Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T21:23:01.664Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Hungary-Romania: Treaty on Understanding, Cooperation and Good Neighborliness

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

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

Extract

The Hungarian-Romanian Treaty of Understanding, Cooperation and Good Neighborliness is the latest in a series of 13 framework treaties concluded by Hungary after 1989, regulating fundamental elements of interstate contact and settling certain specific disputes. That is why both parties refer to it as the Hungarian-Romanian “Basic Treaty”, as is the case with the two most frequently discussed forerunners to it, the Hungarian-Ukrainian Basic Treaty (done at Kiev on December 6, 1991 and entered into force on June 16, 1993), and the Hungarian-Slovak Basic Treaty (done at Paris on March 19, 1995 and entered into force on May 15, 1996).

Type
Treaties and Agreements
Information
International Legal Materials , Volume 36 , Issue 2 , March 1997 , pp. 340 - 353
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1997

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

* Reproduced from the English translation of the treaty provided by the Hungarian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The Introductory Note was provided to International Legal Materials by Boldizsár Nagy, Associate Professor of International Law, Eötvös Loránd University and International Legal Materials Corresponding Editor for Hungary. The Treaty entered into force December 27, 1996.

[The Council of Europe Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, done at Strasbourg, February 1, 1995, appears at 34 I.L.M. 351 (1995); the CSCE Document of the Copenhagen Meeting of the Conference on the Human Dimension, June 19, 1990, appears at 29 I.L.M. 1305 (1990); and UN General Assembly Resolution 47/135, December 18, 1992, adopting the Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities, appears at 32 I.L.M. 911 (1993).

[For additional information contact either the Hungarian Foreign Ministry, International Law Department, Budapest, Bern RKP 47, Hungary (tel.: 36 1 156 3528; fax: 36 1 156 4337), or the Romanian Foreign Ministry, Director General for Justice and Legal Department, Aleea Alexandra/Aleea Modrogan no. 14, Bucharest, Romania (tel.: 40 12302071 or 40 12307570 (Cabinet of Ministers); fax: 40 12307489).]

1 The WTO was created by the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization (WTO Agreement). The WTO Agreement is reproduced at 33 I.L.M. 1125 (1994). The WTO came into being on January 1, 1995.

2 Anne Swarson and Paul Blustein, “Trade Group Reaches Phone Pact,” Washington Post, p. A33 (Feb. 16, 1997).

3 The GATS is set out in Annex IB of the WTO Agreement, which appears at 33 I.L.M. 1167 (1994).

4 The other sectors were financial services, maritime and movement of persons.

5 Kenneth Freiberg, Introductory Note to the Second Protocol to the General Agreement on Trade in Services, 35 I.L.M. 199 (1996).

6 GATS Article II, which appears at 33 I.L.M. 1169 (1994).

7 GATS Article XVI. The GATS “market access” provision requires WTO members to refrain from imposing certain types of quotas and other quantitative restrictions, or local incorporation requirements, in services sectors that those members list in their GATS schedules. See 33 I.L.M. 1179 (1994).

8 GATS Article XVII. The national treatment rule requires WTO members to avoid treating foreign services or service suppliers differently than national services or service suppliers. See 33 I.L.M. 1180 (1994).

9 Under GATS Article XX, each WTO member negotiates a schedule of commitments covering the different services sectors. If a WTO member agrees to make market access commitments in any particular service, that member must list quantitative restrictions and discrimination in favor of domestic firms that it wishes to maintain. According to GATS Article XIX, such restriction or discrimination is subject to negotiations during the original negotiations or subsequent rounds. See 33 I.L.M. 1181 (1994).

10 The United States had identical difficulties with lack of market access commitments in financial services. See Freiberg, supra note 5.

11 The postponement was contained in a “Ministerial Decision on Negotiation in Basic Telecommunications“ taken at the time the WTO Agreement was signed. See 33 I.L.M. 144 (1994).

