Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T21:32:26.577Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Contemporary Practice of the United States Relating to International Law

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 March 2017

Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

After seventy-two days of NATO's air campaign against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia-Montenegro) (FRY), FRYPresident Slobodan Milošević on June 3, 1999 accepted an international peace proposal to end the conflict concerning Kosovo. The proposal was developed in Bonn after lengthy discussions between U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott, EU envoy (and Finnish President) Martti Ahtisaari, and Russian envoy Viktor Chernomyrdin, and then presented to President Milosevic by President Ahtisaari and Mr. Chernomyrdin. Although it contained several elements previously unacceptable to the FRY, Mr. Milošević accepted the proposal due to a relentless bombing campaign against FRY tanks, artillery, and ground forces in Kosovo, as well as the destruction of oil refineries, bridges, and power stations elsewhere in Serbia; a resurgence of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) as a ground force; and the decision of Russia to find common ground with NATO prior to a regular meeting in early June of the seven leading industrial countries (Group of Seven or “G-7”) and Russia.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 93 , Issue 4 , October 1999 , pp. 879 - 912
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1999

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 See Sean D. Murphy, Contemporary Practice, 93 AJIL 167 & 627 (1999).

2 Steven Erlanger, Milosevic Yields on NATO’s Key Terms; 50,000 Allied Troops to Police Kosovo, N.Y. Times, June 4, 1999, at A1.

3 William Drozdiak & Anne Swardson, Diplomatic, Military Offenses Forced Belgrade’s Hand, Wash. Post, June 4, 1999, at A1; William Drozdiak, The Kosovo Peace Deal: How It Happened, Wash. Post, June 6, 1999, at A1.

4 Letter Dated 7 June 1999 from the Permanent Representative of Germany to the United Nations Addressed to the President of the Security Council, UN Doc. S/1999/649, annex (1999). For the FRY’s acceptance as communicated to the United Nations, see Letter Dated 7 June 1999 from the Chargé D’Affaires A.I. of the Permanent Mission of Yugoslavia to the United Nations Addressed to the Security Council, UN Doc. S/1999/655 (1999).

5 R. W. Apple Jr., Moscow and West Agree on Kosovo; Plan Given to U.N., N.Y. Times, June 9, 1999, at A1.

6 Military Technical Agreement between the International Security Force (KFOR) and the Governments of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the Republic of Serbia (June 9, 1999), reprinted in Letter Dated 15 June 1999 from the Secretary-General Addressed to the President of the Security Council, UN Doc. S/1999/682, annex (1999), available in <http://www.nato.int/kosovo/docu/a990609a.htm>; see Steven Lee Myers, Serb Military Accepts Accord, Clearing Way to Halt Bombing, N.Y. Times, June 10, 1999, at A1.

7 SC Res. 1244 (June 10, 1999). For the Security Council’s debate, see UN SCOR, 54th Sess., 4011th mtg., UN Doc. S/PV.4011 (1999).

8 For NATO’s communication to the United Nations that the air campaign was suspended, see Letter Dated 10 June 1999 from the Secretary-General Addressed to the President of the Security Council, UN Doc. S/1999/663, annex (1999); see also Letter Dated 21 June 1999 from the Secretary-General Addressed to the President of the Security Council, UN Doc. S/1999/702, annex (1999) (transmitting NATO’s communication to the Secretary-General that the air campaign was terminated); Craig R. Whitney, Bornbing Ends as Serbs Begin Pullout, N.Y. Times, June 11, 1999, at A1.

9 The Secretary-General’s plan for the UN Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) was approved by the Security Council. Report of the Secretary-General Pursuant to Paragraph 10 of Security Council Resolution 1244 (1999), UN Doc. S/1999/672 (1999); Letter Datedl7June 1999 from the President of the Security Council to the Secretary-General, UN Doc. S/1999/689 (1999). The Secretary-General then issued a report setting forth the framework for the operation of UNMIK. Report of the Secretary-General on the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo, UN Doc. S/1999/779 (1999). For the FRY’s reaction to that report, see Letter Dated 19 July 1999 from the Chargé d’Affaires A.I. of the Permanent Mission of Yugoslavia to the United Nations Addressed to the Secretary-General, UN Doc. S/1999/800 (1999).

10 For the initial report of NATO to the United Nations on the KFOR deployment, see Letter Dated 17June 1999 from the Secretary-General Addressed to the President of the Security Council, UN Doc. S/1999/692 (1999); see also Letter Dated 8 July 1999 from the Secretary-General Addressed to the President of the Security Council, UN Doc. S/1999/767 (1999) (Secretary-General’s initial report on KFOR operations) John Kifner & Steven Lee Myers, Russians Enter Kosovo Early But Moscow Calls It a Mistake; British Lead NATO’s Vanguard: A Short Pause, Then. the Allies Start Moving In, N.Y. Times, June 12, 1999, at A1.

11 Western intelligence analysts later concluded that the Russian deployment was part of a scheme to stake out a Russian zone in the northwest sector of Kosovo. The United States thwarted the Russian scheme by prevailing on Bulgaria, Hungary, and Romania to deny Russian requests to use the airspace of those states to fly more Russians into Kosovo. Robert G. Kaiser & David Hoffman, Russia Had, Bigger Plan in Kosovo, Wash. Post, June 25, 1999, at A1.

12 Agreed Points on Russian Participation in KFOR (June 18, 1999), available in <http://www.nato.int/kosovo/docu/a990618a.htm>; see Celestine Bohlen, Accord is Reached on Integrating Russian Troops in Kosovo Force, N.Y. Times, June 19, 1999, at A1; Craig R. Whitney, NATO and Moscow Still Differ Over Where Russian Forces Will Be Stationed, N.Y. Times, July 1, 1999, at A10; Eric Schmitt, NATO Bars Russia From Reinforcing Troops in Kosovo, N.Y. Times, July 3, 1999, at A1; Carlotta Gall, Russians Fly Into Kosovo After Impasse Is Resolved, N.Y. Times, July 7, 1999, at A8. For the “G-8” statement on Kosovo of June 20, see Note Verbale Dated 24 June 1999 from the Permanent Mission of Germany to the United Nations Addressed to the Secretary-General, UN Doc. S/1999/711, annex (1999).

13 Report of the Secretary-General, UN Doc. S/1999/779, supra note 9, at para. 9.

14 See, e.g., John Ward Anderson & Molly Moore, Kosovo’s Albanians Returning in Droves, Wash. Post, June 18, 1999, at A1.

15 See, e.g., Letter Dated 24 July 1999 from the Chargé d’Affaires A.I. of the Permanent Mission of Yugoslavia to the United Nations Addressed to the Secretary-General, UN Doc. S/1999/818 (1999); Chris Hedges, Slaying of Serbs Sets Back Efforts for Kosovo Peace, N.Y. Times, July 25, 1999, at 1; John Kifner, Kosovo Rebels Motie Into Towns; Violence is Reported, N.Y. Times, June 19, 1999, at A1.

16 Undertaking of Demilitarization and Transformation by the UCK, para. 25 (June 20, 1999), available in <http://wvAV.nato.int/kosovo/docu/a990620a.htm>; see Steven Lee Myers, NATO To Consider Letting Kosovars Sel Up New Army, N.Y. Times, June 22, 1999, at A1; Molly Moore, NATO Hastens Disarming of KLA as Serb Fears Rise, Wash. Post, June 20, 1999, at A19. For the FRY’s attitude regarding UN and NATO implementation of Security Council Resolution 1244, see Letter Dated 28 July 1999 from the Chargé d’Affaires A.I. of the Permanent Mission of Yugoslavia to the United Nations Addressed to the Secretary-General, UN Doc. S/1999/828 (1999).

17 See R. Jeffrey Smith, NATO, Kosovo Rebel Group Agree on Civil Corps, Wash. Post, Sept. 21, 1999, at A1.

18 Steven Lee Myers, Last Serbian Troops Pull Out of Kosovo, N.Y. Times, June 21,1999, at A1.

19 John Kifner with Ian Fisher, Kosovo Landscape Lays Bare Serbs’ Brutal Campaign., N.Y. Times, June 16, 1999, at A1.

20 See, e.g., John Kifner, Bodies Torn From a Grave Leavea Trail of Evidence, N.Y. Times, June 29, 1999, at A8; John Kifner, F.B.I. Team Looks for Evidence of Massacres, N.Y. Times, June 25, 1999, at A13.

21 John Kifner, Inquiry Estimates Serb Drive Killed 10,000 in Kosovo, N.Y. Times, July 18, 1999, at 1.

22 Excerpts From the President’s Remarks an, Kosovo and National Issues, N.Y. Times, June 26, 1999, at A11; see also Address to the Nation on the Military Technical Agreement on Kosovo, 35 Weekly Comp. Pres. Doc. 1074 (June 14, 1999).

1 In addition, in 1952, Germany concluded an agreement at Luxembourg whereby it agreed to pay 3.5 billion Deutschmarks to Israel and 500 million Deutschmarks to the Conference on Jewish Material Claims Against Germany, a federation of 52 Jewish organizations in Western countries formed in 1951 to act as the overall representative of Jews living outside of Israel and having reparation claims against Germany. For a brief description of the compensation programs established through the Conference, see Wolf v. Federal Republic of Germany, 95 F.3d 536, 539–40 (7th Cir. 1996). For an overall discussion of post-war-efforts to obtain compensation for Holocaust claims, see Christian Pross, Paying for the Past: The Struggle Over Reparations for Survtvtng Victims of the Nazi Terror (Belinda Cooper trans., 1998).

The U.S. Government’s release of two reports coordinated by Under Secretary of State Stuart E. Eizenstat have aided recent efforts to recover assets lost during the Holocaust. U.S. Dep’t of State, Preliminary Study on U.S. and Allied Efforts to Recover and Restore Gold and Other Assets Stolen or Hidden by Germany During World War II (May 1997); U.S. Dep’t of State, U.S. and Allied Wartime and Postwar Relations and Negotiations with Argentina, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and Turkey on Looted Gold and German External Assets and U.S. Concerns About the Fate of Wartime Ustasha Treasury (June 1998). The reports, and other information on State Department activities relating to Holocaust claims, may be found at <http://www.state.gov/www/regions/eur/holocausthp.html>.

2 For instance, claims for forced or slave labor were ultimately rejected by German courts on the grounds that the 1952 London Debt Conference (at which the amount and method of payment of the total debt of the former Third Reich to the allied powers was negotiated) had decided that such claims should be deferred until “final setdement of the problem of reparation,” which never occurred due to the partition of Germany. See Agreement on German External Debts, Feb. 27, 1953, Art. 5(2), 4 UST 443, 333 UNTS 3; see also Benjamin B. Ferencz, Less Than Slaves: Jewish Forced Labor and the Quest for Compensation (1979).

Efforts during the era of the Cold War to bring suits in U.S. courts to advance wide-ranging Holocaust claims were unsuccessful. See, e.g., Kelberine v. Societe Internationale, Etc., 363 F.2d 989 (D.C. Cir. 1966) (unsuccessful effort to enjoin the U.S. Government from paying $120 million to a Swiss corporation which allegedly conspired with a German corporation in Nazi actions against some 200,000 persons between 1933 and 1945); Handel v. Artukovic, 601 F. Supp. 1421 (CD. Cal. 1985) (class action against defendant for alleged involvement in deprivations of life and property suffered by Jews in Yugoslavia during Second World War dismissed on various grounds, including the age of the claim).

3 Princz v. Federal Republic of Germany, 813 F.Supp. 22, 29 (D.D.C. 1992); see also Princz v. Federal Republic of Germany, Civ. A. No. 92-0644, 1993 WL 121501 (D.D.C. Apr. 7,1993) (denying German Government’s motion for a stay pending appeal).

4 Princz v. Federal Republic of Germany, 26 F.3d 1166, 1168 (D.C. Cir. 1994). Thereafter, the U.S. District Court dismissed the German Government from the lawsuit. Princz v. Federal Republic of Germany, 871 F.Supp. 18 (D.D.C. 1994).

5 141 CONG. Rec. E681-02, available in 1995 WL 128869.

6 35 ILM 193 (1996).

7 For a discussion of the related case of Miller v. Albright, see Sean D. Murphy, Contemporary Practice, 93 AJIL 663 (1999).

8 22 U.S.C.A. §1644 note (West Supp. 1999).

