Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T23:36:38.363Z 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]

Extract

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.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 80 , Issue 1 , January 1986 , pp. 151 - 167
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1986

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 Earlier, on Sept. 9, 1985, when signing Executive Order No. 12532, “Prohibiting Trade and Certain Other Transactions Involving South Africa,” President Ronald Reagan stated that he had recalled the U.S. Ambassador to South Africa 3 months previously for consultation so that “he could participate in . . . [an] intensive review of the southern African situation” and that he was now sending the ambassador back with a message to South African President P. W. Botha “underlining our grave view of the current crisis and our assessment of what is needed to restore confidence abroad and move from confrontation to negotiation at home.” 21 Weekly Comp. Pres. Doc. 1049 (Sept. 16, 1985); Dept. St. Bull., No. 2103, Oct. 1985, at 2. For a discussion of Executive Order No. 12532, see infra p. 153.

2 The President received Ambassador Beukes on Nov. 5, 1985.

3 Dept. of State daily press briefing, DPC No. 168, Sept. 23, 1985.

1 Dept. of State Files L/T. The memorandum of understanding resulted from meetings among the parties at Washington, February 26-March 3, 1985; at Moscow, May 20–25, 1985; and at Tokyo, July 17–29, 1985. In a review of air traffic service enhancement in the Northern Pacific, it was noted that the United States had carried out plans for secondary radar on St. Paul Island, complemented by existing Japanese radar coverage of the route system. The parties agreed, also, to consider the possibility of using the radio broadcasting station in Petropavlovsk- Kamchatskiy as a nondirectional radio beacon.

1 50 Fed. Reg. 36,861 (1985).

2 Id.

3 For the regulations implementing this prohibition, see revisions to 27 C.F.R., pt. 47, issued on Oct. 7, 1985 and approved on Oct. 9, 1985, id. at 42,157.

4 See Dept. St. Bull., No. 2103, Oct. 1985, at 1; U.S. Policy toward South Africa: Hearings Before the Subcomm. on Africa of the House Comm. on Foreign Affairs, 96th Cong., 2d Sess. 416–17 (1980).

5 50 Fed. Reg. at 36,862–63.

6 Section 116 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, 22 U.S.C. §215 In, provides in paragraph (e)(1) for the use of development assistance funds to carry out programs and activities that will “encourage or promote increased adherence to civil and political rights, as set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,” in countries eligible for development assistance. The Department of State Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1984 and 1985, Pub. L. No. 98–164, approved Nov. 22, 1983, 97 Stat. 1052, authorized in sec. 1002(a)(1) use of $3 million for such purposes in each of those fiscal years. Paragraph (e)(2)(A) of sec. 116 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, added by sec. 1002(a)(3) of Pub. L. No. 98–164, directed that of the amounts made available to carry out sec. 116(e), amounts of $500,000 for fiscal year 1984 and $1 million for fiscal year 1985 were to be used for “grants to nongovernmental organizations in South Africa promoting political, economic, social, juridical, and humanitarian efforts to foster a just society and to help victims of apartheid.”

The International Security and Development Cooperation Act of 1985, Pub. L. No. 99–83, approved Aug. 8, 1985, 99 Stat. 190, 261, provided in sec. 802(d), “Human Rights Fund for South Africa,” that not less than 35% of the amount allocated for that fund under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, for each one of fiscal years 1986 and 1987 was to be used for

direct legal and other assistance to political detainees and prisoners and their families, including the investigation of the killing of protestors and prisoners, and for support for actions of black-led community organizations to resist, through non-violent means, the enforcement of apartheid policies such as—

(1) removal of black populations from certain geographic areas on account of race or ethnic origin,

(2) denationalization of blacks, including any distinctions between the South African citizenships of blacks and whites,

(3) residence restrictions based on race or ethnic origin,

(4) restrictions on the rights of blacks to seek employment in South Africa and live wherever they find employment in South Africa, and

(5) restrictions which make it impossible for black employees and their families to be housed in family accommodations near their place of employment.

Executive Order No. 12532 increases the authorized amount to be used for these purposes to $1.5 million for fiscal year 1986.

7 50 Fed. Reg. at 36,864.

8 Id. at 40,325.

9 For the implementing regulations, approved on Oct. 9, 1985, see id. at 41,682–84 (to be codified at 31 C.F.R., pt. 545).

The term “Krugerrands” includes all denominations and sizes, as well as those which have been modified, as by the addition of a clasp or loop, into items that can be worn as jewelry (31 C.F.R. 545.301). Reimportation into the United States of Krugerrand jewelry that was originally imported prior to Oct. 11, 1985 is not prohibited (31 C.F.R. 545.403).