12 The “Annex on Negotiations on Basic Telecommunications” suspended the MFN obligation until April 30, 1996 or the date of implementation of any agreement on basic telecommunications set by the NGBT. Like the “Decision”, the “Annex” is part of the package of legal documents that embody the results of the Uruguay Round and is available from the WTO Secretariat in Geneva. See 33 I.L.M. 77 (1994).

13 The “Annex on Article II Exemptions,” which is part of the GATS, allows a WTO member to schedule limited exemptions to its MFN obligations. These exemptions are to be reviewed every five years with a view to removing them. See 33 I.L.M. 68 (1994).

14 “Report of the Negotiating Group on Basic Telecommunications,” WTO Doc. S/NGBT/18 (April 30, 1996), 36 I.L.M. 362 (1997).

15 A “protocol” is a device used in the GATS to annex schedules of commitments and lists of MFN exceptions of individual WTO members to the GATS, making them integral parts of the GATS. GATS Article XX.

16 The Fourth Protocol and the Decision were adopted by the Council on Trade in Services on April 30, 1996. See “Report of Meeting Held on 30 April 1996,” WTO Doc. S/C/M/9 (May 13, 1996), “Fourth Protocol to the General Agreement on Trade in Services,” WTO Doc. S/L/20 (April 30, 1996), 36 I.L.M. 366 (1997), and “Decision on Commitments in Basic Telecommunications,” WTO Doc. S/L/19 (April 30, 1996), 36 I.L.M. 365 (1997).

17 The Protocol will enter into force on January 1, 1998 provided all members concerned have accepted it or, if some acceptances are lacking by December 1, 1997, on a date decided upon by those members who have accepted it

18 Paragraph 3.

19 Id.

20 Paragraph 6.

21 The Reference Paper was never formally issued as a WTO document. See 36 I.L.M. 367 (1997).

22 Article XVIII of the GATS states that members may inscribe in their schedules commitments with respect to measures affecting trade in services not subject to scheduling under Article XVI (Market Access) or Article XVII (National Treatment).

23 The following countries have adopted the regulatory principles of the Reference Paper, as of February 26, 1997: Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brunei, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Cote d'lvoire, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Finland, France, Ghana, Germany, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Hong Kong, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Korea, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Senegal, Singapore, Slovak Republic, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, United Kingdom, United States and Venezuela.

24 Report of the Group on Basic Telecommunications,” WTO Doc. S/GBT/4 (February 15, 1997), 36 I.L.M. 369 (1997). The GBT was created by the GATS Council to continue the work of the NGBT.

25 Paragraph 9.

26 “Notes for Scheduling Basic Telecom Services Commitments,” WTO Doc. S/GBT/W/2/Rev. 1 (January 16, 1997), 36 I.L.M. 371 (1997).

27 Paragraph 1.

28 Paragraph 2.

29 “Market Access Limitations on Spectrum Availability,” WTO Doc. S/GBT/W/3 (February 3, 1997), 36 I.L.M. 372 (1997).

30 WTO Doc. No. S/NGBT/W/12/Add.3

31 The submarine Cable Landing Act, 47 U.S.C. 34 et. seq., authorized the President to license foreign owners of submarine cables landing or operating in the United States. This authority was delegated to the Federal Communications Commission by E.O. No. 10530 (May 11, 1954), 19 F.R. 2709.

32 Satellite Communications Act of 1962, 47 U.S.C. 701nt (with respect to INTELSAT) and 47 U.S.C. 752 (with respect to Inmarsat).

33 Pub. L. No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56.

34 WTO Doc. No. S/NGBT/W/Add.3/rev. 1.

35 WTO Doc. No. S/NGBT/W/12/Add.3/rev. 2. Restrictions on direct foreign ownership in common carrier radio licenses are contained in 47 U.S.C. 310.

36 WTO Doc. No. S/NGBT/W/9.