9 Exchange of Letters between Hans-Friedrich von Ploetz, German Foreign Office State Secretary, and John C. Kornblum, U.S. Ambassador to Germany (Jan. 25, 1999) (on file at GWU). The agreement reportedly covers some 230–40 further U.S. nationals. Philip Shenon, Germany to Pay Compensation To U.S. Survivors of Nazi Camps, N.Y. Times, Jan. 16, 1999, at A6; Germany to Pay Reparations for Americans, Wash. Post, Jan. 16, 1999, at A18. The United States and Germany, however, agreed that the numbers of claimants and the bases for determining the amount would remain confidential.

10 See, e.g., Iwanova v. Ford Motor Co., 57 F.Supp. 2d 41 (D.N.J. 1999); Burger-Fisher v. Siemens AG, 1999 WL 717260 (D.N.J. 1999) ;Fishel v. BASF Group, 175 F.R.D. 525 (S.D. Iowa 1997); Edmund L. Andrews, 53 Years Later, Lawsuit Is Filed on Behalf of Hitler’s Slave Labor, N.Y. Times, Sept. 1, 1998, at A9.

11 See Joint Statement on the Establishment of a “Foundation Initiative of German Enterprises: Remembrance, Responsibility and Future” (Feb. 16,1999), available in <http://www.germany-info.org/govern/state_02_16_99.htm>; Roger Cohen, German Companies Adopt Fund For Slave Laborers Under Nazis, N.Y. Times, Feb. 17, 1999, at A1; William Drozdiak, German Banks Make Redress, Wash. Post, Feb. 17, 1999, at A11.

12 Stuart E. Eizenstat, Under Secretary of State, U.S. Dep’t of State Press Release on Third Plenary Meeting of the Steering Group to Prepare the Foundation Initiative of German Enterprises (July 15, 1999), available in <http://secretary.state.gov/www/briefings/statements/1999/ps990715e.html>.

13 In California, the state court has held that it has the authority to hear the case, which was brought by a family of five Holocaust survivors. Stern v. Assicurazioni Generali, No. BC 185376, 1999 WL 167546 (Cal. Super. Jan. 25, 1999); see Henry Weinstein, Holocaust Survivors’ Claims Get Boost, L.A. Times Jan. 26, 1999, at A3, availabkin 1999 WL 2124106. The family alleges that Generali wrongfully withheld life insurance benefits from the family of Moshe Stern, who was killed at Auschwitz. See Alan Abrahamson, Heirs of Holocaust Victims Sue Insurer, L.A. Times, Feb. 5, 1998, at B3, available in 1998 WL 2395560. See generally <http://www.insurance.ca.gov/holocaust/department/legalactions.htm>. For class action litigation in New York, see Leslie Seism, State Insurance Regulators Join Holocaust-Survivor Claims Probe, Wall St. J., Dec. 12,1997, at B2.

14 Abrahamson, supra note 13.

15 John M. Goshko, Italian Insurer Reaches Pact on Holocaust Claims; Tentative Settlement Includes $100 Million, Payment, Wash. Post, Aug. 20, 1998, at A3.

16 Stuart E. Eizenstat, Under Secretary of State, U.S. Dep’t of State Press Release on Announcement of Agreement Between Generali, Holocaust Survivor Organizations and U.S. Insurance Commissioners (Aug. 19, 1998), available in <http://secretary.state.gov/www/briefings/statements/1998/ps980819b.html>.

17 For information on the Commission and the text of the Memorandum of Understanding, see <http://www.icheic.org>; see also Stuart E. Eizenstat, Under Secretary of State, Statement to the U.S. Executive Monitoring Committee at 5–6 (Apr. 15, 1999) (on file at GWU).

18 Italy’s Generali Says Settlement of Claims On Holocaust Faib, Wall St. J., Sept. 21, 1998, at A14, available in 1998 WL-WSJ 18984933.

19 International Commission on Holocaust Era Insurance Claims Press Release on Statement of Lawrence S. Eagleburger Following the Meeting of the International Commission on Holocaust Era Insurance Claims (May 6, 1999), available in <http://www.icheic.org/press_releases/Mayl999.html>; see Alan Cowell, Insurers Agree to Pay on Victims’ Pre-Hobcaust Policies, N.Y. Times, May 7, 1999, at A3.

20 The banks initially were Credit Suisse, Swiss Bank Corporation, and the Union Bank of Switzerland, but the latter two merged during the course of the lawsuit to form UBS AG.

21 In re Holocaust Victims Assets Litigation, No. CV 96-4849, CV 96-5161, CV 97-0461 (E.D.N.Y. filed Oct. 3, 1996). The additional, related cases were filed in California state courts, but were dien stayed pending resolution of the New York cases.

22 The actions were consolidated under In re Holocaust Victims Assets Litigation, No. CV 96-4849 (E.D.N.Y.).

23 John M. Goshko, Sanctions on Swiss Banks to Proceed, Wash. Post, July 2, 1998, at A3.

24 Devon Spurgeon, New York Threatens Swiss Bank Sanctions; State Department Criticizes Move, Wash. Post, July 3, 1998, at A3.

25 James P. Rubin, Assistant Secretary of State and Spokesman, U.S. Dep’t of State Daily Press Briefing, at 8 (July 6, 1998), available in <http://secretary.state.gov/www/briefings/9807/980706db.html>.

26 John M. Goshko, Swiss Banks Agree to Holocaust Pact; $1.25 Billion Settlement for Victims, Heirs, Wash. Post, Aug. 13, 1998, at A1. For the text of the settlement, see <http://www.giussani.com/holocaust-assets/documents/settlement.html>.

27 Plaintiffs’ Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion for Preliminary Approval of Proposed Class Action Settlement and Provisional Certification of Setdement Classes at 46–48, In re Holocaust Victim Assets Litigation, No. CV 96-4849 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 22, 1999) (footnote omitted).

28 Order Preliminarily Approving Mate rial Terms of die Proposed Class Settlement Agreement and Provisionally Certifying the Proposed Setdement Classes, In re Holocaust Victim Assets Litigation, No. CV 96-4849 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 30,1999). At the same time, the District Court issued an order referring die setdement to a special master for development of a plan to allocate and distribute the setdement proceeds.

