Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-09-08-Speech-3-244"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20100908.14.3-244"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, honourable Members, I welcome the opportunity that we have this afternoon to focus on the control of arms exports.
I am more than happy to respond to any other point raised during this afternoon’s debate.
As Baroness Ashton is unable to attend this session, she has asked the Presidency to stand in for her during this debate and I will therefore endeavour to answer some of the questions that we have received on this subject.
As you know, for some years now, the European Union has played a leading role in the control of arms exports, both regionally and internationally, and our aim is clear: we want to prevent the export of military technologies that could be used for undesirable ends such as internal repression or international aggression.
Over 10 years ago, the Council adopted an EU Code of Conduct on Arms Exports, which set out a series of criteria for exporting conventional arms. This code was replaced in 2008 by a common position that introduced a number of new elements, resulting in the European Union having the strongest system of arms export control in the world. The common position’s legally binding provisions are there to ensure that Member States carry out arms exports in a responsible and transparent fashion.
The purpose of the common position is to effectively coordinate national policies on the control of arms exports using, in particular, a denial notification and consultation mechanism. This mechanism means that, when a Member State is planning to grant an export licence which has been previously denied by another Member State for an essentially identical transaction, it must consult this Member State and notify all Member States of its final decision. In other words, the Member State granting a licence for a transaction that has been denied by another Member State must provide a detailed explanation of its decision to all Member States.
Therefore, in answer to questions about consultations, the situation is clear: the common position obviously only calls for systematic consultation when a licence for an identical transaction has previously been denied.
In general, Member State delegations within the competent structures of the Council regularly and often exchange information on the control of arms and, in particular, on so-called ‘sensitive’ destinations. Member States often solicit the opinions of other members of the Council on any destination that might give cause for concern or about which there might be any doubt. This regular exchange of information forms a central pillar of the European Union’s policy for the control of arms exports.
For your information, during the course of 2009, consultations between Member States looked at a total of 14 third-country destinations. Member States then communicated what led them to decide whether to grant or deny export licences to these destinations.
That, Mr President, is how we proceed in terms of information, control and interactivity between Member States, to give an idea of how we authorise arms exports."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples