Year
2013
Abstract
States continue to search for balance between trade and security. As is standard when it comes to domestic law, states' legal frameworks, punishment mechanisms, and court systems differ in how they respond to certain crimes. Strategic trade controls are no different. Export controls required by UN Security Council Resolution 1540 (2004), for example, aim to promote national-level changes to legal environments in an effort to strengthen the nonproliferation agenda. However, states are required only to \"[esta blish] and [enforce] appropriate criminal or civil penalties for violations of such export control laws and regulations...\" It is up to states to define those penalties and follow through with prosecution, which inherently varies from state to state. Thi s paper will attempt to answer the question: what are the core differences between codified law, prosecution rates, and the likelihood of conviction for sensitive trade control offenses in the United States, Germany, and Japan? The disparity between legal norms across several nuclear - exportin