29 Swiss Bank Won’t Pay Holocaust Victim Fund, Wash. Post, Aug. 22, 1998, at A12. The Swiss National Bank, however, has made a $75 million contribution to a charitable fund for Holocaust survivors. David E. Sanger, Gold Dispute With the Swiss Declared to Be At an End, N.Y. Times, Jan. 31, 1999, at 9.

30 Hans Michael Riemer et al., The Claims Resolution Tribunal For Dormant Accounts In Switzerland: An Overview, 14 Mealey’s Int’l Arb. Rep., Feb. 1999, at 19, 20.

31 Statement on the Setdement of Holocaust Assets Lawsuits, 34 Weekly Comp. Pres. Doc. 1624 (Aug. 17, 1998); Stuart E. Eizenstat, Under Secretary of State, U.S. Dep’t of State Press Release on Settlement of Class Action Suits (Aug. 12, 1998), available in <http://secretary.state.gov/www/briefings/statements/1998/ps980812c.html>.

32 Sanger, supra note 29.

33 John M. Goshko, $40 Million Holocaust Settlement From Bank, Wash. Post, May 20, 1999, at A2.

34 Stuart E. Eizenstat, Justice After The Holocaust, Wash. Post, Aug. 30, 1998, at C7.

35 Thomas W. Lippman, 44 Nations Pledge to Act On Art Looted by Nazis, Wash. Post, Dec. 4, 1998, at A2.

36 Stuart E. Eizenstat, Undersecretary of State, Concluding Statement at Washington Conference on Holocaust-Era Assets (Dec. 3, 1998), available in. <http://www.state.gov/www/policy_remarks/1998/981203_eizenstat_heac_conc.html>.

37 Washington Conference Principles on Nazi-Confiscated Art (Dec. 3, 1998), available in <http://www.state.gov/www/regions/eur/981203_heac_art_princ.html>.

38 Eizenstat, supra note 36.

1 Jacques Semmelman, International Decisions, 86 AJIL 811 (1992); Abraham Abramovsky, Extraterritorial Abductions: America’s “Catch and Snatch” Policy Run Amok, 31 Va. J. Int’l L. 151, 167-70 (1991).

2 Ker v. Illinois, 119 U.S. 436, 444 (1886); Frisbie v. Collins, 342 U.S. 519, 522 (1952).

3 See, e.g., United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 939 F.2d 1341, 1343 (9th Cir. 1991), vacated, 505 U.S. 1201 (1992).

4 Extradition Treaty, May 4,1978, U.S.-Mex., 31 UST 5059, TIAS No. 9656.

5 United States v. Alvarez-Machain, 504 U.S. 655, 668–69 (1992).

6 Id. at 669.

7 28 U.S.C. §§1346(b), 2401 (b), 2671-2680 (1994). The Court also rejected certain constitutional claims against named U.S. Government employees involved in arranging for die abduction.

8 Alvarez-Machain v. United States, No. CV 93-4072, mem. op. at 18 (CD. Cal. Mar. 18, 1999). Similarly, the Court found diat Texas law does not contain a cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress.

9 Id. at 36–37.

10 The ATCA states that “district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action by an alien for a tort only, committed in violation of die law of nations or a treaty of die United States.” 28 U.S.C. §1350 (1994).

11 For a discussion of prominent cases since 1980, see Donald J. Kochan, Note, Constitutional Structure as a Limitation on the Scope of the “Law of Nations” in the Alien Tort Claims Act, 31 Cornell Int’l L.J. 153, 162-68 (1998).

12 Suits against governments present difficulties under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 28 U.S.C. §§1330, 1441(d), 1602–11 (1994). See generally Justin Lu, Note, Jurisdiction over Non-State Activity under the Alien Tort Claims Act, 35 Colum. J. Transnat’l L. 531 (1997).

13 Sung Teak Kim, Note, Adjudicating Violations of International Law: Defining the Scope of Jurisdiction Under the Alien Tort Statute—Trajano v. Marcos, 27 Cornell Int’l L.J. 387, 411 (1994).

14 28 U.S.C. §2679 (1994).

15 Alvarez-Machain, supra note 8, at 11.

16 Id. at 38–39, 44.

17 Id. at 44.

18 See, e.g., Michael J. Glennon, Agora: International Kidnapping: State Sponsored Abduction: A Comment On United States v. Alvarez-Machain, 86 AJIL 746 (1992); Malvina Halberstam, Agora: International Kidnapping: In Defense Of The Supreme Court Decision In Alvarez-Machain, 86 AJIL 736 (1992).

19 Alvarez-Machain, supra note 8, at 47–49.

20 Id. at 46–47.

1 22 U.S.C. §§3301-3316 (1994); see also Exec. Order No. 12, 143, 44 Fed. Reg. 37,191 (1979), superceded by Exec. Order No. 13,014, 61 Fed. Reg. 42,963 (1996). On the status of Taiwan generally, see John F. Copper, Taiwan: Nation-State or Province? (2d ed. 1996); The International Status of Taiwan in the New World Order: Legal And Political Considerations (Jean-Marie Henchaerts ed., 1996); Peng Ming-min & Ng Yuzin Chiautong, Taman No Hoteki Chii [The Legal Status of Taiwan] (1983).

2 Pre-1979 agreements remainingin force between the United States and Taiwan appear in the U.S. Department of State’s annual publication Treaties in Force at the end of the bilateral treaties section, under “China (Taiwan).” Agreements between the United States and Taiwan concluded between 1979 and 1993 may be found at Agreements Between the American Institute in Taiwan and die Coordination Council for North American Affairs, 58 Fed. Reg. 32,355 (1993).

3 The Taiwan Relations Act at Twenty, Hearings Before the Subcomm. on Asia and the Pacific of the House Int’l Relations Comm., 96th Cong. (Apr. 14,1999) (testimony of Susan L. Shirk, U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs), available in <http://www.state.gov/www/policy_remarks/1999/990414_shirk_taiwan2.html>

4 Michael Laris, Taiwan Jettisons ‘One China’ Formula, Wash. Post, July 13, 1999, at A14; Seth Faison, Taiwan President Implies His Island Is Sovereign State, N.Y. Times, July 13, 1999, at A1.

