The EU Dual-use Regulation, cyber-surveillance and human rights: the competing norms and organised hypocrisy of EU export controls

ABSTRACT This article analyses the process and outcome of the review and recast of the EU Dual-use Regulation which concluded in 2020. The recast was dominated by conflicts both among EU member states and between the European Council, European Commission and European Parliament about the interlinked issues of expanding the range of human rights states should consider when implementing the Regulation and controlling exports of “cyber-surveillance items”. The processes through which states individually and collectively determine their content of their export controls are often portrayed as a zero-sum contest between “norms” and “interests”. This article argues that the recast can be better understood if it is viewed as a competition between different constitutive and regulative norms grounded in humanitarian, economic and national security concerns. The article also argues that the outcome of the recast can be better understood if we apply Brunsson’s concept of “organized hypocrisy” and view it as a set of compromises which sought to address several competing norms. The article concludes by reflecting on the potential wider application of the “competing norms” and “organized hypocrisy” frameworks for other studies of states’ export controls and export control regimes.