When exporting nuclear-related items, export control is required from two perspectives: the control of “Trigger List Items” as controlled by Nuclear Supplier Groups (NSG) and the control of the “Items Subject to the Agreement” as specified in bilateral Nuclear Cooperation Agreements. While Trigger List Items and Items Subject to the Agreement are largely similar, there are some items where they do not overlap. Furthermore, national law for controlling each item is different. The Trigger List Items are governed by the Foreign Trade Act, and the Items Subject to the Agreement (Internationally Controlled Items) are governed by the Nuclear Safety Act. As a result, the detailed procedures and requirements for controlling each item are quite distinct. For the Trigger List Items, export license must be obtained in accordance with the Foreign Trade Act. The details such as responsible authority, the items subject to license, license requirements and procedures, penalties are specified in the Public Notice on Import and Export of Strategic Goods. For the Items Subject to the Agreement, the process and obligations set forth in bilateral agreements and related administrative agreements are fulfilled in accordance with the Nuclear Safety Act. However, in contrast to the Trigger List Items, the details for complying with the agreements are not specified legally. Since most of the Items Subject to the Agreement are fall within the category of the Trigger List Items, the obligations in accordance with the agreements are reviewed and implemented during the export license assessment process. However, if the Items Subject to the Agreement are not are fall within the category of the Trigger List Items, there is a risk of control omission. For example, this applies to cases of exporting tritium and tritium removal facilities, which are not the Trigger List Items, to Canada and Romania. Moreover, since subjects to the agreement and compliance procedures are respectively different for 29 bilateral Nuclear Cooperation Agreements signed with different countries, it is difficult for enterprise to recognize the appropriate procedures and obligations under the agreement by their own. The bilateral Nuclear Cooperation Agreements establish legal obligations between state parties while NSG are non-legally binding arrangements. Therefore, it could be even more necessary to comply strictly with the agreements. Consequently, legal improvements are required for effective implementations of Nuclear Cooperation Agreements. While it may be challenging to institutionalize details of 29 Nuclear Cooperation Agreements, it is essential to legally specify key elements such as the list of items subject to agreements, responsible authority, requirements and procedures for implement the agreement obligations, and penalties. Furthermore, domestic awareness on compliance with Nuclear Cooperation Agreements is lower compared to the system of export license for Trigger List Items. The continuous outreach is also necessary, along with institutional improvements.

The Nuclear Export and Import Control System (NEPS) is currently in operation for nuclear export and import control. To ensure consistent and efficient control, various computational systems are either already in place or being developed. With numerous scattered systems, it becomes crucial to integrate the databases from each to maximize their utility. In order to effectively utilize these scattered computer systems, it is necessary to integrate the databases of each system and develop an associated search system that can be used for integrated databases, so we investigated and analyzed the AI language model that can be applied to the associated search system. Language Models (LM) are primarily divided into two categories: understanding and generative. Understanding Language Models aim to precisely comprehend and analyze the provided text’s meaning. They consider the text’s bidirectional context to understand its deeper implications and are used in tasks such as text classification, sentiment analysis, question answering, and named entity recognition. In contrast, Generative Language Models focus on generating new text based on the given context. They produce new textual content continuously and are beneficial for text generation, machine translation, sentence completion, and storytelling. Given that the primary purpose of our associated search system is to comprehend user sentences or queries accurately, understanding language models are deemed more suitable. Among the understanding language models, we examined BERT and its derivatives, RoBERTa and DeBERTa. BERT (Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers) uses a Bidirectional Transformer Encoder to understand the sentence context and engages in pre-training by predicting ‘MASKED’ segments. RoBERTa (A Robustly Optimized BERT Pre-training Approach) enhances BERT by optimizing its training methods and data processing. Although its core architecture is similar to BERT, it incorporates improvements such as eliminating the NSP (Next Sentence Prediction) task, introducing dynamic masking techniques, and refining training data volume, methodologies, and hyperparameters. DeBERTa (Decoding-enhanced BERT with disentangled attention) introduces a disentangled attention mechanism to the BERT architecture, calculating the relative importance score between word pairs to distribute attention more effectively and improve performance. In analyzing the three models, RoBERTa and DeBERTa demonstrated superior performance compared to BERT. However, considering factors like the acquisition and processing of training data, training time, and associated costs, these superior models may require additional efforts and resources. It’s therefore crucial to select a language model by evaluating the economic implications, objectives, training strategies, performance-assessing datasets, and hardware environments. Additionally, it was noted that by fine-tuning with methods from RoBERTa or DeBERTa based on pre-trained BERT models, the training speed could be significantly improved.

