19 Amendments of Norica NICOLAI related to 2012/2303(INI)
Amendment 11 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas arms exports can have inter alia a considerable impact not only on security, but also on development, and must therefore be at the very least embedded within a strictcommonly accepted and defined arms control system operating with maximum effectiveness, protecting both the interests of the private and public sectors;
Amendment 16 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)
Recital A a (new)
Aa. Notes that, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), the EU Member States, taken as a whole, outrank the US and Russia as the world's largest arms exporter16 and that an ever increasing proportion of arms exports - 61% in 201117 - is being delivered to countries outside the EU; 16 . The top 20 Arms Exporters, 2007-2011, http://www.sipri.org/googlemaps/2012_of _at_top_20_exp_map.html 17 . 'EU arms exports figures remain level', Jane's Defence Weekly, 4 January 2013.
Amendment 30 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital H
Recital H
Amendment 50 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital O
Recital O
O. whereas many surveillance technologies and surveillance software products and many other goods used in a host of recipient countries for repressive measures against their populations are not included either in the Common Military List of the European Union or in the EU list of dual- use goods, but the European Parliament has adopted a resolution on stricter control of digital arms in October 2012;
Amendment 55 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital P
Recital P
P. whereas it has been argued that the events of the Arab Spring in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) could not be foreseen; whereas nonetheless the human rights situation in those countries, which, in connection with issuing arms exports licences, should have been (and must be) taken into account, waevents such as the Arab Spring have once again revealed the problematic link between democratisation and human rights issues as a liability when it comes to arms trade with such countries; and whereas foresight should enable future initiatives (and is) known; whereas the events of the Arab Spring have revealed the weaknessreports to make use of such lessons, especially when it comes tof the Common Position and, to some extent, a number of countries' disregard for it and the criteria it containspropagation of traded arms to non-state actors such in the case of Libya;
Amendment 65 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
Amendment 67 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Acknowledges that the EU is the only union of states to have a legally binding framework, unique in the world, through which arms export control is being improved, including in crisis regions and countries with a questionable human rights record, and welcomes the fact, in this connection, that European and non- European third countries have joined the arms exports control system on the basis of the Common Position; notes with concern, however, that the eight criteria are applied and interpreted with varying degrees of rigour in the EU Member States; calls therefore for a standard, uniformly strict and revised interpretation and full implementation of the Common Position with all its obligations;
Amendment 78 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Takes the view that, because of the negative impact of arms spending on the development prospects of poorer recipient countries, criterion 8 should be upgraded by making denial of export licences automatic if they are incompatible with developmentimproved in order to better define what constitutes a case for denial of exports in accordance to the stable condition of a state actor;
Amendment 88 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Considers that a standardised verification and reporting system should be established to provide information as to whether, and to what extent, individual EU Member States' exports violate the eight criteria, without duplication of the existing COARM efforts in this area;
Amendment 92 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Insists, in the light of the Common Position review process, that support should be voiced for powerful, clear and unambiguous wording in the Common Position in order to prevent the criteria from being interpreted and applied differently; insists in particular that Article 10 of the Common Position be acted on and that, accordingly, application of the criteria not be neutralised or stopped because of political, economic or geostrategic interests;
Amendment 102 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. RegretNotes the fact that there is no possibility of having compliance with the eight criteria independently verified, that there are no mechanisms for sanctions for violation of the eight criteria by a Member State, and that there are no plans to that effect; takes the view that ways and means of carrying out independent verification and mechanisms for sanctions for violations of the Common Position should be provided for;
Amendment 110 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Calls on the Member States, with regard to export controls and application of the eight criteria, to pay greater attention to goods which may be used for both civilian and military purposes, such as surveillance technology, and similarly to spare parts and products suitable for use in cyber warfare orwhile noting that in the case of sever human rights and democracy problems, virtually any technological exports could be used against the principles of the Code, therefore making the identification of a particular dangerous profile of buyer at least as important as the means of control for non-the lethal human rights abusestechnology itself;
Amendment 115 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Calls furthermore for the eight criteria to be extended and applied also to the transfer of military, security and police personnel, to arms-exports-related services, know-how and training, and to private military and security services; calls for it to be made mandatory - where security technology and, in general, dual-use goods are to be exported - for compatibility with the eight criteria to be verified;
Amendment 125 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Suggests in this connection that additional information could be collected from Member States and published both at national level for a better understand in the COARM annual report, in particular a list of countries arms exports to which would violate one or more of the eight criteria, together with a comprehensive list of EU Member States which have exported arms to those countries during the data reporting periodg and control by national and commonly agreed upon international supervisory bodies, as well as used for the COARM annual report;
Amendment 131 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
Amendment 141 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Stresses the significance and legitimacy of parliamentary oversight over data relating to arms export control, and over how that control is carried out, and therefore calls for the measures, backing and information needed to ensure that that oversight function is performed to the full, in accordance to the principles of each Member State;
Amendment 162 #
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 6
Subheading 6
Amendment 163 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26
Paragraph 26
Amendment 166 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27
Paragraph 27