Supplementary memorandum from Saferworld
Article 4.2 of the Dual-Use Regulation (1334/2000)
applies a "catch-all" provision to the supply of dual-use
goods to embargoed destinations.
"An authorisation shall also be required
for the export of dual-use items [intended for military end-use]
not listed in Annex 1 if the purchasing country or country of
destination is subject to an arms embargo . . . "
This would not have applied to the Land Rover
components exported to Turkey which were incorporated into the
vehicles subsequently used in the Andijan massacre, as at the
time Uzbekistan was not under embargo. However, were the same
chain of events to be repeated now, it is still not clear that
a licence would be required.
The possible confusion lies over the meaning
of "country of destination" in incorporation cases.
In the above example, the destination of the components was Turkey.
The transfer from Turkey was of Land Rovers, not of the components
per se. In which case, is Uzbekistan regarded as a
"country of destination" of the UK export? There is
a need for clarification of this point: if the intent of the UK
Government is to prevent embargoed destinations from receiving
material UK support for their security forces, then the answer
must be that the country of destination should include the ultimate
country of destination of either the components themselves, or
the sub-assemblies or final products into which they are incorporated.
A further question relates to circumstances
where a decision to re-export is made by the original recipient
after the initial delivery takes place. Using a hypothetical variant
on the case of the Land Rovers to Turkey, if the Turkish Government
were now to decide to export to now-embargoed Uzbekistan
more Land Rovers containing components long-since sourced from
the UK, would Turkey need permission for that export from the
UK Government? The UKWG on Arms recommends that in such cases,
explicit permission from the UK Government to re-export should