In compliance with the amended export control of strategic items and technology in Jan. 2014, KAERI should pay attention to the export control of ITT (Intangible Technology Transfer). To control an ITT (Intangible Technologies Transfer) effectively and efficiently, the Korean government encourages the R&D institute and universities obtaining the ICP (Internal Compliance Program) from the relevant authority, MOTIE. This means that the exporters can control the ITT by themselves, because the exporters know very well the counterparts of the trading and the exporting items and technologies. In fact, ICP is for export control of dual-use items and technology in Korea. However, KAERI has tried to obtain a license from the authority, MOTIE. In an effort to do so, KAERI completed enacting a new internal self–regulation for export controls in 2016, and proceeded to apply for an ‘AA’ license of ICP in 2017 and obtained the ICP license in 2018 and re-obtained the license in 2021 from the MOTIE. In light of KAERI’s case, to obtain the ‘AA’ license of ICP is one of the best methods to increase the ability of export controls. As of now, there is no R&D institutes sponsored by the Korean government to obtain the ‘AA’ license of ICP except KAERI. KAERI can provide the actual methods as a standard case to the R&D institutes in Korea for obtaining an ‘AA’ license of ICP. According to the internal regulation of KAERI for export control, KAERI implemented an inner self-audit for export control in Nov. 2022. This is the first real self-audit for export control at KAERI. The main purpose of the self-audit is to check the transfer management of ITT and the relationship of relevant office through the interview of the staffs in the ICP organization. KAERI self-audit planed specifically and implemented for the achievement of the basic principal of selfaudit. The specific contents of this self-audit is as follows - The interview of the relevant offices: physical protection office, manpower planning office, manpower management office, nuclear education and training center, technology transfer office and international cooperation office, nuclear control and management office - Building the self-audit checklist considering the characteristics of each office - The confirmation of the inner procedure and the status of management on the export controls Through the interview of the relevant office, KAERI checked the inner procedure and the status of management on the export controls and tried to provide the supplementary measures of each relevant offices. The followings are the main results of the inner self-audit implemented in Nov. 2022. - Generally, the staffs know the meaning and relevant regulation such as foreigner’s management and the intangible technology transfer - Each office reflects the necessities of export controls on the relevant regulation and procedures and make DB for the proper duty. However, there is no indication for export controls on the DB - In the case of foreigner’s temporary visit for simple work and site tour, there is a difficult situation not to be able to check all the visitors by checking the denial lists - If necessary, KAERI may build the TFT (Task force Team) for the efficiency of export controls - Others

The Nuclear Safety and Security Commission (NSSC) and the Korea Institute of Nuclear Nonproliferation and Control (KINAC) operate the Nuclear Export and Import Control System (NEPS), an online comprehensive export and import control management system to guide the domestic nuclear export and import control regime and efficiently process the application, processing, and issuance of various civil complaints required for compliance. This paper analyzes the results of NEPS functional improvements made in 2022. First, NSSC and KINAC launched a nuclear plant technology follow-up system. Since establishing the Nuclear Plant Technology Export License (Plant License) system in 2015, large-scale nuclear power plant projects with a large amount of technology transfer have been issued a Plant License, allowing them to transfer technology without a separate individual export license. The recipient of a Plant License is not required to obtain an additional export license but to follow up on the transferred technology, such as checking whether it is a strategic technology and reporting quarterly transfer details. A dedicated system has been established to facilitate the follow-up of plant license projects. That has improved work efficiency for both the regulated and the regulator. Second, we have improved the procedures for retrieving and supplementing civil petitions. We added a function allowing civil petitioners to directly retrieve a civil petition to cancel a previously filed civil petition or to revise it themselves. In addition, we improved the procedure for supplementing a civil petition by setting a supplementation deadline for a reviewer’s request to modify a civil petition and sending a reminder before the expiration of the supplementation deadline. That enhances the convenience of the complainant and the examiner. Finally, we have changed the numbering system for export and import control reviews. Previously, the application number was a 15-digit system with an 8-digit date and 7-digit serial number. We have simplified the number by changing the three unused digits in the serial number to a single symbol that separates the type of application. That made it possible to utilize the number for relevant searches in the future. Also, simplifying the number has improved the efficiency of applying, processing, and consulting for civil affairs. In the future, NSSC and KINAC will continue to upgrade NEPS and make various functional improvements, and there will be many changes in system operation through cloud transfer in a few years.

