Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T20:15:34.961Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Contemporary Practice of the United States Relating to International Law

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

Marian Nash Leich
Marian Nash Leich*
Affiliation:
Department of State
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

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.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Other
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 83 , Issue 1 , January 1989 , pp. 63 - 85
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1989

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Dept. of State Files L/T.

2 In the Agreement, supra note 1, the two Governments affirm that navigation and resource development in the Arctic must not adversely affect the unique environment of the region and the well-being of its inhabitants. They also agree to develop cooperative procedures to facilitate icebreaker navigation in their respective Arctic waters, and to take advantage of their icebreaker navigation to develop and share research information, “in accordance with generally accepted principles of international law.” See further 82 AJIL 340 (1988).

3 American Embassy, Ottawa, Note No. 425 to the Canadian Department for External Affairs, Oct. 10, 1988, also at Dept. of State File No. P88 0129-0576. The Canadian reply, received the same day, is at id., No. 0129-0579.

1 Signed at Berne Sept. 9, 1886, completed at Paris May 4, 1896, revised at Berlin Nov. 13, 1908, completed at Berne Mar. 20, 1914, and revised at Rome June 2, 1928, at Brussels June 26, 1948, at Stockholm July 14, 1967, and at Paris July 24, 1971.

2 See 7 M. Whiteman, Digest of International Law 883–84 (1970).

3 Sept. 6, 1952, 6 UST 2731, TIAS No. 3324, 6 UNTS 132, revised July 24, 1971, 25 UST 1341, TIAS No. 7868.

4 Pub. L. No. 94–553, 90 Stat. 2541 (1976) (codified at 17 U.S.C.).

5 S. Exec. Rep. No. 17, 100th Cong., 2d Sess. 2–5 (1988).

6 S. Treaty Doc. No. 27, 99th Cong., 2d Sess. III–IV (1986).

7 For Mr. Oman’s statement, see S. Exec. Rep. No. 17, supra note 5, at 22.

8 134 Cong. Rec. S16939, S16941 (daily ed. Oct. 21, 1988).

9 Pub. L. No. 100–568, 102 Stat. 2853 (1988) (to be codified at 17 U.S.C. §101 note). On Oct. 12, the House of Representatives had concurred in the Senate’s amendments to H.R. 4262. 134 Cong. Rec. H10091–98 (daily ed. Oct. 12, 1988). For final Senate action on the bill, see id. at S14544–47, S14549–67 (daily ed. Oct. 5, 1988).

1 S.J. Res. 241, 100th Cong., 2d Sess. (1988).

2 134 Cong. Rec. S2677 (daily ed. Mar. 21, 1988).

3 H.R. Doc. NO. 128, 100th Cong., 1st Sess. (1987).

4 Pub. L. No. 95–242, 92 Stat. 142 (1978).

5 Pub. L. No. 99–64, 99 Stat. 159, 160 (1985) (codified at 42 U.S.C. §2153(b) and (d)).

6 H.R. Doc. No. 128, supra note 3, at 201.

7 Id. at 203.

8 Id. at 205–56.

9 Feb. 26, 1968, 19 UST 5214, TIAS No. 6517, asamended, 23 UST 275 and 24 UST 2323.

10 June 16, 1958, 9 UST 1383, TIAS No. 4133, as amended, 10 UST 70 and 15 UST 282.

11 H.R. Doc. No. 128, supra note 3, at 239–40.

12 See Dept. of State Staff Secretariat Log No. 8736644, S. Rep. No. 275, 100th Cong., 1st Sess., App. at 17–19 (1987).

13 United States-Japan Nuclear Cooperation Agreement: Hearings Before the House Comm. on Foreign Affairs, 100th Cong., 1st and 2d Sess. 270 (1987, 1988) (Letter dated Dec. 21, 1987, from Congressman Mel Levine et al.) [hereinafter House Hearings].

14 See id. at 273; 134 Cong. Rec. S2668 (daily ed. Mar. 21, 1988); Dept. of State File No. P88 0063-0943.

15 Dept. of State File No. P88 0063-0943; 134 Cong. Rec., supra note 14, at S2669–71; House Hearings, supra note 13, at 276–86, as corrected, at 300–03.

The legal memorandum included as an attachment an earlier discussion of the legal basis for advance consent agreements, set out in a letter from Assistant Legal Adviser Ronald J. Bettauer to Assistant General Counsel Robert H. Hunter, U.S. General Accounting Office, dated Dec. 3, 1985, also found id. at 285–89, 300, 303; and Dept. of State File No. P88 0070–0480.

16 House Hearings, supra note 13, at 463–502. For comments by the executive branch, see id. at 503–20.

17 Id. at 521–24. For an analysis by the Department of State of suspension rights under the Agreement, see id. at 525–32.

18 Dept. of State File No. P88 0138–1900.

19 See also submissions of the same subsequent arrangements by the Department of Energy, Apr. 15, 1988, in House Hearings, supra note 13, at 554–706.

20 June 11, 1960, 11 UST 2589, TIAS No. 4650, as extended and amended, 13 UST 1439, 14 UST 1459, and 24 UST 472.

The Agreement for Cooperation between the Government of the United States of America and the European Atomic Energy Community (EURATOM) Concerning Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy, Nov. 8, 1958, 10 UST 75, TIAS No. 4173, had expired on Dec. 31, 1985. By an exchange of notes on Dec. 16 and 17, 1985, however, the United States and EURATOM, noting that Article V of the 1960 Additional Agreement incorporated by reference Articles IV, V, VI [VI D], XI, XII, XV and Annex B of the Agreement of Nov. 8, 1958, agreed that upon expiration of the latter, EURATOM would hold as subject to the 1960 Additional Agreement ail materials, equipment and devices subject to the expiring 1958 Agreement. Dept. of State Files L/T.

21 Jan. 12, 1984, TIAS No. 10,979.

22 Pub. L. No. 100–203, 101 Stat. 1330–251/1330–253 (42 U.S.C. §5841 note).

23 Notification of the further subsequent arrangement with Japan had been transmitted to Congress by the Department of Energy on Sept. 20, 1988. H.R. Doc. No. 231, 100th Cong., 2d Sess. (1988).

Congressional concerns about the physical security measures for sea shipments, contained in the proposed further subsequent arrangement modifying the Annex 5 guidelines were set out in a letter to President Reagan from Chairman Pell and Senator Jesse A. Helms, dated Oct. 5, 1988, and in a letter to Secretary of State Shultz from Chairman Fascell and Congressman Stephen J. Solarz, dated Oct. 12, 1988. Afterwards, by substantively identical letters dated Dec. 22, 1988, Acting Secretary of State Whitehead provided a “comprehensive reply” on behalf of the administration to these and other concerns of the committees. See Dept. of State File Nos. P88 0146-1499, P89 0001-0482, P89 0001-0488, and P89 0001-0494; in response to id., Nos. P88 0146-1596 and P88 0123-1095.