5 Michael Laris, Sparks Fly Across Taiwan Strait Wash. Post, July 14, 1999, at A17; John Pomfret, Beijing Warns Taiwan Again, Wash. Post, July 19, 1999, at A13.

6 James P. Rubin, Assistant Secretary of State and Spokesman, U.S. Dep’t of State Daily Press Briefing at 4 (July 13, 1999), available in <http://secretary.state.gov/www/briefings/9907/990713db.html>; see also Jane Perlez, China and U.S. Are Reported to Trade Threats on, Taiwan, N.Y. Times, Aug. 13, 1999, at A1; China Says It Will Not Use Nuclear Weapons Against Taiwan, N.Y. Times, Sept. 3, 1999, at A3. Similar support for maintenance of the “one China” policy was expressed in a communiqué of the foreign ministers of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations on July 24. Asian Group Lends Support to Beijing Over Taiwan, N.Y. Times, July 25, 1999, at 8.

1 Convention Concerning the Prohibition and Immediate Action for die Elimination of die Worst Forms of Child Labour, adopted June 17, 1999, ILO No. C182. Documents of die ILO may be found at <http://www.ilo.org/public/english>. See 93 AJIL 943 (1999); Elizabeth Olsen, World Panel Adopts Treaty To Restrict Child Labor, N.Y. Times, June 18, 1999, at A12.

2 Jane Perlez, Clinton Pushes for Treaty to Ban The Worst Child Labor Practices, N.Y. Times, June 17, 1999, at A17.

3 Remarks to the International Labor Organization Conference in Geneva, Switzerland, 35 Weekly Comp. Pres. Doc. 1117, 1120–21 (June 21, 1999).

4 Exec. Order No. 13,126, 64 Fed. Reg. 32,383 (1999)

1 Mass. Ann. Laws ch. 7, §§22G-22M, 40F 1/2 (Law. Co-op.1998).

2 Voiding Of Burma Boycott Upheld: Mass. Overstepped Authoiity, Court Says, Wash. Post, June 24, 1999, at A16.

3 The NFTC is a nonprofit corporation founded in 1914 that advocates, on behalf of its member companies, in favor of open international trade and investment.

4 U.S. Const. Art. I, §8, cl.3.

5 U.S. Const. Art. VI, cl. 2.

6 The federal government imposed certain foreign assistance sanctions and other measures on Myanmar three months after the Massachusetts law was enacted, Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act of 1997, §570, 110 Stat. 3009-166 to 3009-167, as contained in the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997, Pub. L. No. 104-208, §101 (c), 110 Stat. 3009-121 to 3009-181 (1996). In addition, in May 1997, President Clinton imposed certain trade sanctions on Myanmar. Exec. Order No. 13,047, 62 Fed. Reg. 28,301 (1997); for implementing regulations, see 31 C.F.R. pt. 537 (1998).

7 Compare Jack L. Goldsmith, Federal Courts, Foreign Affairs, and Federalism, 83 Va. L. Rev. 1617 (1997) (favoring involvement of U.S. states in foreign affairs) with Harold Hongju Koh, Is International Law Really State Law?, 111 Harv. L. Rev. 1824 (1998) (taking the opposite view).

8 Compare Daniel M. Price & John P. Hannah, The Constitutionality of United States State and Local Sanctions, 39 Harv. Int’l L.J. 443 (1998) and David Schmahmann & James Finch, The Unconstitutionality of State and Local Enactments in the United States Restricting Business Ties with Burma (Myanmar), 30 Vand. J. Transnat’l L. 175 (1997) (finding such laws unconstitutional) with Lynn Loschin & Jennifer Anderson, Massachusetts Challenges the Burmese Dictators: The Constitutionality of Selective Purchasing Laws, 39 Santa Clara L. Rev. 373 (1999) and Jay A. Christofferson, Comment, The Constitutionality of State Laws Prohibiting Contractual Relations with Burma: Upholding Federalism’s Purpose, 29 McGeorge L. Rev. 351 (1998) (finding such laws constitutional).

9 National Foreign Trade Council v. Baker, 26 F.Supp. 2d 287, 293 (D. Mass. 1998), aff’d sub nom. National Foreign Trade Council v. Natsios, No. 98-2304, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 13735 (1st Cir. June 22, 1999). For an analysis of the decision, see Recent Case, 112 Harv. L. Rev. 2013 (1999).

10 National Foreign Trade Council v. Natsios, No. 98-2304, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 13735 at *20 (1st Cir. June 22,1999).

11 389 U.S. 429 (1968).

12 Natsios, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 13735 at *31-33 (quoting Clark v. Allen, 331 U.S. 503, 517 (1947)). Further, the court rejected Massachusetts’ effort to extend to the foreign affairs power the “market participant” exception to the dormant domestic commerce clause and found that neither the first nor tenth amendments protected the Massachusetts law.

13 See, e.g., White v. Massachusetts Council of Construction Employers, 460 U.S. 204 (1983) (when the state is acting as a market participant, rather than as a market regulator, the dormant domestic commerce clause places no limitation on its activities).

14 Natsios, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 13735 at *57–87.

15 Id. at *88–107.

16 Id. at *107–08.

1 The petitions were filed as confidential, although basic information is recorded as part of the ITC’s public docket. See <http://info.usitc.gov/sec/dockets.nsf>; see also Three Nations Are Accused of Dumping Steel, N.Y. Times, Oct. 1, 1998, at C4. To obtain relief from dumping or unfairly subsidized imports, the Commerce Department must issue a finding of dumping or subsidization and the ITC must find that the dumped or subsidized imports are injuring a U.S. industry. See 19 U.S.C. §§1671–77n (1994). All told, imports of hot-rolled steel products surged seventy-four percent in 1998 over 1997 imports. Remarks of William M. Daley, U.S. Secretary of Commerce, on Steel Quota Legislation and the Administration’s Response to the 1998 Surge of Steel Imports (June 21, 1999), available in <http://www.ita.doc.gov/media/0621STEELWMD.htm>.

2 19 C.F.R. pt. 351 (1999).

3 Trade Act of 1974, Title II, §201, 19 U.S.C. §2251 (1994).

4 White House, Report to Congress on a Comprehensive Plan for Responding to the Increase in Steel Imports (Jan. 7, 1999), available in <http://www.pub.whitehouse.gov/uri-res/12R?urn:pdi//oma.eop.gov.us/1999/1/8/4.text.1>.