The Internal Compliance Program (ICP) is a framework for promoting compliance with laws and regulations and minimizing violations. It aims to prevent law breaches, by raising awareness of the compliance within the organization, which leads to enhance the credibility of the organization, and to prepare for audits. From the perspective of nuclear export control, ICP can be used to verify the company’s credibility by following NSG Guidelines and is expected to contribute to preventing the vertical and horizontal proliferation of nuclear weapons in the international community. However, ICP system is not globally established, and the NSG does not provide official guidelines for ICP. Therefore, this study aims to analyze the “Good Practices for Internal Compliance Programs for Nuclear and Nuclear-Related Exports” provided by the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory to find ways to apply and activate ICPs for domestic exporters. The form of ICP could vary depending on company’s size and internal environments, but it should be organized as follows. First, an internal department should be established so as to implement the ICP, and an executive who has export control knowledge should be assigned as the Chief Export Control Officer (CECO). The CECO, establish and revise ICP operating procedures and manual, organize contact point to communicate internally and externally. Second, measures should be established minimize risks in the export process, including business development transaction screening, supply chain, research and development, human resource, and intangible technology transfer risks. Third, internal control system should be established for export control compliance. The CECO should conduct regular assessments to ensure compliance and strengthen the organization’s internal export compliance processes. Fourth, an export-related training program should be periodically conducted for employees. In addition, as soon as the CECO becomes aware of, CECO should review the matter, take corrective action, and report to the relevant national authorities, when a violation of domestic export control laws or suspicious circumstances are captured. Nuclear export control plays an important role in ensuring nuclear nonproliferation. Republic of Korea has been implementing the ICP system for Dual-Use Items under the Foreign Trade Act, but not for Trigger List Items. Therefore, introduction of ICP for Trigger List Items is expected significantly contribute to nuclear nonproliferation. The subjects of ICP will be initially targeted to major nuclear enterprises, then gradually expanded to all nuclear enterprises. Further researches are needed to introduce on ICP for Trigger List Items.

In the late 80s, non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear, chemical, and biological, became an internationally important issue, and in order to keep pace with the international situation, Korea amended the Foreign Trade Act in 1992 to legislate the export control of strategic goods. In addition, Korea joined the NSG, one of the international export control regimes, in 1995, and nuclear power operators are required to obtain export licenses in accordance with the NSG export control guidelines. In the nuclear export business, technical documents, equipment, materials, SW, etc. are exported to the importer, and the export items may include strategic items designated by the NSG, so operators must check whether they are strategic items and, if so, obtain an export license in accordance with foreign trade laws that reflect the NSG export control guidelines. In the case of processing and exporting goods or materials imported from another country, exporters must fulfill complex nuclear export control procedures, including obtaining the original supplier’s consent for re-transfer. In recent years, the international situation on export control has been more sensitive than ever, including the Russo-Ukrainian war, the U.S.-China semiconductor supremacy dispute, and U.S. lawsuits against domestic companies related to original technologies. In the worst-case scenario, a company may not be able to fulfill a contract due to export control issues. In order to facilitate the smooth export business of operators when exporting nuclear energy, ‘Nuclear Export Control Pre-Consulting’ is proposed to check compliance with export control requirements in advance and provide operators with customized export control implementation plans reflecting business characteristics. Through the pre-consultation, issues, requirements, and preparatory documents related to nuclear export control can be checked before the export business starts in earnest, i.e., when the decision to participate in the business is made, and the business can be supported to export smoothly by complying with the export control system. The most important aspect of pre-consultation is that domestic nuclear exporters need to know and apply for the program. To this end, the program will be actively promoted online and offline, and support will be provided for easy application through NEPS. In addition, procedures and outcomes will be continuously refined to ensure that the program is a means of ensuring full compliance with international nuclear non-proliferation norms for nuclear exports.

