28 LAW-ENFORCEMENT EQUIPMENT IN CENTRAL ASIA AND THE SOUTH CAUCASUS III. National responses to the control and use of lawenforcement equipment While all EU member states must implement national legislation in accordance with EC Regulation 1236/2005, other states have unilaterally taken steps to control the trade and use of certain types of law-enforcement equipment. Outside the EU, the two major sources of production for lawenforcement equipment are China and the USA. Both have strategic interests in Central Asia, and the USA has traditionally had strong ties with Georgia. This has resulted in both China and the USA providing training and lawenforcement equipment in the region. On a commercial level, both countries have legislation in place that purports to regulate the export of certain lawenforcement equipment. The USA’s 1979 Export Administration Act controls a range of lawenforcement equipment—including electric-shock weapons and mechanicalrestraint devices—via the Commerce Control List.72 Other relevant equipment, in particular riot control agents, is listed on the US Military List. The US control lists also feature ‘execution equipment’ that requires a licence to export to all countries and ‘equipment specially designed for torture’, although there is a presumption of denial relating to this category so that, in practice, licences will never be granted for the export of such devices.73 One significant issue of relevance to the region being covered in this report is the lack of inclusion of acoustic-hailing devices on any of the US exportcontrol lists. Acoustic-hailing devices are currently being deployed worldwide in support of military, law-enforcement and commercial (e.g. maritime security) operations. Such devices have been seen fielded in the Caucasus and were used as part of the Georgian Government’s response to demonstrations in 2007, and also in Azerbaijan in 2013. According to the US-based LRAD Corporation, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan have also purchased long-range acoustic devices.74 It is interesting to note that certain states do exercise a licensing requirement over acoustic devices. The United Kingdom, for example, specifically controls the transfer of tank irritant sprayer devices, large calibre under-barrel and rifle grenade launchers, multiple munition launchers, rocket-propelled grenades, mortar munitions and cluster munitions. See Crowley, M., Drawing the Line: Regulation of ‘Wide Area’ Riot Control Agent Delivery Mechanisms Under the Chemical Weapons Convention, University of Bradford, Non-Lethal Weapons Project and the Omega Research Foundation, p. 33. 72
US Export Administration Act, <http://www.bis.doc.gov/index.php/forms-documents/doc_view/ 16-legal-authority>. The act lapsed in 2001 but remains in force through Executive Order 13222 of 17 Aug. 2001, which invokes the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 USC 1702). See White House, <http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/08/07/letter-congress-continuationnational-emergency-respect-export-control-r>; and <http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/50/usc_ sec_50_00001702----000-.html>. The text of the US Commerce Control List is available at <http://www.bis.doc.gov/index.php/regulations/commerce-control-list-ccl>. 73 US Commerce Control List (note 72). 74 LRAD Corporation, Humanely Resolving Public Safety Situations and Saving Lives, <http://www.lradx.com/pdf/LRAD_whitepaper_Humanely_Resolving_Public_Safety_Situations.pdf>.