Category Archives: Guidance

New Alpha Report: Examining intangible technology controls

itt(Source: ICFITT)

by Ian Stewart, with contributions from Dominic Williams and Nick Gillard

Project Alpha is today releasing a report on Intangible Technology Controls (ITT), examining the utility of ITT in managing the spread of proliferation-relevant technologies. Continue reading New Alpha Report: Examining intangible technology controls

Sanctions Compliance for the Maritime Transportation Sector

The transportation sector provides vital services for the furtherance of economic prosperity, and as a result, international peace and security. There is a real risk that the sector could be misused by proliferators in order to transfer sensitive commodities. In order to counter this risk and ensure that the business community is prevented from contributing to activities that could threaten international peace and security, the UN often relies on the imposition of so-called “targeted sanctions” (or “smart sanctions”) on designated individuals, entities or States, which the Security Council has reason to believe are involved in the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, human rights abuses or terrorist activities that may threaten international security.

Continue reading Sanctions Compliance for the Maritime Transportation Sector

European Parliament Report on the Review of Regulation 428/2009

Although EU Regulation 428/2009 setting up a Community regime for the control of exports, transfer, brokering and transit of dual-use items system is in line with the main export control regimes and is seen as a model for others to follow, there are a number of ways in which the regulation could be enhanced and refined. Part One outlines the current state of play, purpose and implementation of the current regulation. In Part Two, against the backdrop of the European Commission’s reform proposal, the effectiveness of the EU’s dual-use export controls regime is explored further with regard to its potential contribution to international, national and human security, as well as their impact on EU economic and trade interests. The study concludes that the system’s effectiveness could be improved in a number of ways, but that this requires an effort to mobilise political will at different levels and across different institutions within the EU and its Member States, and to enhance human resources, cooperation and capacity-building. The European Parliament should also give consideration on a regular basis to issues relating to the scope and implementation of the regulation, in order to ensure that the objectives continue to be achieved.

Download attachments: e-study_dual_use_workshop

Global trade sanctions and the freight forwarding industry: Implementing compliance good practices in the face of changing requirements

Global sanctions regimes

  • The direction of growth of global commerce is greatly influenced by international sanctions and control regimes. These change constantly in response to geopolitical or other developments.  International agreements for example may include provisions for targeted and phased lifting of sanctions over lengthy periods (this is likely to be the case for any long-term agreement between Iran and the P5+1). To maintain a competitive edge in such an environment, companies in freight forwarding and related industries need a smart and adaptive approach to compliance.

Continue reading Global trade sanctions and the freight forwarding industry: Implementing compliance good practices in the face of changing requirements

Non-proliferation and the Shipping Industry


Those charged with obtaining equipment and materials for illicit nuclear, biological and chemical weapons programmes have been known to make use of black market procurement and smuggling techniques on occasion.  However much of the illicit procurement of ‘dual use’ equipment and materials seen in recent years involves purchasing through conventional commercial transactions, albeit with the buyer or the ultimate customer providing misinformation regarding the true destination or end use.

Once a purchase has been agreed, the items are then usually transported internationally through conventional commercial logistics arrangements.  The international shipping/logisitcs industry comprises a diverse range of commercial entities of different types, with various (sometimes overlapping) functions.  Any of these commercial entities, whether forwarder, haulier, cargo handler, carrier, broker or other, can potentially be involved (unwittingly or not) in facilitating the delivery of required goods to an illicit chemical, biological, nuclear or radiological weapons programme.

There are various legal, regulatory and reputational liabilities faced by companies involved in shipping that relate to both national and international non-proliferation efforts (and to efforts aimed against terrorism, human rights abuse and so on).  Although the commercial entity generally deemed to have primary responsibility for ensuring that an export is legitimate is the seller, those others involved in the various stages of the shipping chain also have legal obligations.  Companies need to be alert to the possibilities that their services may be exploited by those engaged in procurement for illicit ends, in order to comply with both the letter and spirit of the law.  However, companies may be presented with opportunities to contribute materially to non-proliferation efforts above and beyond practicing compliance to avoid legal and regulatory penalties and reputational risk.

Guidance from national and international authorities on compliance and contribution to non proliferation is available and is broadly applicable to all involved, but appears to be  generally aimed at consignors and freight forwarders (or those performing similar functions).  Measures involve staying abreast of sanctions and embargoes in place, and of relevant designated entities lists produced by authorities whose jurisdiction is relevant (and notably many companies will wish to keep abreast of entities lists produced by the US government, even where they and those they do business with are outside of the US).