An administrative agreement (AA) was signed between NSSC and UAE FANR in January 2023 under Article 5 of the ROK-UAE Nuclear Cooperation Agreement. The AA aims to enhance regulatory efficiency in safeguards and export control. This study reviewed the export control measures for the items subject to the agreement (ISA) and implementation procedures under ROK-UAE AA by comparing them with other countries cases. First of all, the ROK-UAE AA distinguishes between ISA and the inventory management target items. Technology is divided into two categories, one requiring consent for retransfer and the other, considering the characteristics of technology that is free to be copied and deleted, and thus less useful for inventory management. Only the former is included in the annual report, which differs from the ROK-Canada or ROK-Japan NCA, which includes all technologies subject to the agreements in the annual report. When ROK notifies export information, it is mandatory to specify whether the technology requires consent for retransfer. Furthermore, some technologies should be controlled as strategic information, even if excluded from the annual report, so efforts to prevent confusion are required. Secondly, the ROK-UAE AA covers all items in INFCIRC/254/rev.9/part1, unlike the ROK-U.S. and ROK-Canada NCA, which listed equipment subject to them. This is significant because it clarifies the criteria for regulation by increasing the consistency between the trigger list items in the domestic law and the ISA. However, the expanded ISA scope could result in some changes in export control procedures. For example, when importing nuclear material (NM) from the US, only uranium was controlled as ISA, and the packages were not considered. In contrast, when exporting fuel assemblies (FA) for UAE, both uranium and zirconium cladding should be treated as ISA. To this end, NEPS was improved to implement the features of the ROK-UAE AA. Consideration of the criteria and methods for imposing obligations under the agreement is essential because this is the first case of Korea concluded AA under exporting NPP and as a supplier of FA. Generally, the obligations for NM are imposed by the country of origin, conversion, and enrichment countries. Canada and EU recognize the fuel fabrication process as a substantial transformation and impose customs origin where the process takes place. Hence, NM fabricated from Canadian equipment is also subject to the same obligations as NM of Canadian origin. From this perspective, it would be appropriate to ensure ROK acts as a supplier and controls when exporting domestically manufactured FA. Moreover, a proper national obligation code system will be required to specify Korea’s control rights.

When exporting nuclear power plants to a third country, the U.S. conditions import countries to join the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Additional Protocol. At the Korea-U.S. summit, Korea also agreed to maintain equal non-proliferation standards. This paper first analyzes how the U.S. applies the conditions for joining additional protocols to export control policies. The U.S. Atomic Energy Act is a general law in the field of nuclear power that governs both civilian and military use of nuclear power. Article 123 stipulates matters related to “cooperation with other countries.” According to Article 123, the United States must conclude a peaceful nuclear cooperation agreement with another country that stipulates nuclear non-proliferation obligations for nuclear cooperation to a “significant” extent. Article 123 of the Nuclear Energy Act presents nine conditions for signing the Nuclear Cooperation Agreement, and matters related to safeguards are stipulated in Nos. 1 and 2, and only IAEA’s Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement (CSA) is specified as requirements under the current law. As a result of analyzing the countries of the nuclear cooperation agreements currently signed by the United States, the United States is evaluating the AP in terms of the policy as an essential item. Among the nuclear agreements with the United States, three countries, Egypt, Brazil, and Argentina do not have AP in effect. Among them, Brazil and Argentina are recognized by the IAEA as replacing the ABACC with the AP, so only Egypt is not a member of the AP. The nuclear agreement between the U.S. and Egypt was signed in 1981 before the AP existed, and all recently signed agreements were identified as AP-effective countries. As a result of reviewing the U.S. export control laws, the U.S. did not legislate the AP as a condition for peaceful nuclear exports. Reflecting the NSG export control guidelines, AP was legislated as an export license requirement only in exporting sensitive nuclear technology (enrichment, reprocessing). However, it is confirmed that the U.S. policy applies AP entry into force as one of the main requirements for determining whether it is harmful to nuclear exports, along with the conclusion of the Nuclear Cooperation Agreement, the application of the Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement, and military alliance. The appropriate scope of application of the Additional Protocol in Korea and its application plan will be suggested through future research.