5 H.R. 975, 96th Cong. (1999); Alison Mitchell, By A Wide Margin, The House Votes Steel Import Curb, N.Y. Times, Mar. 18, 1999, at A1.

6 David E. Sanger, Wliite House Tries To Fend Off Push For Steel Quotas, N.Y. Times, June 22, 1999, at A1.

7 Paul Blustein, Bill to Restrict Steel Imports Fails to Clear Hurdle in Senate, Wash. Post, June 23, 1999, at A6; David E. Sanger, Senate Kills Effort to Impose Tight Limits on Steel Imports, N.Y. Times, June 23, 1999, at A1.

8 Dep’t of Commerce Press Release, Commerce Secretary William M. Daley Announces Agreements Substantially Reducing Imports of Brazilian Steel (July 7, 1999). Press releases and fact sheets of the Department of Commerce may be found at <http://www.doc.gov>.

9 Dep’t of Commerce Press Release, Commerce Secretary William M. Daley Announces Agreements Sharply Reducing Imports of Russian Steel (July 13, 1999).

10 U.S. Dep’t of Commerce Fact Sheet on Anti-dumping Investigation: Hot-Rolled Steel Products from Japan (Apr. 29, 1999); see Rossella Brevetti, Commerce Finds Japan Is Dumping Hot-Rolled Steel, 16 Int’l Trade Rep. (BNA) 779 (May 5, 1999).

11 Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Products from Japan, 64 Fed. Reg. 33,514 (1999); see Punitive Tariffs Are Approved On Imports of Japanese Steel, N.Y. Times, June 12, 1999, at C3.

12 Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Hot-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality Steel Products from Japan, 64 Fed. Reg. 34,778 (1999).

13 Toshio Aritake, Japanese Steel Mills Preparing Complaints to WTO over ITC Decisions, 16 Int’l Trade Rep. (BNA) 1017 (June 16, 1999).

1 This trade scheme operates under the Fourth ACP-EEC Convention of Lomé, Dec. 15, 1989, 29 ILM 783 (1990).

2 For background to the U.S.-EU dispute over EU banana imports, see Raj Bhala, The Bananas War, 31 McGeorge L. Rev. (forthcoming 2000).

3 European Communities—Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas, WTO Doc. WT/DS27/R/USA (May 22, 1997), available in 1997 GATTPD LEXIS 34. WTO Reports are generally available at <http://www.wto.org/wto/dispute/distab.htm>.

4 European Communities—Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas, WTO Doc. WT/DS27/AB/R (Sept. 9, 1997), available in 1997 GATTPD LEXIS 25.

5 European Communities—Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas, WTO Doc. WT/DS27/15 (Jan. 7, 1998), para. 1.

6 Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Setdement of Disputes, Apr. 15, 1994, Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, Annex 2, 33 ILM 1144, 1226 (1994).

7 European Communities—Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas, WTO Doc. WT/DS27/15 (Jan. 7, 1998), paras. 3, 20.

8 European Communities-Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas—Recourse to Arbitration by the European Communities under Article 22.6 of the DSU, WTO Doc. WT/DS27/ARB (Apr. 9, 1999) (emphasis in original).

9 David E. Sanger, Ruling Allows Tariffs by U.S. Over Bananas, N.Y. Times, Apr. 7, 1999, at C1.

10 Daniel Pruzin, WTO Backs U.S. Banana Sanction Request; Wrangling Continues Over Retroactive Duties, 16 Int’l Trade Rep. (BNA) 660 (Apr. 21, 1999).

11 European Commission Outlines Options For Resolving Banana Dispute With U.S., 16 Int’l Trade Rep. (BNA) 944 (June 2, 1999).

12 European Commission, Communication From the Commission to the Council on Bananas, EC Doc. SEC/99/0799 at 8 (June 1, 1999), available in <http://europa.eu.int/cornm/dg01/2605bana.pdf>.

1 Council Directive 96/22/EC of 29 April 1996 Concerning the Prohibition on the Use in Stockfarming of Certain Substances Having a Hormonal or Thyrostatic Action and of Beta-Antagoists, and Repealing Directives 81/602/EEC, 88/146/EEC and 88/299EEC, 1996 O.J. (L 125) 3. For background on this dispute, see Implementation of WTO Recommendations Concerning EC—Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones), 64 Fed. Reg. 14,486 (1999).

2 Sixty-three percent of all cattle and ninety percent of feed catde in the United States are treated with growth hormones. Elizabeth Olsen, $253 Million Sanctions Sought in Beef Fight With Europe, N.Y. Times, June 4, 1999, at C4.

3 EC Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones), WTO Docs. WT/DS26/R/USA & WT/DS/48/R/CAN (Aug. 18, 1997) at para. 9.1

4 EC Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones) (AB-1997-4), WTO Docs. WT/DS26/AB/R & WT/DS48/AB/R (Jan. 16, 1998); see David A. Wirth, International Decisions, 92 AJIL 755 (1998); Dale E. McNiel, The First Case Under the WTO’s Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement: The European Union’s Hormone Ban, 39 Va. J. Int’l L. 89 (1998).

5 Gary G. Yerkey, U.S., Europe Make Little Progress In New Discussions on Beef, Aides Say, 16 Int’l Trade Rep. (BNA) 710 (Apr. 28, 1999).

6 Daniel Pruzin, U.S., Canada Request WTO Approval To Retaliate Against EU Hormone Ban, 16 Int’l Trade Rep. (BNA) 974 (June 9, 1999).

7 Daniel Pruzin & Joe Kirwin, U.S., EU Fail to Resolve Hormone Dispute, But U.S. Will Study Recent Scientific Data, 16 Int’l Trade Rep. (BNA) 888 (May 26, 1999).

8 EC Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones)—Arbitration Under 21.3(c) of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes, WTO Docs. WT/DS26/15 & WT/DS48/13 (May 29, 1998) at para. 48.

9 Olsen, supra note 2.

10 European Communities—Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones)-Recourse to Arbitration by the European Communities Under Article 22.6 of the DSU, WTO Docs. WT/DS26/ARB & WT/DS48/ARB (July 12, 1999); see Elizabeth Olsen, U.S. and Canada Get $125 Million Ruling on Europe Beef Ban, N.Y. Times, July 13, 1999, at C4.

