No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Contemporary Practice of the United States Relating to International Law
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 February 2017
Abstract
An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Other
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © American Society of International Law 1981
References
page 937 note 1 Dept. of State File No. P81 0101–1084.
The new travel advisory strengthened for Libya a travel advisory issued on Nov. 27, 1979 for most of the Middle East countries. The Department had recommended that U.S. citizens undertake only essential travel in the Middle East in view of unsettled conditions then prevailing.
On May 7 the Department reiterated to representatives of American companies in Libyathat they would be well-advised to withdraw their employees, or at the very least their employees’ dependents. The Department pointed out that the American Embassy in Tripoli had been closed, that the Libyan Government had refused to allow the United States to designate another country as protecting power for American interests in Libya, and that the United States was therefore not in a position, either directly or indirectly, to provide consular protection and assistance to Americans then in Libya.
page 938 note 2 Id., No. P81 0078–1396.
page 939 note 3 Id., No. P81 0102–0961. See further 74 AJIL 917, 921–28 (1980).
page 939 note 1 Title 22 C.F.R. 1151.2(c) states:
c) Missions, as defined in Section 2 of the [Diplomatic Relations] Act, means missions within the meaning of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and any missions representing foreign governments, individually or collectively, which are extended the same privileges and immunities, pursuant to law, as are enjoyed by missions under the Vienna Convention.
Section 6 of the Diplomatic Relations Act (1978), 22 U.S.C. §254e (Supp. II 1978), sets out the compulsory liability insurance requirement which the regulations in 22 C.F.R., part 151implement. Section 7 of the Act creates, as a matter of federal law (28 U.S.C. §1364), a substantive right in an injured or damaged party to proceed against the insurance company, where the insured individual enjoys diplomatic immunity from suit.
page 941 note 2 Dept. of State File No. P81 0084–0791. See further 73 AJIL 122, 126–29 (1979).
page 942 note 1 See 75 AJIL 652, 652–54 (1981).
page 942 note 2 Dept. of State File No. P81 0096–1643.
Similar notes were sent to the Permanent Representatives of the other member states and the Permanent Observers at the Organization of American States, as well as to the Permanent Missions and Observers at the United Nations. Id., Nos. P81 0096–1648 and 0117–0647. The Principal Resident Representatives of international organizations in the United States were informed orally of the modified procedure.
page 942 note 1 Article 9 of the Vienna Consular Convention, “Classes of heads of consular posts,” reads:
-
1.
1. Heads of consular posts are divided into four classes, namely:
-
(a)
(a) Consuls-general;
-
(b)
(b) Consuls;
-
(c)
(c) Vice-consuls;
-
(d)
(d) Consular agents.
-
(a)
-
2.
2. Paragraph 1 of this article in no way restricts the right of any of the Contracting Parties to fix the designation of consular officers other than the heads of consular posts.
page 943 note 2 Dept. of State File No. P81 0099–0598, in reply to id., No. P81 0104–0960.
page 943 note 1 Signed Dec. 1, 1959, in force June 23, 1961, 12 UST 794, TIAS No. 4780.
page 943 note 2 For the Quadripartite Agreement on Berlin, with annexes, agreed minutes, and exchange of notes, done, Sept. 3, 1971, and the Final Quadripartite Agreement on Berlin, done June 3, 1972, see 24 UST 283, 348, TIAS No. 7551.
page 944 note 3 Dept. of State File No. P80 0115–0885, in reply to id., No. P79 0121–0756.
On May 5, 1955, the date of entry into force of the Bonn Conventions (Contractual Agreements), signed May 26, 1952, as amended by the Paris Protocol on the Termination of the Occupation Regime in the Federal Republic of Germany, signed Oct. 23, 1954, the Three Powers, the United States of America, the United Kingdom, and France, issued through the Allied Kommandatura Berlin the Declaration on Berlin (BKC/L [Berlin Kommandatura Commandants Letter] (55) 3, May 5, 1955), which granted to the Berlin authorities the maximum liberty compatible with the special situation of Berlin. For the Declaration, see Doc. No. 106, Documents on Berlin, 1943–1963, at 150–52 (2d rev. & enlarged ed., trans., Heidelmeyer & Hindrichs eds., 1963). For other instruments establishing the procedures for extending international agreements entered into by the Federal Republic to the Western Sectors of Berlin, see id., especially Docs. Nos. 84, at 130–32; 85, at 132–34; and 107, at 153.
In regard to the Occupation regime in Germany and its termination, see further 2 M.Whiteman, Digest of International Law 383–86 (1963).
page 945 note 4 Dept. of State File No. P81 0002–1116, in reply to id., No. P79 0121–0798.
In its capacity as depositary for the Antarctic Treaty, the United States circulated copies of the Soviet and Czech notes, as well as of its replies on behalf of the three Governments, to all states party to the Treaty as well as to all acceding states. See circular notes dated Aug. 6, 1979, id., No. P79 0121–0753, and Jan. 12, 1981, id., No. P81 0004–1285.
page 945 note 1 Sindona had been tried and found guilty by a jury verdict rendered on March 27, 1980.
In a second note, dated Feb. 5, 1981, the Embassy supplied a translation of Act No. 204, in response to a Department of Justice request for more information about the committee. Dept. of State File No. P81 0060–1271.
page 946 note 2 Dept. of State File Nos. P80 0141–1694 and P81 0037–2022.
When explaining its policy of refraining from assistance in foreign legislative investigations, the Department of Justice referred to “one recent case almost directly in point here,” In re Letters of Request to Examine Witnesses from the Court of Queen’s Bench for Manitoba, Canada (59 F.R.D. 625 (N.D. Cal. 1973), off d per curiam, 488 F.2d 511 (9th Cir. 1973)).
page 947 note 1 Dept. of State File No. P80 0060–2401.
The Department transmitted to the Embassy the National Roster and URESA/[Title]1 V–D Referral Guide, published by the National Reciprocal and Family Support Enforcement Association (Des Moines, Iowa) in July 1979, which contained lists of state Title IV –D agencies, URESA state information agents, and state parent locator services, and interstate enforcement information. It also forwarded texts of a declaration of reciprocity by the state of North Carolina in regard to the Federal Republic of Germany and of an opinion of the Attorney General of North Carolina. Finally, the Department included a list of states that had enacted the provisions of the 1968 revision of the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act allowing reciprocity with foreign jurisdictions, updated to Jan. 1980. (According to the Roster, supra, as published in July 1981, these appear to be: Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.)
page 947 note 2 For the note, and the Department of State’s reply, dated June 3, 1980, see Dept. of State File Nos. P80 0067–1056 and P80 0075–1791.
page 947 note 3 The discussions in Washington took place from July 1 to 3, 1980. A procés-verbal (minutes) in French and English is at id., P81 0061–2135.
page 948 note 4 The exchange of letters, dated Aug. 20, 1980, embodied a communication from the Department, the substantive paragraphs of which were to the following effect:
Pursuant to the discussions which took place in Washington on July 1–3, 1980 . . . ,
I have the honor to propose the following:
Considering that the issues relating to child custody, visitation rights and the enforcement of support orders come within the jurisdiction of the individual States of the United States,
It is agreed that a French delegation will contact the competent authorities of the States for the purpose of drawing up declarations of reciprocity or equivalence for the enforcement of legal decisions relating to child custody, visitation rights and the collection of child support payments.
I would be grateful if you would let me know whether the above provisions have the approval of your Government.
Ibid.