22 U.S.C. § 2751

Need for international defense cooperation and military export controls; Presidential waiver; report to Congress; arms sales policy

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 22 CasesGoogle Scholar

As declared by the Congress in the Arms Control and Disarmament Act [22 U.S.C. 2551 et seq.], an ultimate goal of the United States continues to be a world which is free from the scourge of war and the dangers and burdens of armaments; in which the use of force has been subordinated to the rule of law; and in which international adjustments to a changing world are achieved peacefully. In furtherance of that goal, it remains the policy of the United States to encourage regional arms control and disarmament agreements and to discourage arms races.

The Congress recognizes, however, that the United States and other free and independent countries continue to have valid requirements for effective and mutually beneficial defense relationships in order to maintain and foster the environment of international peace and security essential to social, economic, and political progress. Because of the growing cost and complexity of defense equipment, it is increasingly difficult and uneconomic for any country, particularly a developing country, to fill all of its legitimate defense requirements from its own design and production base. The need for international defense cooperation among the United States and those friendly countries to which it is allied by mutual defense treaties is especially important, since the effectiveness of their armed forces to act in concert to deter or defeat aggression is directly related to the operational compatibility of their defense equipment.

Accordingly, it remains the policy of the United States to facilitate the common defense by entering into international arrangements with friendly countries which further the objective of applying agreed resources of each country to programs and projects of cooperative exchange of data, research, development, production, procurement, and logistics support to achieve specific national defense requirements and objectives of mutual concern. To this end, this chapter authorizes sales by the United States Government to friendly countries having sufficient wealth to maintain and equip their own military forces at adequate strength, or to assume progressively larger shares of the costs thereof, without undue burden to their economies, in accordance with the restraints and control measures specified herein and in furtherance of the security objectives of the United States and of the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter.

It is the sense of the Congress that all such sales be approved only when they are consistent with the foreign policy interests of the United States, the purposes of the foreign assistance program of the United States as embodied in the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended [22 U.S.C. 2151 et seq.], the extent and character of the military requirement, and the economic and financial capability of the recipient country, with particular regard being given, where appropriate, to proper balance among such sales, grant military assistance, and economic assistance as well as to the impact of the sales on programs of social and economic development and on existing or incipient arms races.

It shall be the policy of the United States to exert leadership in the world community to bring about arrangements for reducing the international trade in implements of war and to lessen the danger of outbreak of regional conflict and the burdens of armaments. United States programs for or procedures governing the export, sale, and grant of defense articles and defense services to foreign countries and international organizations shall be administered in a manner which will carry out this policy.

It is the sense of the Congress that the President should seek to initiate multilateral discussions for the purpose of reaching agreements among the principal arms suppliers and arms purchasers and other countries with respect to the control of the international trade in armaments. It is further the sense of Congress that the President should work actively with all nations to check and control the international sale and distribution of conventional weapons of death and destruction and to encourage regional arms control arrangements. In furtherance of this policy, the President should undertake a concerted effort to convene an international conference of major arms-supplying and arms-purchasing nations which shall consider measures to limit conventional arms transfers in the interest of international peace and stability.

It is the sense of the Congress that the aggregate value of defense articles and defense services—

(1) which are sold under section 2761 or section 2762 of this title; or

(2) which are licensed or approved for export under section 2778 of this title to, for the use, or for benefit of the armed forces, police, intelligence, or other internal security forces of a foreign country or international organization under a commercial sales contract;

in any fiscal year should not exceed current levels.