1 Dept. of State File No. P85 0168–1609.

2 Article 11 provides, in effect, for tiers in the settlement of disputes. It reads:

1. In the event of a dispute between parties concerning the interpretation or application of this Convention, the parties concerned shall seek solution by negotiation.

2. If the parties concerned cannot reach agreement by negotiation, they may jointly seek the good offices of, or request mediation by, a third party.

3. When ratifying, accepting, approving or acceding to this Convention, or at any time thereafter, a State or regional economic integration organization may declare in writing to the Depositary that for a dispute not resolved in accordance with paragraph 1 or paragraph 2 above, it accepts one or both of the following means of dispute settlement as compulsory:

(a) Arbitration in accordance with procedures to be adopted by the Conference of the parties at its first ordinary meeting;

(b) Submission of the dispute to the International Court of Justice.

4. If the parties have not, in accordance with paragraph 3 above, accepted the same or any procedure, the dispute shall be submitted to conciliation in accordance with paragraph 5 below unless the parties otherwise agree.

5. A conciliation commission shall be created upon the request of one of the parties to the dispute. The commission shall be composed of an equal number of members appointed by each party concerned and a chairman chosen jointly by the members appointed by each party. The commission shall render a final and recommendatory award, which the parties shall consider in good faith.

6. The provisions of this article shall apply with respect to any protocol except as otherwise provided in the protocol concerned.

S. Treaty Doc. 9, 99th Cong., 1st Sess. 31–32 (1985).

3 Id. at v-vii. The President’s letter of transmittal, without attachments, also may be found at 21 Weekly Comp. Pres. Doc. 1031 (Sept. 9, 1985).

1 Under the 1983 (framework) Agreement, which entered into force Feb. 16, 1984, each Government pledges itself to cooperate, upon the basis of equality, reciprocity and mutual benefit, to prevent, reduce and eliminate sources of pollution that affect the air, water or land of the border area. The 1983 Agreement is being implemented through a series of specialized subagreements (i.e., annexes) negotiated by United States and Mexican technical agencies. The Agreement makes specific provision for state and local governments, nongovernmental institutions and international organizations to participate directly in Agreement activities. See Dept. St. Bull., No. 2079, Oct. 1983, at 25.

2 The International Boundary and Water Commission had its origin in the International Boundary Commission, established by a convention between the United States and Mexico that was concluded on Mar. 1, 1889. Its original purpose was to facilitate the carrying out of an earlier convention, dated Nov. 12, 1884, that had set forth rules for determining questions connected with those parts of the dividing line between the United States and Mexico lying in the middle of the channel of the Rio Grande and the Rio Colorado. The 1889 convention was extended several times and was extended indefinitely by Article 2 of the Treaty for the Utilization of Waters of the Colorado and Tijuana Rivers and of the Rio Grande, signed Feb. 3, 1944, TS No. 994, 59 Stat. 1219, with supplementary protocol signed Nov. 14, 1944 (the Water Treaty of 1944). The Water Treaty expanded the responsibility of the Commission and changed its name, in Article 2, to the International Boundary and Water Commission, United States and Mexico. Under Article 3, the two Governments agree “to give preferential attention to the solution of all border sanitation problems.”

3 Minute No. 270 is entitled “Recommendations for the First Stage Treatment and Disposal Facilities for the Solution of the Border Sanitation Problem at San Diego, California-Tijuana, Baja California.”

4 In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. §4321 et seq.), the U.S. section of the International Boundary and Water Commission prepared an environmental assessment of the proposed action covered by Minute No. 270 and made a finding of no significant impact. See 50 Fed. Reg. 16,569 (1985).

Because of the public significance of the San Diego-Tijuana sanitation issue, Department of State and Environmental Protection Agency officials had numerous consultations with members of the Senate and the House of Representatives, their staffs and the committees concerned on progress toward resolving the problem. Key members of Congress, as well as officials of San Diego City and County and the state of California, were also involved as observers in a number of meetings with Mexican officials over a 4-year period.

1 Dept. of State File No. P85 0189–0461.

2 See 23 ILM 670 (1984).

3 Dept. of State daily news briefing, DPC No. 178, Oct. 7, 1985, at 1–2.

4 Dept. of State File No. P85 0168–2212.

1 UN Doc. S/RES/573 (1985).

2 U.S. Mission to the United Nations Press Release No. 106(85), Oct. 4, 1985.