The requirement for entity screening and due diligence activities is clear, however the extent to which it is reasonable to pursue these, in the absence of a clear match to an entity or destination of concern, may call for difficult judgments at times.  The response from national authorities to reported possible matches appears to be variable.

Both the positive effects for non proliferation purposes of compliance activities by companies in the shipping industry, and of the financial and commercial burden on those companies of undertaking compliance activities, are difficult to determine at this time.

Moves to develop integrated seamless data pipelines for international commercial logistics, involving information technology and partnerships between commercial entities and national authorities, may present opportunities to make compliance activities by the shipping industry easier and more effective for non proliferation purpose.


Information Available to Commercial Actors and Guidance from Authorities

Movement of a consignment is often a complex process involving multiple actors with varying functional, contractual and legal relationships with each other.  These may include truckers, cargo handlers, trusted agents for security screening, customs clearance agents, international carriers (maritime, air, road and rail), and ship and aircraft brokers.  Individual companies may perform multiple functions. Financiers and insurers will also be involved and are discussed elsewhere on the Alpha website.  This complexity usually leads to hiring a freight forwarder to arrange and coordinate the actions of the different companies.  Alternatively a large “integrator” may be employed for a complete door-to-door service.

All entities involved in the web of arrangements around a consignment may have information that could indicate that goods may be heading for an illicit end use.

However information held may not give rise to suspicion until combined with that held by authorities.  Identity and/or contact details of the consignee or its agents may flag a risk if they are associated with illicit activity. Names of some of the individuals and organisations of interest are given in ‘designated entities lists’ that are openly published by certain national authorities, notably the US., and which often include entities connected with either terrorism, human rights abuses or proliferation. Equivalent classified lists are sometimes held by various national authorities but not made openly available.

In some cases sanctions may be in place preventing the export of any goods, or goods of a particular type, to any consignee or location in certain countries.

Guidance from national authorities is often that every entity involved in the shipping of a consignment is responsible for adhering to relevant laws and regulations. Companies are usually required to report whenever they know, or have reasonable suspicions, that goods are going to an illicit programme, a designated entity or to a sanctioned/embargoed destination, or that rules and regulations are otherwise not being adhered to.

Advice is generally provided in some amount of detail to exporters/consignors on steps they should take to be compliant with laws and regulations. This will usually involve checking the type of goods against control lists to see whether an export license may be required, screening the details of the procurer and their agents against entities lists (where applicable), and checking for any sanctions and embargoes that may apply.

Guidance is often provided on know-your-customer best practice. This includes factors that may give rise to suspicion (sometimes termed ‘red flags’) which should prompt exporters to seek further information and, if this does not resolve the issue, to discuss the deal with national authorities. [Red Flags are discussed in more detail elsewhere in the Alpha website, at link]. In some countries with ‘end use’  clauses in export controls, having grounds for suspicion means that a company should not proceed even when the goods are not on control lists, unless they have consulted national authorities.

The need for companies to exercise ‘due diligence’ is often discussed in official guidance.  Examples of due diligence activity that should be considered (such as measures to check customers bona fides) can be found on various websites and publications.

The extent to which enquiries should be taken by exporters is usually not specified in fine detail – it would obviously be problematic to formulate detailed guidance for all situations.  Published guidance from some national authorities  acknowledges that due diligence efforts should be ‘proportionate’.  However often much will be left to the company to make a judgment on what is reasonable and proportionate, both with regard to the exact nature of enquiries and the lengths that they should go to. The subject of exporters and anti-proliferation measures is covered in more depth elsewhere on the Alpha website.

WIth regard to entities within the shipping industry, specific guidance for companies fulfilling a particular function (haulier, carrier, broker etc) is generally not as prominent as it is for exporters/consignors.  Advice given to exporters will obviously be relevant if a company has been employed to carry out functions that the consignor is usually responsible for (eg export license arrangements).

Some national authorities also give guidance directed specifically at freight forwarders (or similar), which typically focuses on checking whether any sanctions or embargoes apply, and screening entities involved against any entities lists that may be applicable.  Forwarders are generally encouraged to be familiar with the guidance given to exporters on factors which might reasonably give rise to suspicion, and to consider what due diligence may be merited. In common with written guidance to  exporters, forwarders will often have to judge for themselves the nature and extent of activity that is reasonable.

