No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 February 2017
The material in this section is arranged according to the system employed in the annual Digest of United States Practice in International Law, published by the Department of State.
1 Reprinted in 18 ILM 873 (1979). For the hearings, see Taiwan: Hearings Before the Senate Comm. on Foreign Relations on S. 245, 96th Cong., 1st Sess. (1979), and Taiwan Legislation: Hearings Before the House Comm. on Foreign Affairs, 96th Cong., 1st Sess. (1979).
2 For the background, see 73 AJIL 277-80 (1979).
3 H.R. Rep. 26, 96th Cong., 1st Sess. 8 (1979).
4 See, for the report of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations on S. 245, S. Rep. 7, 99th Cong., 1st sess. (1979), which stated that the Committee on Foreign Relations had focused on 5 major issues during its consideration of S. 245:
(1) the negotiations on normalization of relations with the People’s Republic of China;
(2) the security of Taiwan;
(3) legal matters not relating to specific sections of the bill;
(4) the international political implications of normalization; and
(5) the economic impact of normalization.
Under “Legal Issues,” the committee commented on the international legal status of Taiwan and concluded that “it was unnecessary, in drafting this legislation, to address [the status of Taiwan under international law] since, for purposes of United States domestic law, the Executive Branch can be empowered, statutorily, to treat Taiwan as if it were a state. This is, in fact, precisely what the bill does. . . .” Id. at 17.
5 H.R. Rep. 26, supra note 3, at 8–10.
6 H.R. Rep. 71, 96th Cong., 1st Sess. 16 (1979).
7 In its report, supra note 4, the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations commented on the American Institute in Taiwan, in part as follows:
The Institute is a private corporation, organized under the Nonprofit Corporation Act of the District of Columbia. . . . Its activities will be controlled by means of a contract executed between the Institute and the Department of State. . . .
The United States has on many occasions contracted with nongovernmental organizations to undertake specific activities in the field of foreign policy. Examples are contracts between the U.S. Government and American universities (both public and private) to carry out training programs as part of foreign aid programs, and contracts with private business firms to undertake economic development projects abroad.
However, the Committee is not aware of (and the Administration has not cited) any prior examples in which such extensive and varied functions as are normally performed by governmental entities have been authorized to be performed by nongovernmental entities. It is unlikely that such an arrangement would be struck down on legal grounds as an “excessive delegation” since that doctrine has had little viability in American law for the past forty years—especially in the foreign affairs area. But concern was expressed in the hearings and by individual Senators regarding the desirability of such an arrangement from a policy standpoint. These concerns prompted many of the changes and additions made by the Committee to the legislation originally proposed by the Administration, especially with respect to issues of oversight, including the reporting of agreements concluded through the Institute. . . .
In effect, the Committee has chosen to accept the Administration’s contention that the uniqueness of the situation, and the importance of both normalizing relations with the People’s Republic of China and maintaining relations with the people on Taiwan, warrant the extraordinary arrangements envisioned in this bill. At the same time, the Committee has written into the legislation a number of provisions which safeguard the powers and prerogatives of the Congress respecting the functions normally performed by government which are to be performed in this case by the Institute. Finally, the Committee added a new section . . . assuring that the provisions of this bill will preempt any provision of state or local law with which it might be deemed to come into conflict as a result of the privately incorporated nature of the Institute.
S. Rep. 7, supra note 4, at 20.
8 In addition to the services for U.S. citizens on Taiwan that section 7 authorized employees of the American Institute in Taiwan to perform, the Department of State amended its immigrant visa regulations in two respects, both effective April 23, 1979. Title 22, Code of Federal Regulations, section 42.114, “Personal appearance,” was amended to permit aliens in Taiwan applying for immigrant visas to appear personally before a designated officer of the American Institute in Taiwan in connection with execution of the immigrant visa application (44 Fed. Reg. 28659 (1979)). Title 22, Code of Federal Regulations, section 42.117(b), “Execution of visa application,” was amended to permit immigrant visa applications to be signed and sworn to, or affirmed, by or on behalf of an applicant before a designated officer of the American Institute in Taiwan (44 Fed. Reg. 24285 (1979)).
9 When signing the Taiwan Relations Act on April 10, 1979, President Carter announced that the people on Taiwan would conduct relations through the Coordination Council for North American Affairs, a nongovernmental organization. 15 Weekly Comp. of Pres. Doc. 640 (Apr. 16, 1979).
10 44 Fed. Reg. 37191-37192 (1979).
1 Dept. of State File No. P79 0105–2166.
1 Dept. of State File No. P79 0117–0441.
1 Dept. of State File P79 0084–1452.