11 Paul Blustein, Europe Hit By Tariffs In Battle Over Beef, Wash. Post, July 20, 1999, at E1.

1 Canada—Certain Measures Concerning Periodicals, WTO Doc. WT/DS31/R (Mar. 14, 1997), available in 1991 GATTPD LEXIS 20; Canada-Certain Measures Concerning Periodicals, WTO Doc. WT/DS31/AB/R (June 30, 1997), available in 1997 GATTPD LEXIS 18. For background, see USTR Press Release on United States and Canada Resolve “Periodical” Differences, No. 99-46 (May 26, 1999), available in <http://www.ustr.gov/releases/1999/05/99-46.html>.

2 Canadian Magazine Law Opponents Ask Senate to Delay Passage of Bill, 16 Int’l Trade Rep. (BNA) 822 (May 12, 1999).

3 Chad Bowman & Peter Menyasz, Canada Magazine Dispute Cools Off After ‘Amicable, Cooperative’ Talks, 16 Int’l Trade Rep. (BNA) 449 (Mar. 17, 1999); Canada, U.S. Exchange Proposals in Start Of Talks Over Magazine Advertising Dispute, 16 Int’l Trade Rep. (BNA) 208 (Feb. 3, 1999).

4 The agreement consists of an exchange of letters between Raymond Chrétien, Ambassador of Canada to the United States, and Charlene Barshefsky, United States Trade Representative (June 3, 1999), available in <http://www.usembassycanada.gov/mags.htm>.

1 Treaty Concerning Pacific Salmon, Jan. 28, 1985, U.S.-Can., TIAS 11091, 1469 UNTS 357. For background, see Marian Nash Leich, Contemporary Practice, 79 AJIL 432 (1985); Joy A. Yanagida, The Pacific Salmon Treaty, 81 AJIL 577 (1987).

2 For background on the breakdown of the 1985 treaty, see Thomas Healy, Comment, Where Artificial Constraints Kill: The Dispute Between Canada and the United States Over Pacific Salmon, 12 Ariz. J. Int’l & Comp. L. 303 (1995); Michael F. Keiver, The Pacific Salmon War: The Defense of Necessity Revisited, 21 Dalhousie L.J. 408 (1998); Ted L. McDorman, The West Coast Salmon, Dispute: A Canadian View of the Breakdown of the 1985 Treaty and the Transit License Measure, 17 Loy. L.A. Int’l & Comp. L.J. 477, 491–497 (1995); Robert J. Schmidt, Jr., International Negotiations Paralyzed by Domestic Politics: Two-Level Game Tlieory and the Problem of the Pacific Salmon Commission, 26 Envt’l L. 95 (1996).

3 The agreement consists of an exchange of diplomatic notes between Thomas Pickering, U.S. Acting Secretary of State, and Raymond Chretien, Ambassador of Canada to the United States (June 30, 1999), available in <http://www.state.gov/www/global/oes/oceans/990630_salmon_index.html>. See Tom Kenworthy & Steven Pearlstein, U.S., Canada Reach Landmark Pact on Pacific Salmon Fishing, Wash. Post, June 4, 1999, at A17; Sam Howe Verhovek, U.S. and Canada Agree on a Plan to Restrict Catches of Endangered Salmon, N.Y. Times, June 4, 1999, at A19.

4 U.S. Dep’t of State Fact Sheet on the Pacific Salmon Agreement (June 3, 1999), available in <http://www.state.gov/www/global/oes/oceans/fs_990603_salmon.html>.

1 Lawrence K. Altman et al., Smallpox: The Once and Future Scourge?, N.Y. Times, June 15, 1999, at D1.

2 WHA Res. 49.10 (1996). For background, see Report by the WHO Secretariat, Smallpox Eradication: Destruction of Variola Virus Stocks, WHO Doc. A52/5 (Apr. 15, 1999). WHO documents generally are available at <http://www.who.int>.

3 Department of Communicable Disease Surveillance and Response, World Health Organization, Report of the Meeting of the Ad Hoc Committee on Orthopoxvirus Infections. Geneva, Switzerland, WHO Doc. WHO/CDS/CSR/99.1 at 2, 4 (Jan. 14–15, 1999).

4 Institute Of Medicine, Assessment of Future Scientific Needs for Live Variola Virus (1999), available in <http://books.nap.edu/books/0309064414/html/7-14.html>.

5 Statement by the White House Press Secretary (Apr. 22, 1999), available in <http://www.pub.whitehouse.gov/uri-res/I2R?urn:pdi//oma.eop.gov.us/1999/4/23/5.text.1>; see Susan Okie, U.S. to Oppose Destroying Smallpox Stocks, Wash. Post, Apr. 23, 1999, at A2.

6 Judith Miller & William J. Broad, Clinton to Announce That U.S. Will Keep Sample of Lethal Smallpox Virus, Aides Say, N.Y. Times, Apr. 22, 1999, at A12; Judith Miller, U.S. Foresees Smallpox Research With Russia, N.Y. Times, Apr. 23, 1999, at A3.

7 Constitution of the World Health Organization, opened for signaturejuly 22, 1946, Arts.21–22, 62 Stat. 2679, 14 UNTS 185.

8 WHA Res. 52.10 (1999); see Susan Okie, Countries Hold Off on Destroying Smallpox Stocks: WHO Members Vote to Retain Virus for Research Until 2002, Wash. Post, May 25, 1999, at A2.

1 Marlise Simons, 2 Libyan Suspects Handed To Court In Pan Am Bombing, N.Y. Times, Apr. 6, 1999, at A1.

2 John M. Gosko, Assurance far Libya Proposed in Bid to Try Suspects in Bombing, Wash. Post, Feb. 17, 1999, at A10; John M. Goshko, U.N. Chief Gives Libya Assurances Over Trial of 2 Lockerbie Suspects, Wash. Post, Feb. 18, 1999, at A14; Judith Miller, Libya Asks Annan About Pan Am Trial Rules, N.Y. Times, Feb. 20, 1999, at A5.

3 Sean D. Murphy, Contemporary Practice, 93 AJIL 174 (1999).

4 Statement on the Delivery of the Suspects Accused of the 1988 Bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, 35 Weekly Comp. Pres. Doc. 587 (Apr. 12, 1999).