Entity Screening

Appropriate levels of effort may be difficult to determine in the initial screening of the consignee and others acting for/with them.  The extent to which forwarders should take further enquiries when a possible match to a listed entity occurs (eg a name is similar not identical to one on an entities list) can be difficult to determine with confidence.

Detailed screening may take into account things such as phonetic matching of a name or possible transliteration errors between languages, or may simply flag entities with names similar but not identical to those listed.  This will tend to generate a significant number of possible matches that may call for further investigation. Subsequent enquiries may identify many ‘false positives’, but may also identify indeterminate cases.

Companies that report possible matches to national authorities may find that the relevant authorities have insufficient resources to respond in a timely fashion.  In such cases there may be tensions between the commercial imperative not to refuse business without due cause, and the desire to ensure that the company has done everything reasonably possible to remain in compliance with laws and regulations.

Large companies such as the international logistics integrators and major freight forwarders may devote considerable manpower with specialist education and training to dealing with compliance issues and performing additional due diligence where this seems advisable.  However the extent to which much smaller companies are able to shoulder the compliance burden and make similar efforts to their larger brethren is unclear.

One possibility is to outsource some of the work – at least one commercial company has been set up to keep track of changes to all published sanctions, embargoes and designated entities lists, both from international and national authorities, worldwide, and to provide an entity screening service against this body of information. However, usage of such a service obviously entails additional financial cost, and potentially other impacts if possible matches are identified, even if subsequent investigation reveals these to have been false matches.

Bottom Line

Within the world of commercial shipping and international logisitics, forwarders and integrators are prominent at the forefront of export control compliance and wider antiproliferation activity. However, all types of commercial actors throughout the wider shipping industry have obligations in this sphere and the potential ability to contribute to the international community’s non-proliferation objectives. It is difficult to generalise about the exact shape of best practice for the large diversity of entities throughout the industry given multiplicity of arrangements involved, the variety of regulations and guidelines in different jurisdictions, and the varying capacities of different companies to perform antiproliferation activities. The key challenge is for companies to determine what are reasonable and proportionate ‘due diligence’ efforts in the particular situations they find themselves in.

Regulations and guidelines from national authorities can be somewhat vague in practice.  While it is unlikely to be feasible to produce definitive, tightly written guidance that will cover all situations, current guidance is often difficult for industry to interpret in terms of practical, concrete procedures and actions required.  Some commercial entities, especially very large companies, may be able to practice what can be thought of as ‘overcompliance’, devoting quite large resources to compliance activity and erring on the side of caution, but the burden to smaller operators may be more difficult to bear.

The ability of national authorities to respond in a timely and agile fashion when possible instances of illicit procurement are reported by commercial entities appears to be less than ideal.  In some instances it may be that a greater emphasis from national authorities on having clearly identified, adequately resourced first points-of-contact, with clearly laid-out missions and performance standards, may be a useful step.

Export Controls 101

Strategic Trade Controls: What Do Firms Need to Know?

  • Export controls are in place to prevent technology and goods from being acquired by those seeking to used them for  illicit military-related end uses and are an important tool of national security
  • Firms need to be aware of the control status of their products and of the potential uses of their goods in military or WMD programmes
  • A licence is required when exporting controlled goods and potentially when exporting non-listed goods to sensitive destinations
  • There are significant legal and financial risks associated with deliberate and inadvertent involvement in illicit transfers
  • A systematic approach to compliance is required to mitigate risks effectively
  • If firms have questions about the scope and requirements of export controls, they should contact Project Alpha at
  • A link to your licensing authority can be found on this page

The Purpose of Export Controls

Export controls and sanctions are in place in order to allow national authorities (various departments of the British government in the UK case), an opportunity to assess the international security and proliferation risks associated with the export of certain sensitive military-related technologies. They allow a country’s government to act to safeguard the national security of that country and to avoid fuelling conflict or internal repression overseas.

More specifically, some of the purposes of export controls are:

  • To prevent goods from contributing to WMD programmes
  • To prevent the transfer of goods which could contribute to sanctioned military programmes or cause regional instability
  • To prevent those goods, for example as weapons, from contributing to human rights abuses
  • To prevent those who support or direct the activities above from accessing the British, European, US, or international marketplace

The Scope of Export Controls

Export controls cover ‘technology’ which is taken to mean both tangible goods, as well as the intangible technology associated with controlled goods.

