1. mall arms and light weapons are abbreviated as “SALW” or referred to simply as “small arms” in this article. SALW fall into two categories of weapons: “Small arms are designed for personal use; light weapons are designed for use by several people serving as a crew” (Control Arms, The G8 Global Arms Exporters: Failing to Prevent Irresponsible Arms Transfers, Control Arms Briefing Paper, Amnesty International, POL Nov. 30, 2006, June 2005, p. 37). According to UN-agreed definitions: “(a) small arms: include revolvers and self-loading pistols, rifles, and carbines, submachine guns, assault rifles, and light machine guns below 20 mm in caliber; (b) light weapons: include heavy machine guns over 20 mm in caliber, portable antiaircraft guns, portable antitank guns, and recoilless rifles, portable launchers of antitank missile and rocket systems, portable launchers of antiaircraft missile systems and mortars of less than 100 mm; (c) ammunition and explosive devices used for the above” (Report of the UN Panel of Government Experts on Small Arms, UN Secretary General to the General Assembly, Document A/52/298, Aug. 27, 1997).
2. International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent, Arms Availability and the Situation of Civilians in Armed Conflict, ref. 0734, 1999, <www.icrc.org/Web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/p0734>.
3. Graduate Institute of International Studies, Small Arms Survey 2001: Profiling the Problem, Chapter 6 (Geneva, Switzerland: Oxford University Press, 2001),
<www.smallarmssurvey.org/files/sas/publications/year_b_pdf/2001/2001SASExec_en.pdf>.
4. Jeffrey Boutwell and Michael T. Klare, “A Scourge of Small Arms,” Scientific American 282 (June 2000), p. 2.
5. Jeffrey Boutwell and Michael T. Klare, “A Scourge of Small Arms,” Scientific American 282 (June 2000), p. 2.
6. Graduate Institute of International Studies, Small Arms Survey 2001, Chapter 4.
7. General Accounting Office (the GAO is now called the Government Accountability Office), Conventional Arms Transfers: U.S. Efforts to Control the Availability of Small Arms and Light Weapons (Washington, DC: GAO, July 2000). See Figure 1: Dollar Value of U.S. Small Arms and Light Weapons Authorized or Delivered for Fiscal Years 1996–1998, p. 24.
8. Control Arms, The G8 Global Arms Exporters; Matthew Schroeder, “Small Arms, Terrorism, and the OAS Firearms Convention,” Occasional Paper No. 1, Federation of American Scientists, March 2004, <www.fas.org/asmp/library/OAS/FullReport.pdf.
9. Graduate Institute of International Studies, Small Arms Survey 2001, Introduction.
10. K. Pearlson and C. Saunders, Managing and Using Information System: A Strategic Approach (New York: John Wiley, 2006).
11. Arms Export Control Act of 1976 (AECA), U.S. Code, Title 22, Chapter 39, Subchapter III, 2778: Control of Arms Exports and Imports.
12. DOS, Directorate of Defense Trade Controls, International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), Code of Federal Regulations, Title 22, Parts 120–130, April 1, 2002, www.pmdtc.org/reference.htm#regs>.
13. DOS, Directorate of Defense Trade Controls, International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), Code of Federal Regulations, Title 22, Parts 120–130, April 1, 2002, www.pmdtc.org/reference.htm#regs>, 122.1(a), 123.1(a).
14. DOS, Directorate of Defense Trade Controls, International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), Code of Federal Regulations, Title 22, Parts 120–130, April 1, 2002, www.pmdtc.org/reference.htm#regs>, 123.9(a).
15. DOS, Directorate of Defense Trade Controls, International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), Code of Federal Regulations, Title 22, Parts 120–130, April 1, 2002, www.pmdtc.org/reference.htm#regs>, 127.1(a), 127.6.
16. Foreign Military Sales (FMS) are controlled by the Department of State's (DOS) Bureau of Political-Military Affairs and the Department of Defense's (DOD) Defense Security Cooperation Agency.
