President to Remove Cuba’s Terrorism Designation: Most Sanctions Remain in Effect

Apr 16, 2015

Reading Time : 3 min

Importantly, while Cuba’s removal from the SSOT list may ease certain sanctions, as discussed below, most components of the U.S. embargo are not based upon an SSOT designation and will remain in place (e.g., the Helms-Burton Act specifically identifies Cuba and is not linked to Cuba’s designation as an SSOT). The president has not yet announced amendments to U.S. regulations governing dealings with Cuba as a result of its removal from the list of SSOTs, but any regulatory changes should be carefully reviewed with counsel before engaging in any transactions with Cuba.

With that in mind, the removal of Cuba as an SSOT may affect trade with Cuba in several limited ways:

  • Potential Eligibility for Expanded Licensing of Dual-Use Items to Cuba: The EAA required the U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) to notify certain congressional committees before issuing any license for exports above a certain value of items controlled on the Commerce Control List (CCL) to countries identified as an SSOT. Commerce implemented this policy via their Export Administration Regulations (EAR), which prohibit most exports and rexports to Cuba of goods, technology and software controlled pursuant to the CCL unless the export is authorized pursuant to a specific license or license exception. Commerce reviews such license applications under a presumption of denial unless the export meets certain conditions (e.g., medicines and medical devices, telecommunications equipment, etc.). While the original statutory authority for the EAR (the EAA) lapsed in 2001, the EAR have been maintained under authority granted to the president by the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA). Once Cuba is removed from the SSOT list, Commerce would have the option to amend the EAR to license a wider range of dual-use items for export to Cuba. However, given the statutory constraints in laws such as Helms-Burton that generally limit exports to those in support of the Cuban people, licensing changes will be relatively modest and will not ease restrictions on highly controlled dual-use or military items.
  • Fewer Prohibitions on Financial Transactions Involving Cuba: Under 31 C.F.R. Part 596.201, U.S. persons are prohibited from engaging in a financial transaction with the government of a designated SSOT, absent authorization from the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC). Again, however, other sanctions relating to Cuba and administered by OFAC that may involve financial transactions should remain unaffected.
  • Greater Eligibility for Foreign Aid to Cuba: Once Cuba is removed as an SSOT, the statutory restrictions on foreign aid under the Foreign Assistance Act will no longer apply, provided the assistance is not in violation of other aspects of the Cuba embargo. However, other laws may continue to restrict the likelihood of such aid. For instance, Helms-Burton will still mandate that the U.S. government oppose Cuba’s induction into international financial institutions such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. If Cuba is admitted as a member to such organizations over the opposition of the United States, the president must reduce U.S. funding for such institutions.
  • Fewer Allowances for Private Rights of Action for Terrorism: The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) of 1976 was amended in 2008 to allow victims of state-sponsored terrorism to file private rights of action in U.S. courts against SSOTs. These rights of action are tied to the SSOT designation and once Cuba is removed, private rights of action allowed under the FSIA against Cuba may be unavailable to claimants.

Other federal and state government agencies, including the SEC’s Office of Global Security Risk and state banking regulators or agencies administering state divestment laws, may also be affected by the removal of Cuba as an SSOT. At this point, however, it does not appear that this removal of the SSOT status will result in significant changes to U.S. sanctions and export controls targeting Cuba.

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

Trade Law

July 19, 2024

Views expressed by Alan Yanovich.1

...

Read More

Trade Law

February 9, 2023

With the enactment of the U.S. Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) and the announcement of the European Union (EU) Green Deal Industrial Plan, there is now a full-fledged subsidy war between the United States and the European Union. While these subsidies are meant to encourage green technologies, incentivizing firms to produce locally would seem to be an almost as important policy goal. And it is not limited to the U.S. and the EU. Global Trade Alert recently reported that, in 2022, production subsidies accounted for half of all trade-distorting measures, making it the mostly commonly used harmful trade policy measure.1

...

Read More

Trade Law

2023-01-26

At the end of last year, World Trade Organization (WTO) members agreed that the 13th Ministerial Conference (MC13) of the WTO will take place in Abu Dhabi, the capital of the United Arab Emirates (UAE), in February 2024. There is no doubt that the WTO is facing headwinds and is in need of a vigorous push forward. The UAE’s success in transforming itself into a global trade and digital hub and a leader in services trade could serve to drive a successful outcome at MC13.

...

Read More

Trade Law

2023-01-17

On December 21, 2022, the appeal arbitrators in the Colombia – Frozen Fries (DS591) World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute circulated their award (the “Award”). This was the second appeal conducted under Article 25 of the WTO’s Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU) and the first appeal under the Multi-Party Interim Appeal Arbitration Arrangement (MPIA), a framework created by a group of WTO members to overcome the challenges posed by the non-operational Appellate Body.

...

Read More

Trade Law

2022-02-10

The United Kingdom just issued a new statutory instrument, effective immediately, which extends the authority to designate persons and entities under the U.K. sanctions against Russia.

...

Read More

Trade Law

2022-01-24

Washington, D.C. partner Kevin Wolf, London partner Jasper Helder and Emily Kilcrease with the Center for New American Security submitted a detailed comment to U.S. and EU export control authorities to help guide and inform efforts to rationalize U.S. and EU export controls.  It can also be a useful resource for anyone interested in the topic and wanting to understand the history and context to current export control policy issues. They note that the US-EU Joint Statement on the role and purpose of export controls “is far more significant than generally recognized because it is the first time the EU (represented by the EC) or any other US ally has stated so explicitly and publicly since the end of the Cold War an agreement with the US that export controls should be used to achieve country-specific and other policy objectives not directly related to weapons of mass destruction or conventional military items.”

...

Read More

Trade Law

2020-06-10

We are pleased to share a recording of Akin Gump’s webinar, “Protecting the Crown Jewels - New U.K. National Security Rules for Foreign Investment in a Post-COVID-19, Post-Brexit World.

...

Read More

© 2024 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.