The EU maintains a military list and a dual-use list. Military goods are largely what you might expect: arms, tanks, missiles, and other equipment specifically designed or prepared for a military end use. The dual-use list includes a relatively broad range of technologies that can be incorporated either into military goods or into weapons of mass destruction programmes.

However, export controls can also encompass non-listed technologies. This typically occurs in cases where exporters ‘know or suspect’ that technology is destined for sanctioned entities or programmes of concern. A ‘catch-all’ control exists to allow uncontrolled goods to be prevented from reaching such destinations.

Country-specific Restrictions

In addition to export controls which impose a licence requirement on any country regardless of destination, a range of country-specific restrictions or ‘sanctions’. These measures can restrict trade in a number of ways:

·         Introducing a presumption of denial for export licences

·         Prohibiting trade with certain entities in specified countries (designated entities)

·         Restricting investment in certain industry sectors, such as Iran’s oil and gas sector

UK Government Departments Involved

In the UK, as in most countries, there are multiple government departments involved in the export control process. This is because export controls cover a number of policy areas.

The principal organisation in the UK system is the Export Control Organisation (ECO) which is a part of the Department for Business Innovation and Skills (BIS). This is the organisation with which exporters communicate with when applying for export licenses.

A second lead organisation is HM Treasury, which advises on trade with designated entities.

Other government departments are also involved such as: the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO), which sets the strategic objectives and conduct diplomacy relating to the UK’s international commitments; the Ministry of Defence (MOD), which deals with military and technical issues; the Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC), which deals with nuclear issues; the Department for International Development (DFiD), in cases where exports may have implications for UK development assistance; and HMRC and the UK Border Service, which undertake enforcement actions when necessary.

The Requirements of Export Controls

UK export control legislation usually requires that the exporter holds an export licence at the time of export. A valid licence is required, in most cases, if the goods are controlled or they are destined for a sanctioned destination or an end-user of concern.

Open licences are available in all EU countries, providing exporters with a more simple way to export less proliferation-sensitive goods to less sensitive destinations. With these types of licences, the emphasis is on registration, the record-keeping of the exporter, and compliance audits carried out by government representatives.

Licence applications are both made by exporters and assessed by government through the online Spire system.

The Consequences of Non-Compliance

There are significant risks associated with non-compliance with export controls. These include legal risks – fines of hundreds of thousands of pounds and imprisonment of several years – as well as reputational risks and associated financial costs. A number of case studies of UK prosecutions can be found on the ECO website.

However, exporters should be aware that compliance with export controls does not fully mitigate risks. Firms can be compliant with the law and still have their goods diverted to programmes of concern. Extra due-diligence is important in this regard. Exporters should contact their national authority or Alpha when in doubt.

Managing Compliance and Non-proliferation Requirements

Given the detailed and sometimes changing requirements of export controls, it is important that firms take a systematic approach to compliance and non-proliferation to mitigate risks fully. This should include ensuring that a senior official is responsible for trade compliance and include providing training to all relevant staff. More information about best practice compliance can be found here.

Each country maintains its own export licensing system. A link to yours can be found on the following page.

Many countries allow exporters to apply for licences electronically. For example, all UK licence applications must be submitted through the SPIRE system.

Entities of Concern

Key Points

  • It is only by conducting extensive due diligence that the risks posed by parties to a trade can be understood;
  • However, several authorities maintain lists of entities known to be of concern which must be taken into account. These are produced at United Nations (UN), National (including European Union (EU)), and non-governmental levels;
  • UN sanctions are binding on firms based in all countries, while national (or EU) lists are typically only binding to firms based within the relevant territory;
  • US measures often have an extraterritorial element, meaning that conducting business with US-sanctioned entities can have adverse business impacts for a firm even if based outside the US;
  • Companies should implement screening and due diligence systems to ensure that all entity-specific concerns are identified, understood, and addressed before entering business relationships.

What is an entity of concern?

Entities are typically identified as being of concern for one of three main reasons:

1)    They are involved in activities of concern – i.e. they have been designated as a terrorist organisation, they directly support or operate a Weapons of Mass Destruction programme in a country of concern, or they oversee an activity of concern (this can include individuals with responsibility for Iran’s nuclear programme, for example).