17. AECA, www.pmdtc.org/aeca.htm.
18. U.S. Customs inspectors merged with inspectors from the Immigration and Naturalization Service in March 2003 to form Customs and Border Protection. U.S. Customs special agents merged into a separate agency with immigration agents called Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). For clarity, the term “U.S. Customs” is used in this paper.
19. AECA, e.
20. Graduate Institute of International Studies, Small Arms Survey 2006: Unfinished Business (Geneva, Switzerland: Oxford University Press, 2006), Chapter 3, <www.smallarmssurvey.org/files/sas/publications/year_b_pdf/2006/2006SASCh3_summary_en.pdf>.
21. ITAR, 129.3(a).
22. GAO, Lessons to Be Learned from the Country Export Exemption (Washington, DC: GAO, March 2002).
23. GAO, Lessons to Be Learned from the Country Export Exemption (Washington, DC: GAO, March 2002).
24. DOS's Bureau of Political-Military Affairs and DOD's Office of the Undersecretary for Acquisitions, Technology, and Logistics, Fact Sheet, “Defense Trade Security Initiative: Background on Expedited License Review Process for Defense Capabilities Initiatives,” May 24, 2000; DOS, News Brief, “New Export Exemption for Closest Allies To Promote Defense Security,” May 26, 2000.
25. The Canadian Exemption was the “export or temporary import without a license of any unclassified defense article or any unclassified technical data to Canada for end use in Canada by Canadian citizens. …” See ITAR, 126.5.
26. GAO, Lessons to Be Learned, p. 11.
27. GAO, Lessons to Be Learned, p. 11.
28. Department of Justice, Export Control Enforcement Unit, Criminal Division, Significant Export Control Cases, 1997 and 1999.
29. A successful prosecution is defined as obtaining a conviction for a violation(s) of U.S. export control laws, typically involving the ACEA, Title 22 U.S. Code 2778.
30. A successful prosecution is defined as obtaining a conviction for a violation(s) of U.S. export control laws, typically involving the ACEA, Title 22 U.S. Code 2778.
31. GAO, Conventional Arms Transfers, p. 24.
32. Title 19 U.S. Code Sec. 1592, “Penalties for Fraud, Gross Negligence, and Negligence,” (e)(2) and (e)(4).
33. Title 19 U.S. Code Sec. 1592, “Penalties for Fraud, Gross Negligence, and Negligence,” (e); Title 28 U.S. Code Sec. 1582, “Civil Actions Commenced by the United States.”
34. The DOD may also transfer conventional weapons to foreign militaries and governments as Excess Defense Article (EDA) and/or drawdown programs. EDA consists of those articles no longer needed by the U.S. armed forces and sold under the FMS program or transferred as granted under the various provisions of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (Title 22 U.S. Code Sec. 2321 (j)). Drawdowns occur when an emergency occurs overseas. The president may draw down equipment and services up to $100 million for foreign governments (Title 22 U.S. Code Sec. 2318 (a)).
35. Lora Lumpe and Jeff Donarski, The Arms Trade Revealed: A Guide for Investigators and Activists (Washington, DC: Federation of American Scientists Fund, 1998), Chapter 1.
36. GAO, Conventional Arms Transfer, p. 24, Figure 1.
37. Lumpe and Donarski, Arms Trade Revealed, Chapter 1.
38. Lumpe and Donarski, Arms Trade Revealed, Chapter 1.
39. ITAR, 122.1 (a), (c), “Registration of Manufacturers and Exporters.”
40. ITAR, 122.1 (a), (c), “Registration of Manufacturers and Exporters.” 120.1 (c), 120.15.
41. DOS, Guidelines for Completing Applications for the Permanent Export, Temporary Export, and Temporary Import of Firearms and Ammunition: U.S. Munitions List Categories I and III (Washington, DC, April 16, 1999), <www.pmdtc.org/docs/oas.pdf>.
42. For modifications, see Federal Register, Vol. 64, No. 69, Rules and Regulations, Amendments to the ITAR, April 12, 1999.