In 2004, in order to comply with UN Security Council Resolution 1540, the European Union (EU) came into force with Regulation 428/2009 for the export control of dual-use items, which has been working to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). In August 2021, it amended the EU 821/2021 to include mandating the introduction of ICPs for exporters in the member countries in order to strengthen controls over the transfer of tangible and intangible technologies. The main contents are as follows; 1) Mandatory introduction of Internal Compliance Program (ICP): Exporters within the EU countries should introduce a transaction review procedure through the ICP in consideration of their size and organization. 2) Export control on Cyber Surveillance Items to protect human rights: In order to protect human rights and comply with the obligations of international human rights law, EU countries should implement export controls on cyber-monitoring items exported from customs zones in the EU. Cyber surveillance items are specially designed to monitor, extract, collect or analyze data such as biometrics through intrusion of information and communication systems or deep packet hijacking. However, items used for purely commercial programs such as billing, marketing, quality service, user satisfaction or network security are excluded. 3) Expansion of the Catch-all system: EU countries should utilize the catch-all system to strengthen export controls on cyber-monitoring items, including dual-use items. 4) Strengthening control over the cloud: Exporters and EU countries should extend the scope of intangible technology transfer, such as electronic media, fax, and telephone, outside the EU’s customs territory, and apply export control regulations such as general or comprehensive licenses to cloud transmissions outside the EU territory. 5) Introduction of large-scale project authorization: To reduce the administrative burden on enterprises (especially small and medium-sized enterprises) and authorities when exporters with individual or collective licenses export to one or more specific end-users for the purpose of large scale projects, provided that they ensure the implementation of an appropriate level of export controls; EU countries may introduce large-scale project license systems in the form of general authorization. Recently, there is a possibility that the ROK would export its nuclear technologies including APR1400 to the EU member countries in the midst of the EU adoption of carbon-zero policy. In this paper, we have analyzed the EU export control regulations and suggested the future direction of nuclear export control programs in the ROK.

In August 2021, in response to the rapidly changing trade environment, including the advancement of Information Communication Technology (ICT) and its services, the European Union (EU) implemented the Dual-Use Items Control Regulation 821/2021 to introduce an Internal Compliance Program (ICP) to the EU countries. Accordingly, the exporters should comply with the regulation to strengthen their transactions review systems. Sweden, Germany, France, and the United Kingdom have implemented ICPs and outreach activities for dual use items. In particular, France explicitly stipulates the introduction of ICP in the law to manage and supervise it. While Sweden, Germany, and the United Kingdom strengthen the supervisory authority of regulatory agencies then companies are encouraged to autonomously introduce ICPs. Before introducing the ICP for the trigger list items (the items) to the Republic of Korea (ROK), a comprehensive export license system for them should be firstly considered based on EU Regulations. Also the comprehensive export license might be implemented by expanding the subject for the existing license on technology export of nuclear plant into the items. The ROK does not introduce an ICP as it does not recognize a self-classification on the items in accordance with the nuclear export control law. However, in preparation for the export to the EU countries that have intentions to introduce nuclear plants, it is necessary to analyze the export control programs of Sweden, Germany, France, and the United Kingdom. Like the programs of Sweden, Germany and the United Kingdom, the EU regulations might be adopted to reduce the regulation burden in the ROK. With the reference of Sweden, the authority could support the Export Control Manager Certification (ECMC) system accredited by civil association then its outreach activities could be diverse and extended. Basically, the ECMC system could consist of Part I, II, III and IV and an applicant could be accredited by a civil association as the ECM after completing the courses of Part I and II. The ECMC courses might be as follow; 1) Part I: the Basic common course for beginner 2) Part II: the National export control system for the items 3) Part III: the International export control regulations 4) Part IV: Re-Certification within the certain period In this paper, we analyzed the export control programs in Sweden, Germany, France, and the United Kingdom and suggested the ECMC system that might be applied to the ROK as above.