2)    They work on behalf of entities of concern, in capacities including procurement agents, brokers and financial service providers.

3)    They potentially supply programmes of concern, often by failing to implement appropriate trade compliance systems.

Note that not all entities of concern can be found on the various lists; firms should conduct due diligence to fully mitigate risk.

Where are entities of concern located?

This depends on the category of entity of concern. Those directly involved in programmes of concern are usually found only in sensitive countries (see country briefs), whereas middle men and suppliers to programmes of concern can be located anywhere around the world. The image below is a map highlighting the entities identified as being of concern by the US government in summer 2012.

What are firms’ responsibilities?

While legal responsibilities vary from country to country, the short answer is that firms must comply with the laws of the territories in which they operate. This means that if your national authority maintains a list of entities of concern you must ensure that you have a system in place to screen customers. In cases where national authorities do not provide national lists, firms should be screening potential business partners against the lists contained in UN resolutions.

How can firms avoid conducting business with entities of concern?

In practice, as US designations name firms worldwide, to ensure that you stay compliant with US extraterritorial measures, firms should maintain a designated entity screening system for trade to all destinations. A screening system or process which screens new and existing customers and other business partners against multiple relevant national and international lists is necessary to mitigate legal and reputational risk.

Nonetheless, while legally it may be permitted to do business with entities identified as being of proliferation concern outside jurisdictions in which the firms operate, there is an obvious need for caution: such trade is can lead to massive reputational risk and damage a firm’s public image.

Therefore, an effective screening system is one which screens against the relevant lists required for legal compliance, as well as takes into account possible reputational risks. An efficient system is one which effectively uses fuzzy logic to pick up matches whilst keeping a ‘false-positive’ figure low.

Partners Against Proliferation: Good Practice Guidance

The “Partners Initiative” is a voluntary and inclusive mechanism to share good practices between companies in the area of export and trade compliance. Participation will reduce the likelihood that your company’s goods or services will aid proliferation or that your company will breach trade control obligations.  At heart of the initiative are guidelines and a related peer-review mechanism. Firms undertake to work towards implementing the internationally-recognised[1] “good practice guidelines” (See below) and to demonstrate to other “Partners” how they go about this.

Other service providers and trade associations are encouraged collaborate with the partners initiative, by for example by creating working groups for their own members.

Involvement with the initiative will have the following benefits you company:

1.   Improving your company’s implementation of trade controls.  This is not just about complying with the law, but also about ensuring the compliance system you implement is robust, proportionate and effective. Getting implementation right may even reduce your company’s trade compliance burden.

2.   Enabling customers or suppliers to build confidence in your compliance system. Your business partners are dependent after all on your company’s implementation of trade controls either to safeguard their controlled technologies or to provide them with correct trade control information, such as control status the control status of the goods you sell to them. They care if your company ‘gets compliance’.

3.   Demonstrating to stakeholders that your company is socially responsible. Non-compliance with export controls is socially unacceptable and threatens international security. Your stakeholders will want to know if you are compliant, or perhaps worse, if you are not.  Participation in the Partners Initiative provides a route to demonstrate your commitment.

The Partners Initiative is a peer-based network and is governed by consensus. The initiative will be overseen by a “Partners Board”, membership of which will be determined based upon nomination and vote (with one vote being allocated to each participating institution). Presently there is no entry criteria to become a partner other than a willingness to work towards implementation of the good practice guidelines (see below).  Companies will be asked to demonstrate in what ways they implement each of the elements of the good practices to their peers on at least on an annual basis.[2]

Good Practice Guidelines on Export Compliance
These guidelines were submitted by the British government to the Nuclear Suppliers Group and have been recognised internationally. Enterprises are advised to:

1.0 Implement internal systems to ensure due-diligence checks are carried out on potential customers and business partners and on the goods, software and technology that they wish to acquire, utilising public information such as early warning lists, red-flag checklists and questionnaires provided by the United Nations, states and other parties with an interest in supporting the multilateral non-proliferation effort, and to consult with the relevant government authorities as necessary;

2.0 Monitor, collate and vet enquiries within the scope of due-diligence, relating to the acquisition of proliferation sensitive goods, software and technology;

3.0 Consult government export control authorities before having any dealings with entities identified as being of proliferation concern either from public sources, from corporate monitoring systems or from contact with relevant competent authorities in states themselves;