43. The OAS Model Regulations “seek to harmonize procedures and documentation used by OAS member states to control the import, export, and in-transit movement of firearms” (Schroeder, Small Arms, p. 5). Complementing the Model Regulations is the Inter-American Convention Against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Explosives, Ammunition, and Other Related Materials (OAS Convention). The OAS Convention is the “only legally binding regional agreement aimed at preventing the illicit transfer of firearms, ammunition, and explosives,” according to Schroeder in Small Arms, Terrorism, and the OAS Firearms Convention. The convention was opened for signing in Nov. 1997; 32 of the 33 OAS member states have signed, and 22 have gone on to formally ratify the convention.
44. ITAR, 123.10 (a).
45. ITAR, 120.7 (b) (1), 22 CFR 121 Category I (a) and 22 CFR 121.1 Category III (a); DOS, Guidelines for Completing Applications.
46. ITAR, 123.22 (a); DOS, Guidelines for Completing Applications.
47. Census Bureau, Questions and Answers Relating to the Shipper's Export Declaration (SED), Aug. 2002, Schedule B Number, <www.census.gov/foreign-trade/regulations/forms/qna.html#lowvalue>.
48. “Collection and Publication,” Title 13 U.S. Code 301 (G), <www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/13/301.html>.
49. ITAR, 123.22.
50. ITAR, 123.22.
51. ITAR, 123.9(b).
52. ITAR, 129.2 (a) and (b), 120.15, 120.16, 120.17.
53. ITAR, 126.13 (b).
54. ITAR, 126.13 (b).
55. GAO, Lessons to be Learned.
56. GAO, p. 10.
57. GAO, p. 10.
58. See Title 26 U.S. Code 6103, “Confidentiality and Disclosure of Returns and Return Information.”
59. Lumpe and Donarski, Arms Trade Revealed.
60. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), Crime Gun Trace Reports (2000): National Report (Washington, DC: GPO, 2002).
61. Glenn Pierce and Roberta Griffith, “Comprehensive Planning of Criminal Justice Information and Intelligence Systems: ATF's Experience in Implementing Firearms Tracing in the United States,” in April Pattavina, ed., Information Technology and the Criminal (London: Sage Publications, 2005).
62. Security and Fair Enforcement in Arms Trafficking Act of 2004, 108th Cong. Formerly S. 1555, Security and Fair Enforcement in Arms Trafficking Act of 2001.
63. As noted, the OAS Model Regulations promote harmonized import and export controls over the legal international movements of firearms.
64. Schroeder, Small Arms.
65. See OAS, Model Regulations for the Control of the International Movement of Firearms, Their Parts and Components, and Ammunition, Section 2.2.2, box 15, <www.oas.org/juridico/english/cicad_inter_move.pdf>.
66. Raymond Bonner, “Loophole on Guns Feared in Europe,” New York Times, April 19, 1998, p. 1; Raymond Bonner, “U.S. Orders Suspension of Gun Sales into Canada,” New York Times, February 25, 2000, p. 8.
67. DOS, Blue Lantern Program, “End Use Monitoring of Defense Articles and Defense Services Commercial Exports FY 2001,” 2001.
68. Census Bureau, Questions and Answers, Schedule B Number.
69. CBP, Automated Export System (AES), An Introduction to AES, </www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/export/aes/about.xml>.
70. CBP, Automated Export System (AES), An Introduction to AES, </www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/export/aes/about.xml>.
71. CBP, Automated Export System (AES), An Introduction to AES, </www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/export/aes/about.xml>., p. 5
72. GAO, Lesson to Be Learned, p. 10.
73. This transformation has already begun, and many exporters already submit their SEDs and DDTC forms electronically. In 2004 the DDTC rolled out D-Trade, the electronic arms exporting system (see DOS, D-Trade Newsletter, June 2005).
74. Golden Sentry is DOD's monitoring program for DOD-exported military equipment under FMS 22 U.S. Code 2785, End-Use Monitoring of Defense Articles And Defense Services (Defense Security Cooperation Agency, “Security Cooperation Information Portal, Department of Defense,” Aug. 2005).
75. DOS, Blue Lantern Program, “End Use of Monitoring of Defense Articles and Defense Services Commercial Exports FY 2005,” 2005.