It is the sense of the Congress that the President maintain adherence to a policy of restraint in conventional arms transfers and that, in implementing this policy worldwide, a balanced approach should be taken and full regard given to the security interests of the United States in all regions of the world and that particular attention should be paid to controlling the flow of conventional arms to the nations of the developing world. To this end, the President is encouraged to continue discussions with other arms suppliers in order to restrain the flow of conventional arms to less developed countries.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 70 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1976–2025 · leading case: Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Ariz., Inc., 133 S. Ct. 2247 (2013).
Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Ariz., Inc., 133 S. Ct. 2247 (2013). · cites it 2× “3725 , note following 22 U. S. C. §2751 , p. 925 (FAA Administrator “shall accept the certification of the Department of Homeland Security that a missile defense system is effective and functional to defend commercial aircraft against” man-portable surface- to-air missiles); 25…”
Bae Sys. Tech. Solution & Servs., Inc. v. Repub. of Korea's Def. Acquisition Prog. Admin., 884 F.3d 463 (4th Cir. 2018). “The Arms Export Control Act (AECA), 22 U.S.C. §§ 2751 et seq. , authorizes the Executive Branch to engage in Foreign Military Sales (FMS) transactions when selling certain U.”
Fidelitad, Inc. v. Insitu, Inc., 904 F.3d 1095 (9th Cir. 2018). “Licensing Framework The Arms Export Control Act, 22 U.S.C. §§ 2751 - 2799aa-2, and the International Traffic in Arms Regulations ("ITAR"), 22 C.”
Hughes Aircraft Co. v. United States, 209 Ct. Cl. 446 (Ct. Cl. 1976). · cites it 2× “Section 1 of the FM'SA, 22 U.S.C. § 2751 , for example, defines the purpose of the Act in part as follows: The Congress recognizes, * * * that the United States and other free and independent countries continue to have valid requirements for effective and mutually beneficial…”
Soto v. Bushmaster Firearms Int'l, LLC, 202 A.3d 262 (Conn. 2019). “], and the Arms Export Control Act [ 22 U.S.C. § 2751 et seq. ]. "(5) Businesses in the United States that are engaged in interstate and foreign commerce through the lawful design, manufacture, marketing, distribution, importation, or sale to the public of firearms or ammunition…”
Miller v. United Tech. Corp., 660 A.2d 810 (Conn. 1995). “22 U.S.C. § 2751 et seq. Therefore, we conclude, as a matter of law, that the government dictated reasonably precise specifications for the contents of the operational flight and maintenance manuals and any subsequent amendments to them.”
Ministry of Def. & Support for the Armed Forces of the Islamic Repub. of Iran v. Cubic Def. Sys., Inc., 495 F.3d 1024 (9th Cir. 2007). · cites it 4× “See 22 U.S.C. §§ 2751 et seq.; Exec. Order No.”
Sec'y of State for Defence v. Trimble Navigation Ltd., 484 F.3d 700 (4th Cir. 2007). · cites it 7× “" 22 U.S.C. § 2751 . To this end, the AECA authorizes defense sales to certain foreign governments.”
United States Ex Rel. Yannacopoulos v. Gen. Dynamics, 652 F.3d 818 (7th Cir. 2011). “Yannacopoulos also argues that the Arms Export Control Act, 22 U.S.C. § 2751 et seq., as interpreted by the DSAA, forbids the use of United States funds for indirect offsets such as HBDIC.”
B-West Imports, Inc. v. United States, 19 Ct. Int'l Trade 303 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1995). · cites it 3× “4311 (1977), reprinted as amended in 22 U.S.C. § 2751 note (1988) (Ex. Ord. No.”
United States Ex Rel. Campbell v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 282 F. Supp. 2d 1324 (M.D. Fla. 2003). · cites it 2× “The SGB contract and other contracts that involve the resale of LANTIRN pods (or other defense material) to foreign governments are referred to as “FMS contracts” because they involve “Foreign Military Sales” under the Arms Export Control Act (“AECA”), 22 U.S.C. § 2751 et seq.…”
Stagg, P.C. v. U.S. Dept. of State, 983 F.3d 589 (2d Cir. 2020). “4 Under the ITAR and their governing statute, the Arms Export Control 5 Act (“AECA”), 22 U.S.C. § 2751 et seq., a party seeking to export items 6 designated as “defense articles and defense services” must first register with 7 the DDTC, a subdivision of DOS, and obtain a license…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.