4.0 Implement best efforts to share information about illicit attempts to procure items for Weapons of Mass Destruction programmes with security and other relevant agencies in the state where they are established and with business partners and others in instances where the state judges that broader publicity would be appropriate;

5.0 Promote the adoption of due-diligence and information sharing within the supply chain and with other business partners within the boundaries of legitimate protection of business and company information;

6.0 Incorporate non-proliferation measures and export control compliance into existing corporate social responsibility statements;

7.0 Encourage relevant industry-wide trade and professional bodies to recognise the importance of supporting and encouraging the non-proliferation effort and the measures set out herein; and

8.0 Foster an open and transparent relationship with appropriate government and regulatory authorities.

9.0 Train all relevant staff against a trade compliance competence framework

[1] Adherence to the guideline has been recognised by members of the Nuclear Suppliers Group as a “good practice”.

[2] The Partners Initiative is a peer-based initiative intended to implement the good practice guidelines. Failure to work toward implementation of the guidelines or egregious examples of not working to the guidelines such as being found non-compliant with export control legislation can, based on a 2/3 majority vote of the Partners board, result in companies being excluded for a period of time to be determined by the board

Download attachments: partners_initiative_-_invitation

Export Control Regimes – EU State Members

Dual use items are products and technologies used for civilian purposes but which may have military applications. Export of dual-use items to destinations outside the EU are prohibited unless a licence has been granted by a national authority.

Dual-use export controls in all EU states is guided by Regulation 428/2009. This regulation sets out the list of technologies and controlled items under export control. It can therefore be expected that, in general, any item considered controlled in one EU jurisdiction would also be controlled in the other jurisdictions.

Transfers of dual-use goods within the EU need a licence only where the item appears on Annex IV of the regulation. Annex IV contains very sensitive goods such as nuclear items.

For exports to destinations outside the EU there are numerous types of licence that may be granted within the EU. These include:

  • EU General Export Authorisations (EU GEAs) – cover exports of certain items to certain destinations as specified in Annex II of the dual-use Regulation.
  • National General Export Authorisations (NGAs) – may be issued by individual EU countries, provided that they:
  • do not conflict with existing CGEA
  • do not cover any of the items listed in Annex IIg to Regulation 428/2009
  • France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Sweden, the Netherlands, and the UK
  • Global authorisations – are granted by individual EU countries to one exporter and cover one or more items to one or more countries/end users
  • Individual licenses – are granted by individual EU countries to one exporter and cover exports to one end user


Links for license authorities of each EU state members:


National Authority


Federal Ministry of Economy, Family and Youth


1) The Ministry of the Brussels-Capital Region [Direction des Relations extérieures (external relations directorate)]

2)Flanders Region

3)Wallonn Region


Ministry of Economy, Energy and Tourism [Interdepartmental Commission for Export Control and Non-Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction]

[General Information:]

Czech Republic

Ministry of Industry and Trade[Licencing Office]


Danish Enterprise and Construction Authority



Ministry of Foreign Affairs[Strategic Goods Commission]



Department for External Economic Relations in Ministry of Foreign Affairs [export control unit]




Ministry of Industry: Dual-use goods

Ministry of Industry: Defence goods export control

Cryptographic Goods



Federal Office of Economics and Export Control BAFA



Ministry for Development, Competitiveness Infrastructure, Transport and Networks



Hungarian Trade Licensing Office



Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation [Licensing Unit in Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation]



Ministry of Economic Development[Department for Enterprise and Internationalization, Directorate-General for International Trade Policy-Export Control Unit]


Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Latvia [Security Policy Department Strategic Goods Export Control Division]



Ministry of Economy[Trade Department – Division of Strategic Goods Export Control (Licensing Office)]



Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Export Controls




Ministry of Foreign Affairs[Disarmament and Non Proliferation Desk]



Ministry of Finance[Central Import and Export Service (CDIU) on behalf of Ministry of Foreign Affairs]



Department of Economic Security of the Ministry of Economy






Ministry of Foreign Affairs [Department for Export Controls]




Ministry of Economy, Department of Sensitive Goods Trading Management, Division of Sensitive Goods



Ministry of Economic Development and Technology



TRADE – Foreign Trade – Sector Information – Defense and Dual-Use Material



Swedish Agency for Non-proliferation and Export Controls


United Kingdom


Department for Business, Innovation, and Skills [Export Control Organisation]

SPIRE[online export licensing system]


Find more Information here: