The 2025 amendments to the EU’s Common Position (originally 2008/944/CFSP) mark a significant shift in the bloc’s arms export policy, emphasizing a stronger commitment to human rights, international law, and enhanced oversight. 

Notable changes include updated language around “restrictive measures”, clearer emphasis on the protection of women and children, and expanded responsibilities in end-use monitoring. The revised position introduces explicit criteria for avoiding the circumvention of export controls and addresses the risks associated with small arms and light weapons. It also reinforces collaboration among Member States, mandating deeper information-sharing on risk assessments and end-use. These reforms are expected to raise the bar for compliance and ethical scrutiny in the export of military and dual-use goods across the EU.

For companies in the defense and dual-use space, these changes shift the compliance landscape. Below, we break down the notable amendments and how they ripple through EU’s export control framework. We outline concrete steps businesses should take to adapt, turning what could be seen as compliance burdens into an opportunity to strengthen operations and trust.

This article was written by Herman Annink ([email protected]), Sefa Geçikli ([email protected]) and Marius Ungureanu ([email protected]). Marius and Sefa are part of RSM Netherlands Business Consulting Services, specifically focusing on International Trade and Strategy.   

Why the EU Tightened Export Controls in 2025

In an era of intensifying geopolitical tension and rapid defense innovation, the European Union has sharpened its rules on exporting military and high-tech goods. 2025 brings a pivotal update to the Council’s Common Position, one of the the EU’s key instruments on arms export control. This revision, the first major overhaul since 2019, it’s a call for businesses to expand and use the increased demand from governments and industry in a responsible manner. By tightening criteria and aligning military and dual-use regulations, the EU is sending a clear message that growth in defense and technology sectors must go hand-in-hand with robust compliance and ethical safeguards.

Rising geopolitical rivalries, and a surge in defense spending have prompted Europe to boost its military capacity. Yet, with increased arms production and transfers comes greater responsibility. EU Member States recognized that the rules needed an update to address new risks, from human rights abuses to sanction evasion, that have emerged over the past decade. The revised Common Position is the EU’s response: ensuring that “ReArm Europe” efforts and expanding defense industries do not come at the cost of European values or security. This update reflects Europe’s commitment to a more unified and principled approach to arms exports, closing loopholes and strengthening oversight at a critical time.

Key Changes in the EU’s Common Position on Arms Exports (2008/944/CFSP)

The 2025 amendments to the Common Position introduce several important changes to the criteria and procedures governing military exports. These changes impact how governments evaluate export license applications and by extension, how companies must manage their export compliance. The most notable updates include:

• From Sanctions to Restrictive Measures: All references to international sanctions have been updated to “restrictive measures”. This terminology shift aligns with the EU’s broader legal language and makes clear that arms embargoes and other restrictive actions (not only formal sanctions) are factors in licensing. For businesses, this means staying alert to the full spectrum of EU and UN restrictive measures, beyond just sanctions lists when vetting potential deals. If your export might contravene any UN or EU imposed arms embargo or related measure, it will be caught by the new wording.
• Human Rights Emphasis – Protecting Women and Children: The revised criteria place a stronger spotlight on human rights, explicitly including risks of gender-based violence and violence against women or children. Previously, it required denying a license if there was a clear risk of internal repression or serious human rights violations. The amendment explicitly adds situations where the exported technology might be used to commit or facilitate gender-based violence or violence against women and children. It also underscores assessing the general human rights situation in the destination country. This heightened focus means defense and dual use goods exporters must do deeper due diligence on how their products could be misused to harm civilians, particularly women and children. A deal that might have passed the scrutinty before could now be rejected on human rights grounds if these specific risks can’t be mitigated.
• Enhanced End-Use Monitoring and Verification: The EU has moved away from when an end-user certificate was a one-and-done checkbox. The updated Common Position gives Member States a green light to enforce post-delivery checks. Article 5 now makes it clear that countries can require additional end-use monitoring tools. For example, asking end-users to agree to on-site verifications or periodic reports on the equipment’s use. For companies, this translates to potential new obligations during and after export. Your customer might need to consent to future verification of how they use your product, and your export license could hinge on that agreement. Businesses will need to build these assurances into contracts and be prepared to support authorities in monitoring end-use compliance over a product’s lifecycle.
• Closing Loopholes: Anti-Circumvention and Diversion Risks: A major addition is criteria specifically aimed at preventing the circumvention of export controls and addressing the risks posed by small arms and light weapons. The Common Position now calls out the risk of exported items being used to circumvent UN or EU restrictive measures (for instance, being re-exported to a sanctioned regime via a third country). It also adds a consideration for exports that could aggravate conflict or fuel illegal activities due to the nature of the equipment, explicitly highlighting the diversion of small arms and light weapons. In practice, exporters of items like firearms or ammunition must be extra vigilant, even a sale to a seemingly benign destination could be denied if there’s a chance those arms might be trafficked onward to conflict zones or criminal groups. Companies should strengthen their supply chain and customer vetting to ensure their products won’t be a backdoor to embargoed actors.
• Strengthened Member State Cooperation and Information-Sharing: The revised policy substantially expands requirements for collaboration among EU countries. Article 7, once a brief note on cooperation, now obliges Member States to exchange detailed information on arms export risks. This includes sharing insights on sensitive destinations, end-users of concern, and consulting each other for risk assessments especially in cases of joint defense projects or multinational programs. For businesses this means greater consistency and communication among national licensing authorities. If one country denies a license due to a concern, others will likely know about it. Companies can expect more harmonized scrutiny across the EU, reducing the chance of searching for approval in another member state. Being transparent and proactive with authorities will become even more important in this cooperative framework.

In addition to the above, there are other noteworthy amendments: for example, Criterion Three (Article 2) now acknowledges a recipient’s legitimate self-defense needs, so that supporting an ally’s defense isn’t automatically seen as fueling a conflict. Lastly, the review cycle for these rules was extended, the next big review is scheduled for 2030.

Impact on Dual-Use Export Controls (Regulation (EU) 2021/821)

One of the most important aspects of the 2025 Common Position amendments is how it aligns with the EU’s Dual-Use Regulation (EU 2021/821), which governs exports of dual use items with civilian and military applications. Many companies engage in activities connected to military goods and dual-use goods, so understanding the effects on the Dual-Use Regulation becomes crucial in order to continue operating in a compliant manner. 

Dual-use exporters are already required to screen who is buying their product and for what purpose. With the Common Position raising the bar (e.g. looking at human rights and diversion risks in detail), authorities might align their enforcement in relation to dual use and military items. In practice, if you export dual-use software, electronics, cyber-surveillance items, etc. expect questions about whether your item could be used in ways that violate human rights or end up in unauthorized military use. The due diligence standard is rising across the board, companies must thoroughly vet customers, check ultimate end-use, and document these efforts. Under the dual-use regulation’s “catch-all” clauses, even an item not listed explicitly can require a license if it’s likely destined for WMD programs or military use in embargoed countries. With the amendments to the Common Position, the spirit of that principle – “know your customer’s customer” – is reinforced once again. The bottom line is that performing rigorous end-user and end-use checks is no longer just best practice, it’s expected and will be more strictly enforced.

Secondly, the updated Common Position explicitly references the Dual-Use Regulation (EU 2021/821) in place of the outdated law (Regulation (EC) No 1334/2000), signalling alignment with current dual-use controls. There is a clear trend to sync the two systems. Both frameworks now emphasize preventing undesirable end-use (like human rights abuses or circumvention of sanctions) and encourage information-sharing among authorities. This alignment means fewer gaps for exporters to exploit and a more coherent approach by regulators. For instance, if a company tries to export a surveillance technology (a dual-use item) that could be used for internal repression, given the EU’s integrated stance on human rights, companies might discover that there is little to no practical difference in the licensing process for a dual use and military item. Companies should ensure their compliance programs treat military and dual-use exports as part of one holistic risk, not separate silos. If something would raise a red flag under arms criteria, it likely does under dual-use rules now, and vice versa.

Lastly, with more complex rules and closer oversight, having a strong Internal Compliance Program is becoming ever more important. In fact, under the Dual-Use Regulation, exporters must establish an internal compliance program to qualify for certain broad authorisations (like global export licenses). This requirement is very much in line with the Common Position’s intent: regulators want assurance that companies have internal controls to prevent violations. A robust ICP covers things like regular staff training, clear accountability for compliance decisions, screening procedures, record-keeping, and audit mechanisms. If your business wants to take advantage of global or general licenses (which simplify repeated exports), investing in an ICP is a must. Moreover, if something goes wrong, demonstrating that you had a serious compliance system can be a critical mitigating factor. The new shift in export controls means regulators will ask not just “Did you follow the rules?” but also “Do you have a system to ensure you can keep following the rules?”