76. DOS, Blue Lantern Program, “FY 2001.”
77. DOS, Blue Lantern Program, “FY 2001.”
78. Jacqueline Holmes, “Tracing Illegal Small Arms: An ATF Program,” U.S. Foreign Policy Agenda, DOS online journal, June 2001, <http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itps/0601/ijpe/ijpe0601.htm>.
79. ATF, Crime Gun Trace Reports.
80. Pierce and Griffith, “Comprehensive Planning.”
81. DOS, Blue Lantern Program, “FY 2005.”
82. “In 1999, the United States ranked first in the value of all international arms deliveries, making $18.4 billion in such deliveries, or over 54 percent. This is the eighth year in a row that the United States has led in global arms deliveries. …” (Richard F. Grimmett, Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations, 1992–1999 (Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, 2000)).
83. Lora Lumpe, In Focus: Small Arms Trade, 3, no. 10, (May 1998), <www.igc.org/infocus/briefs/vol3/v3n10arms.html>.
84. Pierce and Griffith, “Comprehensive Planning.”
85. The ATF tracing program can identify SALW recovered in criminal/illegal circumstances by law enforcement, to the extent that these programs are operating in a given nation, but it is not designed to monitor or assess where or who is exporting SALW. This requires the proactive use of available data collected through the SALW export process, and this in turn requires that these data are: (1) available in electronic format, (2) contain the necessary information to make cross references (such as serial numbers and names), (3) routinely cross-referenced with appropriate law enforcement and security databases, and (4) use intelligence derived from this type of data to proactively identify individuals/organizations that should receive particular scrutiny regarding their SALW export plans, such as individuals known to law enforcement or on watch lists, or shipments to known transshipment points with a prior history of weapons being recovered by law enforcement in crime or civil conflicts.
86. B. Guy Peters, American Public Policy: Promise and Performance, 4th ed. (Chatham, NJ: Chatham House Publishers, 1996), p. 112.
87. See ATF, Federal Firearms Regulations Reference Guide 2000, p. 33, Editor's note: “With respect to Section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act of 1976 (22 U.S.C. 2778), only the importation provisions are administered by ATF. Export provisions are administered by the Department of State.”
88. ATF Form 6, Part 1 (5330.3A), “Application and Permit for Importation of Firearms, Ammunition, and Implements of War,” <http://www.atf.treas.gov/forms/pdfs/f53303a.pdf>.
89. Bonner, “U.S. Orders Suspension.”
90. Census Bureau, Foreign Trade Division, U.S. Exports by Commodity.
91. Bonner, “Loophole on Guns.”
92. Bonner, “Loophole on Guns.”
93. GAO, Conventional Arms Transfers, Table 3.
94. DOS, Blue Lantern Program, “FY 2001” and “FY 2005.”
95. Security and Fair Enforcement in Arms Trafficking Act of 2004, S. 2627, Section 10, Registry Of Small Arms And Light Weapons Serial Numbers.
96. Matthew Ware Coulter, The Senate Munitions Inquiry of the 1930s: Beyond the Merchants of Death (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, July 1997).
97. Ann Markusen et al., The Rise of the Gunbelt: The Military Remapping of Industrial America (New York:Oxford University Press, 1991).
98. DOS and DOD, ‘‘Defense Trade Security Initiative: Background on Expedited License Review Process’’;DOS, ‘‘New Export Exemption for Closest Allies.’’
99. UN Report of the Group of Governmental Experts, document number A/Conf.192/2, p. 16, Feb. 2001.
100. 22 CFR 127.10.
101. Glenn Pierce and Roberta Griffith, “Criminal Justice Information Systems,” in David Levinson, ed. Encyclopedia of Crime and Punishment (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2002); Pierce and Griffith, “Comprehensive Planning”; Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration, Office of Policy Development, Digital Economy 2000 (Washington DC, 2000).
102. CBP, “ACE: Modernization Information Systems,” <www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/toolbox/about/modernization/>.
103. UN Regional Centre for Peace, Disarmament, and Development in Latin America, Small Arms and Light Weapons (SALW): Transfer Controls Initiative (Lima, Peru, 2005).