On March 29,1995, the following officials of the executive branch of the U.S. Government appeared before the Human Rights Committee at the United Nations to discuss U.S. implementation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (which had entered into force for the United States on September 8, 1992): John Shattuck, Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, and Conrad K. Harper, the Department’s Legal Adviser; Assistant Attorneys General Deval L. Patrick, Civil Rights Division, and Jo Ann Harris, Criminal Division; and Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Indian Affairs Ada Deer. The same officials, together with other members of the U.S. delegation, appeared again on March 31, 1995, to reply to questions raised by the Committee.

The United States intervention in Haiti concludes another chapter in the development of the constitutional common law of presidential power. The Haiti experience further confirms the constitutional authority of the President to deploy armed forces into hostile foreign environments, and to initiate the use of force without prior, specific congressional authorization. The facts of the situation limit the “precedent” to small-scale interventions where the risk of major military engagements, either initially or upon escalation, is negligible. The cases of largescale hostilities, like Korea, Vietnam and Iraq, are quite different in fact and perhaps also in law. But the Haiti “precedent,” coupled with the recent interventions in Grenada and Panama and innumerable examples earlier in history, strongly supports an unqualified presidential power to carry out small-scale military operations in support of foreign policy goals.

Paragraph 16 of Security Council Resolution 687 (April 3, 1991) reaffirmed that “Iraq … is liable under international law for any direct loss, damage, … or injury to foreign Governments, nationals and corporations, as a result of Iraq’s unlawful invasion and occupation of Kuwait.” This resolution and Security Council Resolution 692 (May 20, 1991) established the United Nations Compensation Commission (UNCC) to administer a system to provide compensation for claims for which Iraq is liable under paragraph 16. The Commission has a Governing Council, composed of the members of the Security Council; panels of commissioners, appointed from time to time to review particular groups of claims; and a secretariat headed by an Executive Secretary. The Commission’s Governing Council first met in Geneva in July 1991 and in the first year of its existence adopted decisional criteria for six categories of claims: Category “A” — claims of individuals for fixed amounts for departure from Iraq or Kuwait; Category “B” — claims of individuals for fixed amounts for death or serious personal injury; Category “C” —claims of individuals for amounts up to $100,000; Category “D” —claims of individuals for amounts above $100,000; Category “E” —claims of corporations; and Category “F” — claims of governments and international organizations.

The Uruguay Round of trade negotiations took until December 1993 to be completed. Its conclusion has been heralded as a significant step on the part of countries belonging to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). However, further cooperation by these countries is still required, as is the need to go further. The globalization of the world’s economies is paralleled by the increasingly global nature of environmental problems. This is true in terms of the effects of these problems (e.g., climate change and ozone depletion), and also because dealing with these problems will require international cooperation. In view of the significant role it will play in the world economy, this global response will, in part, include reforming the rules of the international trading system.

Law, like other forms of life, evolves in response to changing environments. When cosmic change alters environment, viability is tested. The North American Free Trade Agreement was born into a radically new social and political environment for the making of international trade agreements. Its viability has centered on a fundamental alteration in international trade law, appearing as the NAFTA Side Agreements on labor, health and environmental regulation; specifically, as the dispute resolution process of the Side Agreements.