In summary, dual-use and military export controls are converging towards a common goal: mitigating risk while allowing legitimate trade. Companies that manufacture dual-use tech with potential military applications (from encryption software to drones) should pay attention to the values and criteria in the Common Position, because they reflect the EU’s mindset that will inform dual-use licensing as well. The convergence also means a more level playing field, those with high compliance standards will find it easier to navigate both systems, whereas those who rely on regulatory loopholes will find doors closing.

Action Points for Businesses Exporting Military or Dual-Use Items

Faced with these regulatory shifts, businesses might feel overwhelmed. But proactive adaptation now will save time and resources for later.

1. Review and Update Your Internal Compliance Program (ICP): Immediately assess your export control compliance program. Does it cover the new criteria (human rights, gender-based violence, sanctions circumvention)? Update policies and checklists accordingly. Ensure your ICP meets the standards expected by authorities, remember that an ICP is now often a prerequisite for global export authorisations.
2. Enhance End-User and End-Use Verification Procedures: Perform deeper due diligence on customers and intermediaries. Update your screening tools and databases to flag not only sanctioned parties but also those in conflict zones or with poor human rights records. Consider incorporating open-source intelligence or third-party risk reports into your vetting process. Introduce contractual clauses that the buyer will not re-export without permission and will cooperate with any post-shipment verification.
3. Train Your Staff on the New Rules: Your sales teams, export officers, logistics and legal departments all need to understand the 2025 changes. Conduct targeted training sessions explaining how the Common Position criteria have changed and what that means for daily operations.
4. Engage in Closer Cooperation with Authorities and Partners: Don’t view regulators as adversaries. The new cooperation mandate among Member States suggests that open communication is more welcome than ever. If you’re unsure about a transaction’s risk, consider seeking a third party opinion Participate in industry forums or public-private dialogues on export control if available, these can give insight into regulators’ thinking. Likewise, work with your supply chain partners to ensure they also comply; a weak link can jeopardize you. By fostering a reputation as a transparent, responsible exporter, you not only reduce the chance of license denials but also position yourself as a trusted partner in sensitive collaborations.
5. Prepare for Stricter Audits and Reporting Requirements: With more emphasis on compliance, authorities may increase audits of exporters and demand more detailed reporting on how licenses are used. Ensure your record-keeping is impeccable keep all documents related to an export (licenses, invoices, end-use certificates, shipping records, communication with buyers) organized and retained for the required period (and perhaps longer if criteria have expanded). Conduct internal audits of your export files to catch any compliance gaps before an official inspection does. Being audit-ready is not just about avoiding penalties; it gives you peace of mind and confidence when questions arise.

By taking these steps, businesses will not only meet the letter of the new laws but also strengthen their overall operational resilience. A company with a strong compliance culture can move faster on opportunities because it manages risks effectively, it knows when to proceed and when to pause.

Forward Thinking

The revised EU Common Position and its tighter dual-use control alignment should not be seen simply as hurdles to clear, but as an opportunity for forward-thinking businesses. Companies that internalize these norms early will find themselves ahead of the curve. In fact, strong compliance is a competitive advantage. European defense contracts and international tech partnerships increasingly favor contractors with proven compliance track records. Demonstrating that your firm can deliver cutting-edge products and uphold the highest standards of responsibility makes you a partner of choice in a sensitive market and trusted community. Conversely, firms that are lacking may find themselves locked out of lucrative projects due to compliance concerns or facing reputational damage. The companies that thrive in this environment will be those who see compliance not as a checkbox, but as a core element of their strategy and sustainability. In the long run, aligning with these higher standards will help your business grow more sustainably and ethically and enjoying the rewards of trust that come with it.

RSM is a thought leader in the field of Strategy and International Trade consulting. We offer frequent insights through training and sharing of thought leadership based on a detailed knowledge of industry developments and practical applications in working with our customers. If you want to know more, please contact one of our consultants.