Korea Institute of Nuclear Non-proliferation and Control (KINAC) Safeguards division and Export control division operate regulation management system each other according to their work scope and characteristics. Korea Safeguards Information System (KSIS) of Safeguards division handles information for nuclear material accounting and control. Especially, accounting and declaration reports submitted to International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) are important information in this system. And Nuclear Import and Export Control System (NEPS) of Export control division deals with import and export information of nuclear materials and nuclear weapon trigger list items. Establishing and operating the integrated database as sharing information between KSIS and NEPS derive merits as follows. First, the full cycle of nuclear material transfer records can be managed by collecting information on the nuclear materials from import to export or disposal. In addition, regulatory body can verify inconsistency between transfer records and account records in date, location, element, mass etc. Especially, small quantity nuclear materials are major loop hole in nuclear material accountancy system. The accumulated material transfer data will give an evidence to catch loss nuclear material. Second, sharing the information on nuclear fuel cycle related research and development activities in both divisions can utilize the information to outreach on facility subject to nuclear technology transfer for Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) and additional protocol declaration for Safeguards Agreement with IAEA. Third, regulatory body is easily able to manage entire import and IAEA report procedure for items subject to the Nuclear Cooperation Agreement (NCA). In present, KINAC regulation on NCA is divided to Export control and Safeguards. Export control division conducts classification imported items subject to NCA and acquires prior consent or notifies to other country. And Safeguards division report inventory list for each NCA country to the ROK government once a year. Imported NCA inventory list will be generated automatically by merging database. Then, it can be easily verified without any additional process by both divisions.

With the rapid improvement of hardware and software-related IT technology, applying A.I. to the private and public sectors, such as the Food Poisoning Prevention Program in Nevada and Smart City based on big data in Boston, is steadily increasing. However, the cases of application to the regulation sector of government are still insufficient. The Korea Institute of Nonproliferation and Control (KINAC) is studying to apply A.I. technology to the regulation to improve the objectivity, consistency, and efficiency of classification and export licensing review. The KINAC developed the Nation Nuclear Technology Information Collection and Analysis System using A.I. techniques such as machine learning and deep learning techniques. KINAC and FNC Technology are developing the Export Risk Assessment System using A.I. modules and Bayesian Networks. The KINAC and Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute (KAERI) are developing an inventory history management system subject to the Nuclear Cooperation Agreements. The Nuclear Safety and Security Commission (NSSC) and KINAC operate the Nuclear Import and Export Control System (NEPS) for application and export license review according to relevant laws such as the Foreign Trade Act. Therefore, preparing an integration plan for the existing NEPS and the new systems is necessary. Since the NEPS has to be operated and accessible at all times, so the stability of the NEPS is the most important when integration and linking. So, it is suggested that the Collection and Analysis System and the Risk Assessment System, which require a lot of data traffic, are configured in a server separate from the NEPS, and the new DB and the NEPS DB are only linked. An inventory history management system is also suggested to be integrated and configured into the NEPS. Third, it is recommended that each system lists the information provided to or received from the NEPS in advance, and one-way communication should be performed basically. Two-way communication should be performed when necessary. Finally, against various cyber accidents and information leakage, it is proposed to review security vulnerabilities and apply essential security measures and guidelines. Through the integration and linkage of these systems, it is expected that the objectivity, consistency, and efficiency of classification and export licensing review of the KINAC are strengthened, and national transparency of development, production, and use of nuclear material is enhanced. It can be satisfied with the increasingly strengthened demands of the international community on duty for strategic item management.

Japan has argued that its recently introduced export control measures toward the Republic of Korea (ROK) are consistent with relevant international guidelines. The ROK has rejected this view and claims that Japan’s measures are inconsistent with World Trade Organization (WTO) law. If a WTO Panel is established to adjudicate this matter, the national security exception clause, specifically Article XXI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (GATT 1994), is likely to be invoked. Russia–Measures concerning Traffic in Transit is one of the few cases in which a WTO Panel has rendered a decision on this article. In general, the doctrine of precedents does not strictly apply; however, it hints that the Panel may require objective arguments to be provided despite the clause’s “self-judging” nature. On its face, Japan appears to have a stronger case, but the Panel would nonetheless be required to make a difficult decision.