Wassenaar Arrangement | 01 Oct 2025

Source:TH

Why in News? 

Protests erupted against Microsoft after allegations that its Azure cloud services were used to support Israeli military operations in Palestine, causing civilian harm and raising concerns over loopholes in the Wassenaar Arrangement’s export control framework.

What is Wassenaar Arrangement?

• About: The Wassenaar Arrangement is the first multilateral body focused on export controls for conventional arms and dual-use (civilian and potential military applications) technologies.
  • Established in 1996 in Wassenaar, Netherlands, it succeeded the Cold War–era Coordinating Committee for Multilateral Export Controls (CoCom) and functions as a forum where all decisions are taken by consensus.
• Objective: The Arrangement aims to enhance regional and international security by promoting transparency and responsibility among participating states and coordinating policies to prevent sensitive technologies from reaching countries that could threaten security.
• Structure and Governance:
  • Plenary: It is the main decision-making body. The Chair rotates yearly, India chaired the plenary of the Wassenaar Arrangement in 2023.
  • Secretariat: Based in Vienna, Austria, supports all Arrangement functions.
• Members: 42 countries, India joined in 2017.
• Working Procedure: Its control framework includes the Munitions List, covering items like tanks, combat aircraft, and small arms.
  • Dual-Use List, which includes technologies with both civilian and potential military applications.
  • Participating states agree on control lists and share information, while each government retains full discretion over licensing, implementation, and enforcement of the rules.
• Scope: Originally, the Arrangement focused on physical exports (devices, chips, hardware). In 2013, the Arrangement expanded to include “intrusion software”, i.e., software that bypasses network security or enables cyber-surveillance.

What are the Challenges facing the Wassenaar Arrangement?

• Outdated Focus on Physical Exports: Originally designed to control hardware, chips, and devices, not cloud services or digital technologies.
  • Modern software, Software as a Service (SaaS), and Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools fall into grey areas not explicitly regulated under the arrangement.
  • Current control lists do not cover mass surveillance, profiling, cross-border data systems, or human rights abuses. Technologies that can be misused for repression are often outside the scope of the Arrangement.
• Ambiguity Around Cloud and Remote Access: Traditional rules of Wassenaar Arrangement do not treat remote access, Application Programming Interface (API) calls, or administrative rights as exports. 
  • This allows companies or states to bypass control regimes while enabling potentially risky technology transfers.
• Voluntary Nature and Lack of Enforcement: The Arrangement is based on consensus; any member can block changes. Domestic implementation varies by country, leading to patchy coverage and inconsistent enforcement.
  • Cloud services, AI, and cyber tools evolve faster than the consensus-based decision-making process. There is no mechanism to fast-track urgent updates or sunset outdated controls, making the regime less relevant.
• Divergent National Interpretations: Under the Wassenaar Arrangement each country interprets and implements the rules differently, creating loopholes for defensive research or internal transfers.
  • No standardized system exists to coordinate cross-border licensing or track high-risk users.
• Limited Human Rights Consideration: Licensing decisions under Wassenaar Arrangement often focus on military use or weapon of mass destruction (WMD) proliferation rather than the risk of civilian harm, surveillance abuse, or discrimination.

What Measures can Strengthen the Wassenaar Arrangement?

• Expand the Scope of Controlled Technologies: Include cloud infrastructure, AI systems, digital surveillance tools, biometric systems, and cross-border data transfers. Clearly define benign versus malicious uses to avoid over-regulating legitimate applications.
  • Learn from the EU dual-use regulations that treat cloud transmissions as potentially controlled technologies.
• Redefine “Export” for the Digital Era: Treat remote access, API calls, software-as-a-service invocation, and administrative rights as equivalent to physical exports.
  • Ensure that virtual or cloud-based transfers fall under control regulations to close loopholes.
• Introduce Binding Rules and Minimum Standards: Move beyond voluntary commitments to mandatory licensing standards. Implement peer review mechanisms to ensure compliance across member states.
  • Establish shared watchlists of high-risk users or entities. Enable real-time red alerts and technical interoperability standards among licensing authorities. Align national licensing policies to mitigate cross-border risks effectively.
• Make Governance Agile and Responsive: Create a specialized technical committee or secretariat to fast-track interim updates. Host domain-specific regimes for AI, cyber weapons, and digital surveillance technologies that can evolve faster than the general Arrangement.
• Integrate Human Rights and Risk Assessment: Consider user identity, jurisdiction, oversight, legal mandate, and misuse potential in licensing decisions.
  • Ensure technology control is not only about military use or WMDs but also prevents mass human rights abuses.

Conclusion

The Wassenaar Arrangement, while foundational for global export controls, struggles to keep pace with rapidly evolving cloud and digital technologies. Strengthening the regime with binding rules, agile oversight, and end-use controls is essential to prevent misuse and safeguard human rights.