5 SCRes. 1192, para. 8(1998).

6 Report of the Secretary-General Submitted Pursuant to Paragraph 8 of Resolution 1192 (1998), UN Doc. S/1999/378 (1999).

7 Marlise Simons, 2 Libyans Formally Charged In 1988 Pan Am Bombing, N.Y. Times, Apr. 7, 1999, at A6.

8 Judith Miller, In Rare Talks With Libyans, U.S. Airs View On Sanctions, N.Y. Times, June 12, 1999, at A4; see also Colum Lynch, U.S. Threatens to Veto Lifting Libyan Sanctions, Wash. Post, July 8, 1999, at A18. For the Secretary-General’s report on a final lifting of sanctions and Libya’s reaction, see Report of the Secretary-General Submitted Pursuant to Paragraph 16 of Security Council Resolution 883 (1993) and Paragraph 8 of Resolution 1192 (1998), UN Doc. S/1999/726 (1999); Letter Dated 6 July 1999 from the Permanent Representative of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya to the United Nations Addressed to the President of the Security Council, UN Doc. S/1999/752 (1999).

1 See Marian Nash (Leich), Contemporary Practice, 89 AJIL 119 & 372 (1995). When fully implemented, the Agreed Framework will terminate the DPRK’s nuclear program.

2 Hearings Before the Subcomm. on Asian and Pacific Affairs of the House Int’l Relations Coram., 105th Cong. (Feb. 26, 1997) (testimony of Charles Kartman, Acting Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, U.S. Dep’t of State).

3 Hearings Before the Subcomm. on E. Asian and Pacific Affairs of the Senate Foreign Relations Cornrn., 105th Cong. (July 14, 1998) (testimony of Rust Demig, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, U.S. Dep’t of State.)

4 See generally Thomas W. Lippman, Perry May Be Named to Try to Salvage Pact With N. Korea, Wash. Post, Oct. 4, 1998, at A27; David E. Sanger, U.S. Aide Due in North Korea With Deal to Lift Sanctions, N.Y. Times, May 21, 1999, at A6; Philip Shenon, North Korean Nuclear Arms Pact Reported Near Breakdown, N.Y. Times, Dec. 6, 1998, at 16; Hearings Before the House Int’l Relations Comrn., 105th Cong. (Sept. 24, 1998) (testimony of Charles Kartman, U.S. Representative to KEDO).

5 Philip Shenon, Suspected North Korean Atom Site Is Empty, U.S. Finds, N.Y. Times, May 28, 1999, at A3.

6 Hearings Before the House Int’l Relations Comrn., 106th Cong. (Mar. 24, 1999) (opening statement of Chairman Benjamin A. Gilman).

7 James P. Rubin, Assistant Secretary of State and Spokesman, U.S. Dep’t of State Press Release on Dr. William Perry Named North Korean Policy Coordinator (Nov. 12, 1998), available in <http://secretary.state.gov/www/briefings/statements/1998/ps981112.html>.

8 Hearings Before the Subcomm. on E. Asian and Pacific Affairs of the Sen ate Foreign Relations Oman., 105th Cong. (Oct. 12, 1999) (testimony of William Perry, U.S. North Korea Policy Coordinator); Nicholas D. Kristof, North Korea Unresponsive In U.S. Talks, Envoy Reports, N.Y. Times, May 30, 1999, at 4; Kevin Sullivan, N. Korea Promises No Nuclear Weapons, Wash. Post, May 30, 1999, at A19. For the unclassified version of Dr. Perry’s review of U.S. policy toward North Korea, see <http://www.state.gov/www/regions/eap/991012_northkorea_rpt.html>.

1 Treaty on the Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems, May 26, 1972, U.S.-USSR, 23 UST 3435.

2 Compare Abram Chayes & Antonia Handler Chayes, Testing and Development of “Exotic” Systems Under the ABM Treaty: The Great Reinterpretation Caper, 99 Harv. L. Rev. 1956 (1986), with Abraham Sofaer, The ABM Treaty and the Strategic Defense Initiative, 99 Harv. L. Rev. 1972 (1986).

3 These memoranda have not yet been submitted to the Senate for advice and consent. See Thomas W. Lippman, Helms Faces Off With White House on Missed ABM Treaty Deadline Wash. Post, June 21, 1999, at A5. The amendments would also define the difference between strategic or intercontinental missiles (prohibited under the treaty) and “theater” missiles (not prohibited).

4 U.S. Dep’t of State Fact Sheet on Memorandum of Understanding on Succession (Sept. 26, 1997), available in <http://www.state.gov/www/global/arms/fs-abm_succ__mou_970926.html>.

5 William S. Cohen, Secretary of Defense, U.S. Dep’t of Defense Press Briefing at 2–3 (Jan. 20, 1999), available in <http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Janl999/t01201999_t0120md.html>.

6 See David Hoffman, Russia Says START II Is Imperiled, Wash. Post, Jan. 22, 1999, at A16; Walter Pincus, Pentagon Debates Arms Treaty Changes, Wash. Post, Jan. 22, 1999, at A16; Daniel Williams, Russia Rejects Changes to ABM Treaty, Wash. Post. Jan. 23, 1999, at A18. In June 1999, Russia agreed to meet to hear the U.S. proposals, but continued to assert that it opposed amending the ABM Treaty. David Hoffman, Clinton, Yeltsin Plan New Talks on Nuclear Arms, Wash. Post, June 22, 1999, at A10.

7 The Legol Status of the ABM Treaty: Hearings Before the Senate Foreign Relations Comm., 106th Cong. (May 25, 1999) (prepared statement of David B. Rivkin and Lee A. Casey), available in <http://www.senate.gov/~foreign/riv.htm>.

8 Pub. L. No. 106–38, 113 Stat. 205 (1999); see also Statement on Signing the National Missile Defense Act of 1999, 35 Weekly Comp. Pres. Doc. 1471 (Aug. 2, 1999) (the statement was made July 22, but released on July 23).

9 White House Press Office, joint Statement Between the United States and the Russian Federation Concerning the Strategic Offensive and Defensive Arms and Further Strengthening of Stability (June 20, 1999).

10 See Sean D. Murphy, Contemporary Practice, 93 AJIL 192 (1999).